|
Post by thatzenoguy on Jun 20, 2016 11:06:05 GMT -6
Huh, good point...
Will check that! ;D
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jun 20, 2016 14:12:49 GMT -6
I have noticed that starting ships basically ignore early game build limits. You get ships which are larger than your own docks, and ships with wing turrets far too big... ;\ You did update to 1.31, right? That eliminates the over-size AI ship problem... Are you sure your 'too large' autobuilt ships are not ordered from foreign yards? Yeah, ships built in foreign yards can cause problems. Every so often I end up tearing my hair out because I can't figure out why I can't rebuild one of my ship classes with the latest fire control or some other tech I've recently developed. Then I finally realize, it's because they were built in a foreign yard and that nation hasn't developed that technology yet. The solution is simple; just rebuild them in your own yards, but you've got to notice the issue first :-). This reminds me of another possible game defect, though the designers might actually intend it to work this way. One way to determine if a particular nation has developed a specific technology is to set your ship to build in that nation's yards. Then select the tech you want to test. If the tech is not available then it's pretty obvious that nation has not researched that tech yet. This knowledge can be pretty important when determining if you want to go to war with a nation, especially if the tech in question is fire control. I'll often make a choice about going to war based on whether I am ahead in this particular technology. I don't know if there is a way to disguise this information (I kind of think there is not) but it is a conduit to enemy technology information that you should probably not have.
|
|
|
Post by krawa on Jun 21, 2016 4:02:13 GMT -6
In 1.31 British shipbuilders still know some magic... Interesting, how did they manage to build this? And what is more interesting, how thin is her turret armour, and how fast will she blow up?... Noticed the same thing yesterday when I started a new game, also a British design with nearly the same specs as in Gorniks example. In another game the Russian built a CA class to the same General layout, but with 8" instead of 10" guns and slightly more than 10k displacement.
The concerned shipclasse were always legacy builds.
In case the Point is not clear, those designs should be illegal as normally in order to mount double wing turrets a displacement of at least 15.000t is required. On top of that all nations in the beginning lack the technology to built those ships, as even on the required Minimum displacement the Technologies "wing urrets >7 inches" and "double wing turrets" have to be rearched first and shouldn't be available for the legacy fleet.
|
|
chz
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 83
|
Post by chz on Jun 21, 2016 6:05:48 GMT -6
Wait. You can *do* that? Bugger.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Jun 21, 2016 10:35:30 GMT -6
In 1.31 British shipbuilders still know some magic... Interesting, how did they manage to build this? And what is more interesting, how thin is her turret armour, and how fast will she blow up?... Noticed the same thing yesterday when I started a new game, also a British design with nearly the same specs as in Gorniks example. In another game the Russian built a CA class to the same General layout, but with 8" instead of 10" guns and slightly more than 10k displacement.
The concerned shipclasse were always legacy builds.
In case the Point is not clear, those designs should be illegal as normally in order to mount double wing turrets a displacement of at least 15.000t is required. On top of that all nations in the beginning lack the technology to built those ships, as even on the required Minimum displacement the Technologies "wing urrets >7 inches" and "double wing turrets" have to be rearched first and shouldn't be available for the legacy fleet.
As such design was created IRL (CA Adm. Nakhimov), I think 8 in turrets may be legal to AI. Though 10 in are bit more than was possible
|
|
|
Post by krawa on Jun 22, 2016 3:39:46 GMT -6
Gornik,
thank you for pointing out Adm. Nakhimov, I wasn't Aware of that ship. Yes, it should be legal then but why only to the AI and not for the player as well? Please also note the Nakhimov was by 1900 an outdated design capable of just 17kn and armed with obsolete guns (-2 Quality in RTW Terms), while the AI ships we're talking about usually are the most capable in the AI legacy fleet (6 main gun broadside and going 22+ kn)
Does anyone know the reason why this layout was not repeated for CA's after 1890? Maybe too little space for machinery or too wide to achieve the desired speed?
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 22, 2016 9:29:09 GMT -6
That Russian CA layout is similar to the US Texas and Maine. I suspect it was to free up center-line space for boilers and engines, both of which got a lot smaller and more efficient between 1880-1918 as working pressure increased. Of course the ships also got a lot longer so there was more usable space along the center-line.
Not sure if that's right but it sounds plausible, right? LOL
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jun 22, 2016 11:34:23 GMT -6
The legacy ships of the AI nations (and your own if you chose a predetermined legacy fleet) are given some leeway from the deisgn restrictions, but they are all based on ships that actually existed.
|
|
|
Post by krawa on Jun 24, 2016 4:56:08 GMT -6
Thank you clearing this, I guess this could be an incentive to play with a predetermined legacy fleet.
|
|
|
Post by admiral on Jun 24, 2016 13:59:36 GMT -6
I had heard that Austria-Hungary's legacy fleet was pretty pathetic, but I never really knew how pathetic until I saw this naval engineering marvel: ![](//storage.proboards.com/5448234/thumbnailer/tuu6QghUVQGL78MB4lq4.png) It speaks for itself. Also, it the attachment opening right? I can't get it to open on my computer even though my post looks fine.
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Jun 25, 2016 12:01:58 GMT -6
I had heard that Austria-Hungary's legacy fleet was pretty pathetic, but I never really knew how pathetic until I saw this naval engineering marvel:
It speaks for itself.
Poor little Kaizer...
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 25, 2016 19:58:43 GMT -6
Spain's legacy fleet is as bad or worse.
|
|
|
Post by admiral on Jun 26, 2016 1:23:14 GMT -6
Spain's legacy fleet is as bad or worse. How so? A main battery of 3 9-inch guns is simply the worst main-battery for a capital ship I have ever seen. I had heard that Austria-Hungary's pre-dreadnoughts were so small they'd be classified as armored cruisers, but even armored cruisers outclass them, considering 4x10-inch guns is pretty standard. Are Spain's "dreadnaughts" light cruisers or something?
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 26, 2016 2:43:00 GMT -6
Start a game as Spain and let the AI build your legacy fleet. Here's an example from my 'Byzantium' AAR: ![](http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp197/Director_pics/Battle%20History/FernandoVII_zpskrrifhvw.jpg) This Spaniard has a bit more 'firepower' but thinner armor. I'd rank it just about even with the Austrian - perhaps not worse but certainly no better. I was in fact able to fight them with armored cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jun 26, 2016 4:15:39 GMT -6
I had heard that Austria-Hungary's legacy fleet was pretty pathetic, but I never really knew how pathetic until I saw this naval engineering marvel:
It speaks for itself.
Also, it the attachment opening right? I can't get it to open on my computer even though my post looks fine.
Well, that's what they had. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg-class_battleship
|
|