|
Just got a very cool (for me) event. Sadly it's almost the end of the game but it still felt sooo good after fighting Italy and France's 100+ sub fleets for years. 
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
vyelkin posted:I like it that your wing turrets are squishing the secondary battery turrets. They just stack them. Add the secondary battery turrets on top of the wing turrets. It got historical precedence
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Dunno-Lars posted:They just stack them. Add the secondary battery turrets on top of the wing turrets. It got historical precedence Yeah, but they sucked hard by 1900 unless there was a huge disparity in caliber. They worked when the smaller guns fired every 2 minutes and the big ones every 5. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Astroclassicist posted:I need to stop building 52k monsters which eat up all my budget. Especially when the bloody Americans blow one up a month after it is commissioned! Did somebody order a large light cruiser in 1933?  Alternatively, for less exploding;  (It's annoying that the game won't let you pick where to put your secondaries.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
If you have an odd number of secondary turrets the extra gets put on the centerline. So 12 secondaries in quad turrets would render 1 on each side and a 3rd that doesn't get rendered is considered to be on the centerline. What kind of firing arcs it has I don't think has ever been explained. For that matter I've never seen much on secondary firing arcs at all. Also that Kearsarge is a true abomination, well done. Not enough armour to stand much of anything and not fast enough to reliably outrun a balanced fast BB, while probably costing about twice as much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
I hope rtw 2 ups the tonnage cap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Hopefully not too big though. Maybe just big enough to build Yamato and some of the wetdream stuff like Montana.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:If you have an odd number of secondary turrets the extra gets put on the centerline. So 12 secondaries in quad turrets would render 1 on each side and a 3rd that doesn't get rendered is considered to be on the centerline. What kind of firing arcs it has I don't think has ever been explained. For that matter I've never seen much on secondary firing arcs at all. Showing firing arcs on secondaries would be nice, also so when I do a design with all forward facing armament, I can put more secondaries on its rear end. Regarding the second point,  
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Well, that thing is certainly going to generate sparks one way or another. That armor 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Sloped Deck?!  That thing is the epitome of "All(guns) or (armor=)Nothing" Roumba fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Sep 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:If you have an odd number of secondary turrets the extra gets put on the centerline. So 12 secondaries in quad turrets would render 1 on each side and a 3rd that doesn't get rendered is considered to be on the centerline. What kind of firing arcs it has I don't think has ever been explained. For that matter I've never seen much on secondary firing arcs at all. Are you sure this is for odd-numbered turrets and not odd-numbered guns? As I recall the description leans to the latter and it's never been entirely cleared up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Alternately build 52k monsters that don't blow up. They blew it up in harbour. In the opening fleet battle both their brand new BCs suffered flash fires
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Showing firing arcs on secondaries would be nice, also so when I do a design with all forward facing armament, I can put more secondaries on its rear end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Fredrik posted:RULE THE WAVES v1.33 FINAL RELEASE POSTED (9-27-2016) Download Link
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
I was playing as the US and got both superfiring techs before getting guns larger than 12", wing turrets or 4+ centreline ones so I came up with this crime against naval architecture: Those twin turrets are in positions B,V and X and superfire over the casemates, giving it 4 guns forward and 6 guns backwards in addition to wherever those secondaries can shoot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Super gratifying to see stuff you pointed out in the bugfixes, isn't it? I got raider dates and build screen error and corroborated the gun quality one. I still have a couple quality of life suggestions but I don't want to give them anymore since this is supposed to be the last version... Asehujiko posted:I was playing as the US and got both superfiring techs before getting guns larger than 12", wing turrets or 4+ centreline ones so I came up with this crime against naval architecture: Ok, now you have to make the side view.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
I imagine they'd still appreciate feedback for whenever they decide to make RTW2. Also is this the last patch ever or just the final version of 1.33 after all the beta versions of it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
I think its the latter, as I haven't seen anything about it being the final patch for the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
