Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
FIXED 1.08g6h2
default/language/english/unit/air/corsair.txt corrected machine gun number
default/language/english/unit/air/judy.txt corrected machine gun number
10. Val hit by a bomb
Is this normal?
I'm currently testing what the new adjustments to the config would affect aircraft efficiency, but this is a bit unexpected.
Right now it seems that Vals with HE can still marginally sink a Fletcher (with 12 planes), and Avenger rockets are still the go-to weapon of choice against Japanese DD. I'll continue to run tests.
By the way, judging from the numbers I'm seeing I'm rather pessimistic about the current hull break. They seem to only work for Japanese 5500t-class CLs, because DDs are generally not feasible target for torpedoes, and 10k ton class seems to be rather immune to the hull break system.
I'm also pessimistic about how the not-immediate carrier replenish will work, as IIRC carriers require 5? I think? days minimum to replenish, and you don't get the CP back immediately, meaning that you will never get a good rotation. And Japanese campaign basically requires constant, mobile defenses to work.
I understand it's ridiculous to be able to make carriers go back to full strength multiple times a day, but perhaps a shorter period for intact carriers would work better as a game.
Edit:
Holy hell what the .....
Why is now sinking a Portland only giving friggin 3 (it used to be like 12-13)? That's just too harsh of a decrease, meaning that sinking enemies almost yield no CP whatsoever. That would mean for a new CV I need to sink FOURTY cruisers. In the case of the Americans that means no second carrier (or a second proper surface fleet) until you practically destroyed the entire Japanese navy. That's just not gonna happen.
Even with the weekly increase this is still impossible because weekly increase is like 50-ish, while basically any player would need to get about 200 in the first week just to defend themselves.
How are we supposed to fend off daily invasion convoys at this rate?
If we don't get CPs from victorious battles we'd be overwhelmed (including lost ships, carriers occupying CPs due to being replenished and others) by AI's endless convoys within the first 2-3 days. This is especially problematic since both sides have VERY vulnerable positions (port moresby for the US, Guadalcanal for the Japanese) that requires heavy defense from day 0.
I definitly did not save and load. That can't be the cause (at least not the only one)
In v1.08g5h7 elite difficulty the 1st week I had 23 MS (46 CP) + 2 CA (10 CP) + 1 CV (30 CP as I recall) = 86 CP. The second week I had 19 MS (38 CP). The 3rd week I had 4 MS (8 CP) + 1 BB (30 CP) + 1 CA (5 CP) + 1 CL (3 CP) = 46 CP. It fluctuated from week to week between those limits: approx 38 low to 85 high.
In v1.08g6h1 balance campaign difficulty on day 4 I have 17 bases (34 CP) + 10 ranks on ports (20 CP) + 23 ranks on airfields (23 CP) = 77 CP/week, and the 1st week isn't even over yet. It's not going to drop to less than that in future weeks.
So, I'm not about to say that the campaign is impossible. It's just more difficult.
I also encountered this and reported it to the devs, it is being worked on.
The Iowa’s thicker than usually sourced belt armor is due to the many layers of plating that form the effective thickness of the belt. The 38 mm thick decapping belt on the outside of the hull, the 22 mm of STS the 307 mm belt itself is mounted on, a 16 mm HTS plate in between these two for catching shrapnel and providing structural support, and finally a 16 mm STS plate behind the main belt which also catches shrapnel all add up to the ingame value.
I am currently researching whether that last 16 mm plate was far enough back to be considered a part of the armor protection or just a bulkhead. Ingame it possibly would be considered a part of the next compartment over, which would therefore eliminate the plate from the total.
Is such fine construction detail available for the other BB's, and was it used to set the armor values for them? I'm in favor of using the best data available, even if it's not available for all ships. As we all know, this is a problem for most history-based war games; but I'm still curious.
As a matter of fact it is, and armor corrections to IJN warships in the past have accounted for this in particular. It is worth mentioning most IJN BBs use external belts with their armor mounted on concrete, which as one might think does not contribute much if at all to protection in the face of such large shells as that of battleships.