Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

C.O.R.E. HOI - Naval Mod

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Is that bubbles comming off the stern, has it sunk already??
Click to expand...

Those "bubbles" are the little that's visible of the aft mast. Not very pretty... But it's not a sprite yet, just a 3D model. Turning the 3D model into a sprite is going to be tricky, as I'll have to figure out how to make a decent-looking wake for the moving animations. And nice puffs of smoke coming out of the funnels. And shooting guns. (Why do I get myself into these things?)

The Bridge looks good, but you just might want to decrease its height, as most pre-dreadnaugths had pretty low bridges because there was just one gun fore and aft.

Also, single barreled secondary turrets were common secondary armament, as sponsoons were pretty much eliminated by WW2.
Click to expand...

About bridge height, I went roughly with the line drawings of Schlesien in 1945. What I was talking about is the nice big conspicuous glass panel. I wouldn't want to be behind that thing if the ship was being shot at. :)

As for the secondary armament, I'm not sure what sponsoons are anyway... I was thinking of using single-barrelled turrets, as I didn't feel like cutting holes in my nice hull. Or I could copy that crazy american design with the secondary turrets perched on top of the primary. (Kearsarge, was it?)
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
As for the secondary armament, I'm not sure what sponsoons are anyway... I was thinking of using single-barrelled turrets, as I didn't feel like cutting holes in my nice hull. Or I could copy that crazy american design with the secondary turrets perched on top of the primary. (Kearsarge, was it?)
Click to expand...

Sponsons are bulges that stick out from the hull where small guns were mounted. As opposed to casemates which are recessed into the hull. If you were going to go to that level of detail, I would recommend casemates within the first level of superstructure. By the end of WWI, most powers had discovered that weapons mounted in the hull were unworkable in any sort of sea.

Both the Kearsarge-class and Virginia-class battleships that the US built had superposed turrets where there was an 8" gun turret fixed to the top of the main battery turret. This was a disadvantage because your seconday guns were forced to engage the same target as your main battery guns. There were also problems with ammunition supply to the upper turret. MDow
 
Originally posted by MateDow

Both the Kearsarge-class and Virginia-class battleships that the US built had superposed turrets where there was an 8" gun turret fixed to the top of the main battery turret. This was a disadvantage because your seconday guns were forced to engage the same target as your main battery guns. There were also problems with ammunition supply to the upper turret. MDow
Click to expand...

Plus it made the turrets have a really nice high profile.
 
About BBs and BCs

I built the Scarnhorst(later on S.) which is in the scenario starting build queue. I recall I researched better guns while S. was being built. When S. was complete I checked it's stats. It got similar attack and defence ratings as Bismarck class ships have. Also it got lower speed than Bismarck class ships. AFAIK it should be the other way round.

Did the better gun tech have impact on S's good attack rating? Should'nt it be so that S is faster than Bismarck but has lower attack rating?
 
One Quibble...

Australia needs to have her naval tech boosted.

She doesn't have the necessary tech to build the the Hobart Class CA's under construction at the beginning of the scenario or for the Australia and Enterprise Class CA's and Vampire Class DD's she already has.

Not to mention that she can't even build transports! :eek:

...

P.S.: Her starting militia divisions are almost worthless and are a major drain on supplies (especially since supply consumpition reduction techs don't affect them), not to mention an even greater drain on manpower if actually reinforced. I'm tempted to disband them. ;)
 
I think Australia should be able to build Transports, but since all of their warships (above minesweepers) were foreign built, I don't know if they should have the ability to construct them. I am also thinking that maybe even Canada shouldn't have the ability to build Cruisers in 1936, possibly not even destroyers yet.
 
Aah...

So they were foreign built... I guess that explains the tech shortage. Australia still gets some naval tech from U.K. and Commonwealth sharing, though.

But those darn militia... jeez, even New Zealand starts with infantry. :D
 
Originally posted by MateDow
More sparse superstructure. Most of the pre-dreadnaughts didn't have extensive command and control stuctures.

Maybe a third stack? It gives that older warship feel.

A platform halfway up the foremast with maybe a tripod aft. Thank you for trying the cage :) :).

I like the ramming bow. Very period.
Click to expand...

