|
|
Post by nobody on Jun 9, 2020 8:34:19 GMT -6
Let's start with I thought was missing and why I only bought the game recently - metric calibers and armor, or at least guns in finer caliber steps
- separate gun length and quality parameter and selection
- more rebuild options, especially rebuilding into and from quad-turrets
- "wide" belt in addition to "normal" and "narrow"
- super-super-fireing turrets and centerline secondaries
- more flexible cross-deck-fire as well as double cross-deck-fire
- twin casemates
- more ammo for small guns and secondaries
- secondaries and tertiaries guns of same caliber in different mounts
- earlier start 1890, maybe 1880
- more nations
- AI wars
And a few things I thought about later while playing - separate technologies for boilers, steam and diesel engines
- the ability to ignore certain techs, e.g. separate scout & carrier force
- the ability to play without aircraft
- removing/replacing belt armor
- "internal" belt should be selectable and becomes only really useful together with "decapping belt"
- bulkhead and subdivision armor as a trade-off between hull weight and survivability
- variable fireing arcs. Connected to research (e.g. 210°, 240°, 270°, 300°)
Since this is a fairly long list, and I don't want to make a separate suggestion thread for each, I would like to ask which of those is worth to elaborate on.
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 9, 2020 9:22:30 GMT -6
For metric calibers, most nations that used metric seem to have gone with metric translations of inch caliber measurements. For example, 305mm, when you'd expect something like 30 or 31 or 32 mm from a nation that was just using metric with no reference to imperial measurements. But half-inch caliber steps wouldn't be bad.
Super-super-firing turrets go very well with my all-forward build style, and the "build *all* the cool things" part of me *really* wants them, but, seriously speaking? The pragmatist in me recognizes that super-super-firing was rare enough, and caused enough stability issues when used, that it probably isn't worth including. I'd still like to see something like "same-level superfiring", where a turret could fire over the turret in front of it at range, or against dive bombers, but not at low elevation.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jun 9, 2020 12:49:52 GMT -6
Super-super-firing turrets go very well with my all-forward build style, and the "build *all* the cool things" part of me *really* wants them, but, seriously speaking? The pragmatist in me recognizes that super-super-firing was rare enough, and caused enough stability issues when used, that it probably isn't worth including. Yes, but we have some examples for medium guns (Atlanta) and for secondary/tertiary guns (super-)super-fireing over the main battery (Yamato, Cleavland, Scharnhorst, P-Class and O-Class) come to mind (yes the latter two were never build). How about sub-super-firing then? Many ships (especially before the 1930) had their rear turret a deck lower. You could easily get three super-firing turrets that way without excessively tall barbettes. |
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jun 9, 2020 13:07:28 GMT -6
seawolf: sort of. Except we want our C-turret to be facing forward and being able to fire forward. Not just to the sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jun 9, 2020 14:35:43 GMT -6
What exactly do you mean by sub-super-firing then? Many ships (especially before the 1930) had their rear turret a deck lower. You could easily get three super-firing turrets that way without excessively tall barbettes. Imagine HMS Hood. Her rearmost turret is one deck below the A and Y turret. Now imagine an additional turret (like B) in the back. Now you have from front to back: one on the main deck, one above deck, another above deck, another on the deck and one below the upper deck. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jun 9, 2020 15:15:54 GMT -6
What exactly do you mean by sub-super-firing then? Many ships (especially before the 1930) had their rear turret a deck lower. You could easily get three super-firing turrets that way without excessively tall barbettes. Imagine HMS Hood. Her rearmost turret is one deck below the A and Y turret. Now imagine an additional turret (like B) in the back. Now you have from front to back: one on the main deck, one above deck, another above deck, another on the deck and one below the upper deck. Aha!  _  |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jun 9, 2020 18:23:11 GMT -6
Japanese design for super-super-firing 8" guns  |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jun 9, 2020 18:52:33 GMT -6
Let's start with I thought was missing and why I only bought the game recently - metric calibers and armor, or at least guns in finer caliber steps
- separate gun length and quality parameter and selection
- more rebuild options, especially rebuilding into and from quad-turrets
- "wide" belt in addition to "normal" and "narrow"
- super-super-fireing turrets and centerline secondaries
- more flexible cross-deck-fire as well as double cross-deck-fire
- twin casemates
- more ammo for small guns and secondaries
- secondaries and tertiaries guns of same caliber in different mounts
And a few things I thought about later while playing - separate technologies for boilers, steam and diesel engines
- the ability to ignore certain techs, e.g. separate scout & carrier force
- the ability to play without aircraft
- removing/replacing belt armor
- "internal" belt should be selectable and becomes only really useful together with "decapping belt"
- bulkhead and subdivision armor as a trade-off between hull weight and survivability
- variable fireing arcs. Connected to research (e.g. 210°, 240°, 270°, 300°)
Since this is a fairly long list, and I don't want to make a separate suggestion thread for each, I would like to ask which of those is worth to elaborate on.
