(1.20) Hardpoint fail for missiles on BC with ALL FWD guns

[berte]

BC of 72900 tons with 8x16" All Forward armament and 16x6" guns with SAM Launchers on L and Q and SSM's on D, E, J, K, S, Y with Torps on F, G, H, I, are all ok. But when you have SSM on T or W or X, they are deleted after you buy the ship or you try and mix it up by placing Cats on 3 or 4 or S or T, the SSM's on 3 or 4 or T are deleted after you buy it and the tonnage refunded. Didn't test V.

Edit-You can't add torps to S or T either. You probably should be able to.

So there's a hardpoint issue that needs to be worked out there.

[berte]

There's another mount problem with a CL. I built one with an SSM on D and E. It got delivered with only D and E was missing. I needed to rebuild the engines because it came in under speed and I was warned about an uneven mount problem. I otherwise wouldnt have immediately noticed.

So... doesnt look like E works for an SSM on this particular CL.

[DrunkSailor]

berte it all comes down to this nws-online.proboards.com/post/71058

The game can store up to 16 mount positions, this includes main guns, torpedoes, deck catapults and SAMs/SSMs. It will allow you to design a ship with more positions and save it but although they are written in the save file of the ship, once you reopen the design you shall see the excess of 16 positions missing.

For example, your BC has:

2 main gun mounts

2 SAM mounts

6 SSM mounts

4 torpedo mounts

This is a total 14 mounts. It is still ok.

But when you add SSM on T or W or X and deck catapults on 3 and 4 or S and T this means you add at least 1 more SSM and 2 deck catapults bringing the total to 17, 18 or 19. So the last ones (the ones exceeding the magic number 16) will eventually be lost - even though you can design and save the ship with them.

In order not to have unpleasant surprises, after you design and save a ship, close it without accepting to study the design and re-open it to check it. This way you save paying unnecessary costs to a faulty design.

[berte]

Ahh excellent sleuthing work, mate! You really figured it out. I wonder if I would have as well given a few more of these instances of hard points going missing, lol. Maybe.

Well, are they gonna fix that? Doesn’t seem right that a CL has the same number of hard points a BB can have.

[DrunkSailor]

May 6, 2020 10:04:42 GMT -6 berte said:

Ahh excellent sleuthing work, mate! You really figured it out. I wonder if I would have as well given a few more of these instances of hard points going missing, lol. Maybe.

Well, are they gonna fix that? Doesn’t seem right that a CL has the same number of hard points a BB can have.

Considering my original thread about this issue is since 3rd of May, has 155 views so far and has not received any kind of answer whatsoever, I wouldn't hold my breath it would ever be fixed/changed

Additionally there is another issue described here nws-online.proboards.com/post/70845

Also from 29th of April, 81 views, no answer...

So, yeah...

[berte]

May 6, 2020 10:35:27 GMT -6 DrunkSailor said:

May 6, 2020 10:04:42 GMT -6 berte said:

Ahh excellent sleuthing work, mate! You really figured it out. I wonder if I would have as well given a few more of these instances of hard points going missing, lol. Maybe.

Well, are they gonna fix that? Doesn’t seem right that a CL has the same number of hard points a BB can have.

Considering my original thread about this issue is since 3rd of May, has 155 views so far and has not received any kind of answer whatsoever, I wouldn't hold my breath it would ever be fixed/changed

Additionally there is another issue described here nws-online.proboards.com/post/70845

Also from 29th of April, 81 views, no answer...

So, yeah...

Well, it does need attention. What do you make of the All Forward design where my BC has only 13 hardpoints and anything more disappears? Whats going on with that?

[DrunkSailor]

May 6, 2020 10:55:01 GMT -6 berte said:

Well, it does need attention. What do you make of the All Forward design where my BC has only 13 hardpoints and anything more disappears? Whats going on with that?

As you described in your first post

BC of 72900 tons with 8x16" All Forward armament and 16x6" guns with SAM Launchers on L and Q and SSM's on D, E, J, K, S, Y with Torps on F, G, H, I, are all ok.

That is

2 gun mounts (2x4 16" guns)

2 SAM mounts (L and Q)

6 SSM mounts (D, E, J, K, S, Y)

4 torpedo mounts (F, G, H, I)

This is already 14 mounts. Do you also have deck catapults? If for example you have 2, then you have reached already the limit of 16 mounts. Strangely enough, they count as gun mounts too!!!

And you continue

But when you have SSM on T or W or X, they are deleted after you buy the ship

One SSM either on T or W or X would be still ok since it would make the total to 15 mounts - unless as I said above, if you have 2 deck catapults, then you had already reached the limit and the extra SSM would be the 17th mount.

If you do not have deck catapults but you tried to add SSMs in all three places (T, W, X) then you were to 14 mounts, plus these new 3... 17 again.

Also

after you buy the ship or you try and mix it up by placing Cats on 3 or 4 or S or T

In the original 14 mounts you have added SSM on one of the places (T, W, X) and deck catapults on 3 and 4 or S and T which again would place you to 17 mounts.

Here I want to emphasize I have never ever used the all forward configuration and perhaps this configuration might have an even smaller gun mount limitation.

[berte]

No, you can't get 16 mounts in All Fwd. You can get 13 or 14... I'll have to check. Also, I have a CL with 17 mounts. I can't reproduce it in another design. And some designs cap at 15 mounts, not 16. It's not consistent.

[berte]

DrunkSailor

This is what I was talking about. There's no consistency with Hardpoints. I can't figure it out.

In the Shiribeshi, I can't get more than 15 HP's.
In the Sakawa, I was able to run with 17 HP's.
In the Aoba and Mogami I could not get more than 15 HP's. The Cat on W would disappear.
But in the Azuma, I was able to get all 16 HP's.


Hardpoints.png (95.33 KB)

[williammiller]

This is something we will revisit in the near future (a dynamic hardpoint system would be the idea)- thanks.