Oops, hadn't noticed this reply, wasn't there when I started writing (I post very slowly, apparently)

I probably did get too much superstructure into the model. I was now wondering where to chip away a bit of it to be able to fit the secondary battery. Any ideas? I was thinking of guns embedded into those bulges off the side of the bride and opening space aft for a couple of single barrel turrets. No guns in the hull, I'm not defacing my nice sleek hull with sponsoons or casemates. So it's good they fell out of favour. :)

And some of the superstructure was going anyway, especially around the stacks. There are two because I saw the remodelled version of the Deutschlands with the trunked stacks and thought I better go with the trends of the 30s.

I'll make some experiments with the masts and see what looks good. The foremast was looking very naked, so a platform is in order. And, of course, one of the reasons for going with the Deutschland hull instead of the Sverige's was the bow. I still haven't figured why they made them like that (I'm assuming not for ramming, despite the name) but they look great. :D

Then I'll have to add some details (liferafts might be in order) and figure out a way to make the animation look nice.

Oh, and what I especially liked about the Kearsarge's turrets is the way they were supposed to fire the main guns and then turn the turret to attack the secondary battery's target while the main battery reloaded. Very efficient :)
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
I probably did get too much superstructure into the model. I was now wondering where to chip away a bit of it to be able to fit the secondary battery. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

I would reduce the width of the superstructure. Reduce it to something around the size of a conning tower and make it about the same height. The superstructure on the Deutchland-class was still only about two or three decks high. The Swedish Oscar II had a small superstructure, but had large bridge wings. All of the Swedish battleships had a heavy tripod mast as the foremast. Oscar II also had the three stacks, although the Sverige only had the the two. I think that the trunked fore funnel that the Deutchland had would be very difficult to accomplish for not much visibility at that angle of viewing.


Oh, and what I especially liked about the Kearsarge's turrets is the way they were supposed to fire the main guns and then turn the turret to attack the secondary battery's target while the main battery reloaded. Very efficient :)
Click to expand...

The only problem was, that if you were firing one gun salvos with the main guns while trying to find the range, the 8" guns couldn't fire fast enough to make that tactic worthwhile. The 13" could fire one round per minute per gun, while the 8" only fired 2 rounds per minute per gun. Not really that big of an advantage. At medium range (if you can hit the target) those 8" guns do give you an advantage over the 6" guns that French, German, and British battleships of the same time period. Once you close to shorter ranges, the high rate of fire for the 6" gun becomes decisive, especially with inadequate fire control equipment. MDow
 
Originally posted by MateDow
Scharnhorst is a treaty battleship in the game. She was armed with 9 11" guns in triple turrets vs Bismarck with 8 15" guns. There was a plan to rearm Scharnhorst with 6 15" guns that was delayed due to the start of the war and never accomplished.



If you look at the post treaty battleship designs (US Iowa-class and British Lion-class) you will see that the armament is not heavier than the preceeding class. North Carolina had 9 16" guns, and Iowa had 9 16" guns. The level of protection wasn't any greater between the two classes. The big difference was the increase in speed. There were some smaller differeces, but that was the major one. You don't see a great increase in striking or defensive power until the super battleships of the Yamato or Montana classes. The price that you will pay for that increased power is a reduction in speed (about 12%). Hopefully that will answer your questions. MDow
Click to expand...

thx for the explaination!

1 more question tho. didnt have the North Carolina 4 towers with 3x 16 inch guns? or was it just 3 towers.. I should look at my mug I bought in wilmington and check it out :D
(I've been on the North Carolina, shes a Museumship in Wilmington NC, but its been a few years)

edit: ok nm she had 3 towers

http://www.battleshipnc.com/visitors/images/tour_map.gif
 
Originally posted by barrabas
From what I understand, speed gives no bonus in combat. Shouldn't we give an attack-bonus instead? Higher speed than your opponent is a major advantage in sea combat, right?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you can't change any of the stats for ships under construction. I tried to do that with the British Exeter in order to reduce her sea attack rating and the program didn't like it :(. I can make the Scharnhorst the large battlecruiser model which would increase her speed (32 knots) derease her attack and defence ratings from what they are now. From the number of questions that I have gotten regarding her as a treaty battleship, that is starting to make a lot of sense. The shear fact that I am always having to explain the rational means that it isn't logical to a non-naval player :rolleyes:. So, for the next version, it will go back to being a battlecruiser in name and stats.

