|
Captain Postal posted:Does anyone have any colored photos of real life dyed shell splashes? I'm curious just how dyed the water is and how clearly visible the splashes are from 10+ km. A quick GIS came back empty I don't have any photos but I want to say something I read was talking about a ship and everyone on it being absolutely coated from all the near-misses, maybe Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors?
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Yup, but it's also mentioned in Castles of Steel. The description of everyone being covered made me think it was more than just a faint tinge streaked through the splash, and maybe it was actually pretty visually impressive. I don't know any sources to find out though
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
I remember shell dyes being discussed on the official forms. Apparently the WW2 Japanese ones were vividly colorful, green dyed splashes would look almost like trees from a distance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:What I've seen indicates that that worked out when they put a delay coil in to separate the middle shell from the others by 75 feet, after which it was down to the outer pair, which were better spaced than previous twins had been. That was actually the first interference testing the USN had done and it seems that helped them figure out the inaccuracy that'd been plaguing their twin designs. Yeah, I think there's a good article on the delay coils over on NavWeaps somewhere. I probably should've mentioned the interference getting fixed. Here's Brown on comparisons between British, American, and German practice: Brown posted:Baden, like the latest British ships, mounted eight 15in guns in twin turrets. The revolving weight was 1020 tons, very much heavier than the 770 tons of the British Mark I. Goodall [a British naval architect who would later, if I've got my dates right, become DNC] notes that there was no handling room for the charges which were exposed to flash when the doors in the trunk were open. I wonder if we're talking about the same British turret and, if so, what accounts for the different weights given. I know the British and Americans divided weight into categories differently, so I expect it's mostly an accounting difference. Galaga Galaxian posted:9" guns (yes the same guns I sneered at) providing a decent mix of RoF and explosive power, 19 knot speed (which I deemed excessive!) to help control the range (either to close in to slug it out or to run away from a superior force), a powerful battery (for the size) of 6-inch guns, torpedoes for the finisher (need to try that prow torpedo Jello suggested though). I'd love to up the deck armor to 2", but I just can't find the weight unless I go back up to 10,000 tons and add 2.4million to the cost. Funnily enough, I prefer the broadside torpedo tubes in battleships, since they're usually arrayed in a line. Every once in a while the engagement range closes to "ridiculous" and you can get a non-coup de grâce shot. Galaga Galaxian posted:6 inch guns are a lot more effective though. I love the 6 inch gun. It feels like one of the most cost effective guns in the game. Jello can probably comment more on the effectiveness of the various calibers, since he's dug through the files and done actual experimentation I think. You found the gundata table that I would base RoF and shell weight on. I assume damage ability is roughly proportional to shell weight—although now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure one of my books talks about how those should relate. I should check on that. You can find some easy range and penetration comparisons here. I think I made the assumptions sufficiently clear on the page, but tell me if I didn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Wow, thanks for posting that. Some odd ducks in there, one of the Tillman BBs has 24 16" guns in four sextuple turrets! Edit:  
MeatloafCat fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
MeatloafCat posted:Wow, thanks for posting that. Some odd ducks in there, one of the Tillman BBs has 24 16" guns in four sextuple turrets! The sextuple turrets look fantastic, but I'm quite fond of this.  Can we have superfiring Q turrets at the expense of a way to actually command the ship, please? I'd really love to see one of these sort of things for the RN, but I've no idea where to even start looking. e: Just found this one. No guns, but a 9 torpedo broadside. 
TacticalNecromancy fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
MeatloafCat posted:Wow, thanks for posting that. Some odd ducks in there, one of the Tillman BBs has 24 16" guns in four sextuple turrets! I really hope you can build submersible cruisers and carriers in RtW2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
gently caress it, let us go nuts. Submersible battleships and aircraft carriers. 25 in guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
TacticalNecromancy posted:e: Just found this one. No guns, but a 9 torpedo broadside. drat, that's the stuff I was just writing about. Crazy stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:drat, that's the stuff I was just writing about. Crazy stuff. We can escort them with a modernised Polyphemus to ensure that everyone is torpedoed, all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
MeatloafCat posted:Wow, thanks for posting that. Some odd ducks in there, one of the Tillman BBs has 24 16" guns in four sextuple turrets! Very curious how these verticle aircraft tubes are supposed to work...