MeatloafCat posted:I imagine they'd still appreciate feedback for whenever they decide to make RTW2. Also is this the last patch ever or just the final version of 1.33 after all the beta versions of it? Fredrik indicated that after the 1.33 release version, efforts would be switched over to RTW2. I should be able to find the post if y'all want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Are you sure this is for odd-numbered turrets and not odd-numbered guns? As I recall the description leans to the latter and it's never been entirely cleared up. I'm pretty sure it's just the odd numbered gun, I have a CA with a single 4-gun 5" secondary turret and in battle they show as 2 to port and 2 to starboard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:Super gratifying to see stuff you pointed out in the bugfixes, isn't it? I got raider dates and build screen error and corroborated the gun quality one. I still have a couple quality of life suggestions but I don't want to give them anymore since this is supposed to be the last version...  Also, the primary casemates don't show up on side view.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Does a ships physical size or tonnage affect how easy it is to hit? In the chance to hit breakdown of modifiers, only the target's class seems to matter. I want to see if my theory of not building 1500t DDs is viable, because while 1100t or 900t versions will have fewer guns, I can get the same speed and torpedo count at a lower cost and in a more "survivable" package.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Well I know a penalty exists for hitting "Small Destroyers". Target aspect (what direction they're facing) also effects things. Honestly just start checking the fiting data of ships in combat.  Lots of modifiers (almost all negative there) including target size. Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Also what your view of what a destroyer should do is; I feel like the primary role of the destroyer in fleet actions is screening against enemy destroyers first. Once you have torpedo superiority your own chances of flotilla attacks succeeding is much higher. Also extra tonnage means faster botes and speed is life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Basically Fire Control should always be a high priority tech. Hitting first can decide fights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
I like how you can make insane designs that still get counted as the ship type you pick rather than the ship type they actually are. For example  Legacy fleet "CL" that was surprisingly useful throughout the game. Even scored a few CA kills. Or  CA counterpart to that CL, built so I didn't have to bother with so many pre-dreads. One engine and gun refit later, and this class lasted until the end as well. Downside is that ships like this are hideously expensive, often costing twice as much as more reasonable designs. Got blockaded by Germany in my first Britain game when I used ships like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
I've seen a variation on that strategy for raider CLs where you stack them full of pop guns, make them enormous and put all the displacement towards propulsion, because in later refits you can not only make them out-run contemporary destroyers but you can also fit out as many 6" guns as you have room for, making them extremely lethal against lighter boats.
Forums Terrorist fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Basically more displacement is an investment in the future (because refits often let you keep larger cruisers relevant for surprisingly cheap), while less displacement is an investment in the present (because you can have more boats).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
How would a theoretical sideview of my mixed turret+casemates abomination even look? I think the rear guns would just stick out the back from under the main deck with a lowered stern but how would the front ones look? the Kaiser Friedrich III class had 6" guns sticking out from under the A turret, would doing that with 12" guns be feasable or would they need to be somewhere off to the sides like where normal ships put their foremost frontal firing secondary casemates? As for the secondaries, the design displays 14 but I put on 18, so which ones are the most likely candidates to be double stacked?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Does turret armour apply to main casemate guns? Was going to see how far I could do with a no turret run (all ships mount casemate guns only), but I noticed that adjusting the turret armour still adjusts my ship's weight, even if I don't technically have any turrets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
^^^It should. If not I'd submit a bug report.Asehujiko posted:How would a theoretical sideview of my mixed turret+casemates abomination even look? I think the rear guns would just stick out the back from under the main deck with a lowered stern but how would the front ones look? the Kaiser Friedrich III class had 6" guns sticking out from under the A turret, would doing that with 12" guns be feasable or would they need to be somewhere off to the sides like where normal ships put their foremost frontal firing secondary casemates? As for the secondaries, the design displays 14 but I put on 18, so which ones are the most likely candidates to be double stacked? Usually the secondaries on the ends are stacked for more end-on fire. It's difficult for me to envision exactly how you would do the fore casemated main guns (this is why I asked for a side )—do you have, like, a wacky inverted forecastle, maybe with a ram bow that just plows waves right in there? Is there just a deckhouse with casemates in it, with the second turret superfiring? It's gonna be weird no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Does turret armour apply to main casemate guns? Yeah "turret" armor still applies to casemated guns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Fun concepts in ship design: The Torpedo Battleship The US laid down a whole bunch of dreadnoughts that were on the whole pretty similar