As for whether or not speed is a factor in actual combat, I don't know. I don't have the patience for really good testing of things like that. A good way to test it would be to run a series of combats between treaty and post treaty battleships because they have the same attack and defence ratings, but different speeds. If the post-treaty wins consistantly (assuming everything else is equal), then speed must factor in there somehow. MDow
 
predred.png


OK, what did I do wrong this time? ;)

EDIT: Apart from posting the pic wrong... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Bugs

Nuclear Super Carrier does not require Super Carrier. This may be intentional, but Nuclear Super Carrier doesn't require the Super Carrier pre reqs also.

Nuclear Guided Missle Battleship does not require Guided Missle Battleship . This may be intentional, but Nuclear Guided Missle Battleship doesn't require the Guided Missle Battleship pre reqs also.


Wrong Photos:

Guided Missle Battleship
Nuclear Super Cruiser
Supper Carrier
 
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
predred.png


OK, what did I do wrong this time? ;)

EDIT: Apart from posting the pic wrong... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nothing! :D MDow
 
Re: Bugs

Originally posted by Kevin Mc Carthy
Nuclear Super Carrier does not require Super Carrier. This may be intentional, but Nuclear Super Carrier doesn't require the Super Carrier pre reqs also.

Nuclear Guided Missle Battleship does not require Guided Missle Battleship . This may be intentional, but Nuclear Guided Missle Battleship doesn't require the Guided Missle Battleship pre reqs also.
Click to expand...

OK, I get a fix of this to Steel for the next bug fix. It should be pretty easy to get the previous versions in there as a prereq.



Wrong Photos:

Guided Missle Battleship
Nuclear Super Cruiser
Supper Carrier
Click to expand...

I will take a look and get that fixed as well. Has it always been like that, or is it a new problem with 0.6? MDow
 
Re: Re: Bugs

Originally posted by MateDow

I will take a look and get that fixed as well. Has it always been like that, or is it a new problem with 0.6? MDow
Click to expand...

I don't know.

I for one think the nuclear version of a ship should REQUIRE the non-nuclear version.
 
According to a web source , one of Andrew Mollo's books quotes the Greek navy as having:

1 1905-06 Armoured Cruiser (Old Pre-WWI Type)
2 Light Cruisers (Old Pre-WWI Type)
4 Destroyers (Old Pre-WWI Type)
4 Destroyers (Italian "Hidra" Class)
13 Torpedo Boats (Old Pre-WWI Type - Small Destroyer)
2 Motor Torpedo Boats
6 Submarines

Currently in C.O.R.E. I believe they 1xDD (model 1) and 1xSS (model 0). Might be an idea to add the cruisers and maybe give them either 1xDD (model 0) or some escorts in the pool (I prefer the latter). Thoughts?
 
Originally posted by Steel
According to a web source , one of Andrew Mollo's books quotes the Greek navy as having:

1 1905-06 Armoured Cruiser (Old Pre-WWI Type)
2 Light Cruisers (Old Pre-WWI Type)
4 Destroyers (Old Pre-WWI Type)
4 Destroyers (Italian "Hidra" Class)
13 Torpedo Boats (Old Pre-WWI Type - Small Destroyer)
2 Motor Torpedo Boats
6 Submarines

Currently in C.O.R.E. I believe they 1xDD (model 1) and 1xSS (model 0). Might be an idea to add the cruisers and maybe give them either 1xDD (model 0) or some escorts in the pool (I prefer the latter). Thoughts?
Click to expand...

In CORE (if I remember correctly) the Greeks have:

2 Pre-Dreadnaught Battleships (Lemnos & Kilkis)
1 Armored Cruiser (Georgios Averoff)
1 Protected Cruiser (Helle)
2 1000 ton Destroyer Squadrons
1 Coastal Submarine Flotilla

I do not know of a second cruiser that the Greeks had in 1936. The Averoff and Helle are the only ones that I have ever seen listed. I have been typically leaving small torpedo boats out of the OOB, because we don't have them as an available model. The Niki-class destroyers/torpedo boats are only 350 tons. They had the four Aetos-class destroyers (980 tons) and the four Ydra-class destroyers (1300 tons). They also had four submarines not larger than 600 tons. MDow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back