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Very curious how these verticle aircraft tubes are supposed to work... I'd assume they store a floatplane which you assemble on deck, then ???? and it takes off from the water next to the sub.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Very curious how these verticle aircraft tubes are supposed to work... RATO
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Here is a good little booklet on fire control systems (post-WW2 era though) that was just posted on the official forums. http://maritime.org/doc/firecontrol/index.htm Because the US Navy knows
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:gently caress it, let us go nuts. Submersible battleships and aircraft carriers. 25 in guns. Submersible? Not thinking big enough. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
I bought this a while ago and would like to update it and play again. Where the heck can I find my serial number so I can install the update?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
It's in your email.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Interesting discoveries while tinkering: Increased Elevation increases range, naturally, but seemingly not penetration? Reduction Gears increase endurance, but apparently have essentially no effect on machinery weight or the weight requirements of the various range bands (interesting since before reduction gears, Steam Tubines were quite fuel inefficient).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Those are both basically what I'd expect. Deck penetration increases with range, so the effect is to increase the gun's maximum penetration. I suppose you could fire a high-elevation shot with a reduced charge to get a steep angle at a shorter range, like some sort of naval howitzer, but I think it'd basically self-negate. And endurance is exactly the effect I'd expect from improved fuel efficiency. If anything, I'd expect the reduction gearing to add slightly to the machinery weight (and just be abstracted out for gameplay convenience).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
TehKeen posted:Submersible? Not thinking big enough. row, row your zeppelin down the jetstream merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily life is but a trireme 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:And endurance is exactly the effect I'd expect from improved fuel efficiency. If anything, I'd expect the reduction gearing to add slightly to the machinery weight (and just be abstracted out for gameplay convenience). But that is the thing, it doesn't reduce how much the fuel weighs for a given range band. If the reduction gears make the machinery more efficient you'd need less fuel to reach medium/long/extreme, right? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:But that is the thing, it doesn't reduce how much the fuel weighs for a given range band. If the reduction gears make the machinery more efficient you'd need less fuel to reach medium/long/extreme, right? Presumably it has some effect on the chances of your ship running out of fuel and interred in port/scuttled if it's out raiding or in hostile waters without a base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:But that is the thing, it doesn't reduce how much the fuel weighs for a given range band. If the reduction gears make the machinery more efficient you'd need less fuel to reach medium/long/extreme, right? Ah, I see what you mean. I think my eyes slid right over the range bands bit. Yeah, that would be nice. I wonder if it would be worth posting over on the OF.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:So I know that for nations with "undeveloped shipbuilding industry" eventually an event can fire that removes that trait. I'm curious as to how long that takes, if anyone has played those nations (Russia, Spain, Japan, CSA, my Ottomans, etc) has paid attention to that sort of thing. What removes it? A certain year? Tech advances? Building docks above X size? Random chance? Quoting from way back. It's been a while since I played, but I remember losing that trait as Japan in 1915 and never losing it as Russia going through to at least 1925. I don't think I ever really played multiple games with them to get a feel for if that's standard or based on something random.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Were you buying shipyard expansions as Russia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Yeah, I usually build up my docks as quickly as possible. It was pretty bad lategame, sitting with 36 month build times for domestic BBs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, why does it take so long to research increased caliber guns for ships? I mean, at a glance I'd assume you just make a barrel and feeding mechanism that's wider to accommodate a bigger shell, but that doesn't seem like it'd take years. So I'm guessing there's more to it than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
My guess as an amateur metallurgist is that bigger guns shoot heavier shells which require a lot more energy to accelerate to similar speeds and therefore require more powder which increases the stresses on the barrels and breeches quite a bit. It's no so much that you couldn't build an 18" gun in 1900, but it might not fire more than once.  Then there's the matter of making them workable on a ship which also has to deal with the blast pressures and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
I'm curious, do people tend to put extended belt/deck armor on their early CLs*? I always have, but I noticed on the official forums people tend to leave them off. * The small ones, not the 8000 ton super CLs some people build.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:* The small ones, not the 8000 ton super CLs some people build. What else am I supposed to do if I want something to kill cruisers with? Also I'll use extended armor if I've got excess weight to burn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Hey, nothing wrong with them. I just build more "conventional" ships because I can't help myself from emulating actual designs. 8000 ton legacy Protected Cruisers screaming around at 24+ knots just feels obscene to those sensibilities. Alternative Answer: Armored Cruisers  Anyways, you've never noticed the lack of extended armor biting you in the rear end? I've always worried about my scout cruisers getting hosed by hits to an unarmored extended belt area causing flooding, leading to slowing, leading to further damage/death.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Honestly, Light Cruisers have so little armor to begin with, and in the early game you're describing you have so little tonnage to work with since you don't have weight saving techs, that I can't imagine giving them extended armor without making them unable to mount any reasonable amount of weaponry. Even if you give them a 2" extended belt to protect them from small caliber guns, enemy CLs probably will wreck you with HE anyway, and since you spent tonnage on that extra armor you're unlikely to win that gun duel. That's been my reasoning. Then again I also prefer to build my early CLs with a pair of 8" guns, so take it with a shaker of salt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Also, the weights get realllly weird below 3000 tons. Moving from 2000 to 3000 you actually tend to lose weight. Last time I tried to build a Protected cruiser with 8" twin turrets it kept wanting to label it a CA, regardless of speed or belt armor thickness. Or do you mean single turrets? [edit] Double checking, apparently its because I wanted to put 6" secondaries on. If I use 5" or below, it still remains a CL. Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
The point of a LC is to murder any DD foolish enough to attempt a torpedo attack on your forces. All you need is enough armour for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
And also to scout, and to raid. This is why you should build different classes and why not being able to set a goddamned order of battle is annoying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
I still have the serial to this game but I must have lost the files when I lost my harddrive. What do
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Like mine would ever anywhere near the battleline when a DD is charging. My CL captains are cowards without exception and I design their boats accordingly.
Roumba fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I still have the serial to this game but I must have lost the files when I lost my harddrive. What do Contact the online store via email and explain the situation. the same thing happened to me and they were able to confirm my identity and send me my serial#.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I still have the serial to this game but I must have lost the files when I lost my harddrive. What do If you have the key, can you not just redownload from here? If not, do as Shoeless says.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
If you kept the mail they sent you there's also a link to your order on the yahoo store where you can put in your credit card number at the bottom to get the files. This doesn't work for me anymore, but i guess it is because i got an updated card since then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 21:51
|
|