in concept. Big armor, big guns, and a low speed. This is not about them. This is about an idea that got seriously considered and wargamed as a supplement to them. The US had a bit of a love-hate relationship with torpedoes on large ships, putting them on and then taking the above water tubes off their early battleships following the Spanish-American War. However torpedoes kept getting better and by late 1903 the General board was recommending them on every armored vessel of the Navy under construction, one or preferably two as they started proving decisive in war games at ranges of 3,000 yards or even more. But if one was good, why not more? In 1903, that was answered by advances in fire control taking gunnery out to considerably longer ranges. In 1907 a Lieutenant Commander Schofield proposed a 23 knot ship that used weight that would otherwise go to guns to become essentially proof to shellfire, above a 16 21-inch torpedo tubes, with only 12 5 inch guns to cover from torpedo ships. A torpedo hit was reasoned to probably sink and certainly cripple its target, and such a ship would be able to launch an entire school of fish at once. While battleships would be firing at longer ranges and unlikely to be able to fire their torpedoes and lighter torpedo ships could be held at bay, such a ship could fire torpedoes into an 18-knot fleet with ease, with armor to deal with the shellfire that represented the only major threat. Gaming showed that a fleet with two such ships could always attack an enemy line with torpedoes. So the idea went on to the main games, where the ships were given a charitable rating of equivalence in underwater resistance to damage (charitable in that a university system of torpedo rooms like that would've meant the TDS would be a torpedo detonation syndrome rather than a torpedo defense system, but this wasn't realized until years later, when it led to the removal of submerged torpedo tubes). The ship was given a 50% greater life than a usual battleship, since it would still be vulnerable to conning tower and smoke pipe hits even if it wasn't actually sunk. In games with such ships replacing battleships 1-1, one such ship could never succeed but two nearly always resulted in victory. There were other unconventional ships being touted however, and the battlecruiser as represented by HMS Invincible and a more heavily armored example the Naval War College had devised in 1904 offered a serious problem, since the design depended on a surfeit of speed. The Invincible was already faster by two knots, and could carry a significant torpedo load as well as a battery superior to any battleship except the Dreadnought. By the time a reworked torpedo battleship was submitted, gunnery had gained ground yet again, and an enemy fleet with battlecruisers was able to wipe them out before they entered torpedo range. Further attempts to gain sufficient speed led towards unsustainable sacrifices. Late drafts could hit 31 knots, with four 14 inch guns and a very large number of 6 inch guns, with a protected cruiser armor scheme, and it took mounting all four guns in a single thin turret to get a belt. It just wasn't going to work. However, the torpedo was still considered very strongly as a battleship weapon even in 1914, when the General Board wanted four tubes a side, and when C&R started screeching about how the torpedo bulkheads would be compromised and structural bulkheads near No. 1 turret would have to be cut, they accepted a cut of half a knot. Thankfully war experience showed soon that it turned out that firing the things at speeds over 16 knots was pretty much impossible, damage showed they were a weakness, and in the end they were omitted. In 1921 the above water tube was set to make a comeback with the South Dakota class (not that one, the one that got canceled by treaty), but by the end of the treaty era the battleship torpedo tube was not in the US' design ideas. More reading: The Superposed Turret The Weird and Wonderful World of North Carolina Design Sketches: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
I've considered making a Kitakami but with how light cruisers tend to be captained by the AI, I never thought it would work. Now, I have to try the torpedo battleship as my flagship as soon as I get above water tubes in my next game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
i cant wait for RtW2 and radar fire control
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Roumba posted:I've considered making a Kitakami but with how light cruisers tend to be captained by the AI, I never thought it would work.  Honestly 2 12s up front and none in back is probably better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:i cant wait for RtW2 and radar fire control Many an old ship will die that day. It'll turn into bloody rocket tag.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Many an old ship will die that day. It'll turn into bloody rocket tag. Battleship_Action_Guadalcanal.pdf Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf xthetenth fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
By lack of 12" casemate sprites in the ingame editor(who knew), have an mspaint boat instead. I went with having the rear casemate be on a lowered aft deck which loops around and holds most of the secondaries, the front ones sticking out of the sides of the bow and the remaining secondaries on a balcony above the others(this leaves two of them with nowhere to put their machinery and hoists but oh well), and the turreted part of the main battery in a slightly more conventional A X Y configuration, all in the closest thing paint has to the peacetime USN white+cinnamon colour scheme.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
That's adorable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 03:24
|
|