The ones I in bold are probably the easiest to implement. I'd certainly appreciate them, and they only require changing of parameters and rules versus redoing whole systems. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 10, 2020 2:10:34 GMT -6
Yes, but we have some examples for medium guns (Atlanta) and for secondary/tertiary guns (super-)super-fireing over the main battery (Yamato, Cleavland, Scharnhorst, P-Class and O-Class) come to mind (yes the latter two were never build). I said super-super firing was rare, not non-existent. And I was mostly taking about the main battery, I don't have much objection to being able to do hexagonal secondary arrangements with centerline secondaries that end up superfiring over a superfiring main turret. The reason that Atlanta isn't a great example of why three level main batteries should be in the game is that the class had significant stability issues from too much topweight, to which the three level main battery contributed. That's an idea. It was never done historically, so getting the devs to implement it might be an uphill battle, but it would get rid of the topweight issues for three level batteries in the rear. It would involve some changes to the game beyond just adding the option to do it, though, as currently a cut-down quarterdeck is purely aesthetic for side-view images, and has no effect on game mechanics. BTW, there are a couple posts from seawolf that seem to be missing (you replied to them, but I don't see them in the thread). Could one of you fill me in on what those posts said? |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jun 10, 2020 2:58:14 GMT -6
Yes, but we have some examples for medium guns (Atlanta) and for secondary/tertiary guns (super-)super-fireing over the main battery (Yamato, Cleavland, Scharnhorst, P-Class and O-Class) come to mind (yes the latter two were never build). I said super-super firing was rare, not non-existent. And I was mostly taking about the main battery, I don't have much objection to being able to do hexagonal secondary arrangements with centerline secondaries that end up superfiring over a superfiring main turret. The reason that Atlanta isn't a great example of why three level main batteries should be in the game is that the class had significant stability issues from too much topweight, to which the three level main battery contributed. That's an idea. It was never done historically, so getting the devs to implement it might be an uphill battle, but it would get rid of the topweight issues for three level batteries in the rear. It would involve some changes to the game beyond just adding the option to do it, though, as currently a cut-down quarterdeck is purely aesthetic for side-view images, and has no effect on game mechanics. BTW, there are a couple posts from seawolf that seem to be missing (you replied to them, but I don't see them in the thread). Could one of you fill me in on what those posts said? Oh, it was just me cluttering the thread with not understanding sub-super-firing |
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Jun 10, 2020 7:55:51 GMT -6
It would be good to have a choice of secondary mounts to allow late game designs like the Alsace: with 3 main ad 3 secondary turrets on the centreline.
|
|
|
|
Post by smrfisher on Jun 13, 2020 11:57:42 GMT -6
The only concern I would have with the triple set of rear super-firing turrets would be weight balance. HMS Hood was notorious for her aft quarterdeck being extremely wet earning the nickname His Majesty's largest submarine. Although I would like particularly in the case of double stacked casemates and casemate guns in general, that in poor weather they have either a RoF penalty or are unable to be used.
With secondary placement, I would much prefer a more locked to location like torpedo tubes and there own fields of fire, and tech to introduce super firing secondaries etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jun 15, 2020 2:13:55 GMT -6
- the ability to ignore certain techs, e.g. separate scout & carrier force
Does that mean a doctrine choice not to use a separate carrier/scout force? |
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jun 15, 2020 13:24:56 GMT -6
- the ability to ignore certain techs, e.g. separate scout & carrier force
Does that mean a doctrine choice not to use a separate carrier/scout force? Yes. Or the ability to assign lead formations from another force. Also nice would be the ability to merge divisions that are small or have become small (due to damage/detaching), because ships inside the same division behave much better and more predictable. |
|
