Page 47 of 58
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:16 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
This is what I am talking about 3 Guns to 1 Turret. This should be correct I think!
I don't believe you are correct. IIRC 3x1 would represent 3 guns with each turret having one gun.3x3 means 3 guns with each turret having 3 guns. So in the first instance you would have three turrets with one gun each and the second instance, which I believe is correct, you would have one turret with 3 guns.
Herrbear is correct. "Turrets" in the above screenshot should be read as "number of barrels per mount"; if the ship in question is the real life Yamato, the correct setup would be "Num"=6 and "Turrets"=3 for the front and "Num"=3 and "Turrets"=3 for the rear.
Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:27 pm
by John 3rd
If that is the case then why does this BB have the following?
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:28 pm
by DuckofTindalos
Er, because it's the Kongo, with four forward-facing guns in two twin mounts.[&:]
IJN LCU
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:29 pm
by John 3rd
Went through and updated the IJN LCUs. Stanislav--except for the BB turret issue--I think the files are ready to send to you. What is your situation right now for working on this?
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:30 pm
by John 3rd
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Er, because it's the Kongo, with four forward-facing guns in two twin mounts.[&:]
That is how I read it.
Shouldn't then Yamato have 3 guns in 1 mount (x2 forward and x1 in the rear) like what the screenshot Posted above shows?
Old US BBs
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:32 pm
by John 3rd
Here is a different example that needs corrected:
I read this as a BB with SIX turrets facing forward.
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:33 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Er, because it's the Kongo, with four forward-facing guns in two twin mounts.[&:]
That is how I read it.
Shouldn't then Yamato have 3 guns in 1 mount (x2 forward and x1 in the rear) like what the screenshot Posted above shows?
Then you didn't read my reply to your post. "Turrets" doesn't equal "Number of Mounts", but "Number of BARRELS per mount".
RE: Old US BBs
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:35 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Here is a different example that needs corrected:
I read this as a BB with SIX turrets facing forward.
I don't know what's you've done with this battleship, but it's massively wrong. "Num" is the total number of barrels of the type facing in the indicated direction, "Turrets" is the number of barrels per mount. It doesn't make sense, but it's true. The above ship has a total of six guns, all facing front, in two mounts, and no gun facing backwards.
RE: Old US BBs
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:36 pm
by DuckofTindalos
It's been this way all the time from stock WitP 1.0. It's not wrong.
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:37 pm
by John 3rd
Soooooooo...going by what you just said the North Carolina is correct with Weapon 1 having 3 guns in a 3 gun (triple) turret...RIGHT?
OR
Should it be Weapon 1: 3 guns in 1 turret
Look at Weapon 3: 10 5" guns in 5 TWIN turrets
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:38 pm
by DuckofTindalos
Well, it's missing three guns facing rearwards, but other than that, yeah. Why you're not grouping A and B turrets into one line is a bit strange to me.
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:41 pm
by John 3rd
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Well, it's missing three guns facing rearwards, but other than that, yeah. Why you're not grouping A and B turrets into one line is a bit strange to me.
This was done when Juan raised the ammo load for the warships so they had more staying power. Problem was the larger/newest BBs couldn't then reload their ammo. It was a bug that got corrected by splitting out the turrets.
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:43 pm
by Don Bowen
It's very simple. The second number is the number of guns per turret.
Two Twin mounts is 4 guns, 2 per turret. Reads better if you think four guns in TWIN turrets, or two twin turrets if you prefer.
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:46 pm
by John 3rd
Just emailed Juan to get him into this.
THANKS Don---this is how I read it. Kongo is right with 4 14" guns in two twin turrets. Yamato has 6 18" guns in two triple turrets. I need to correct the US Battleships so they are right...
EDIT: So Posts 921 and 922 are right--correct? Post 926 (North Carolina) is then wrong--right?
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:54 pm
by DuckofTindalos
No, post 921 shows a ship with 3 46cm in 3 one-barrel mounts. It HAS to be 3*3.
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:37 pm
by Local Yokel
I suspect Posts #416 and #417 in this thread may be pertinent, as it seems my suspicions may have been right about the problem Guctony encountered when trying to replenish Yamato's main battery magazines.
The problem seems to lie in the hard-coded ceiling on ops point expenditure when attempting to replenish: if the replenishment cost for a particular weapons slots exceeds 1000 then the operation just gets aborted. With the Yamatos and possibly some Allied BB's, the increased ammunition load has this effect.
Since Guctony was able to replenish successfully his rear-facing main battery magazine (3 rifles in one triple mount), it may be that the only way the increased ammunition load can be accommodated is by having each main battery turret taking up a single weapons slot: Weapons slots 1 and 2 each having Num 3, Turrets 3, forward facing, and Weapons slot 3 having Num 3, Turrets 3, rear facing. That may overcome the replenishment problem, but at the cost of another weapons slot, which may introduce other problems, including possible exhaustion of slots. There might also be side effects upon the ship's gunnery in a surface fight.
Best to test, I would think.
<edit> I don't actually know whether there is a 1000 op point upper limit for replenishing a slot, but that was what Juan surmised. </edit>
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:51 pm
by John 3rd
LY--You are correct as to why we had the problem. I had thought it was fixed, however, I did not do the fixing and as you mention that might have been the only way to get it to load.
It was my understanding with Juan that if we simply separated the turrets into 3x2 then we are OK, however, the modern 16"+ BBs with triple turrets all appear to be done as 3x3 with each turret.
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:43 pm
by FatR
They should be done as 3x3 (and they are done as 3x3 already, as far as I know). The number in "turrets" column is the number of barrels per turret, not the number of turrets. Post #926 is the correct setup. Post #917 is the wrong one. Don't be dense, John, please, you have even looked at the setup of the medium calibre already, so I don't know why you still missing the right idea.
Othwerwise, you can send me the file if you think you've done all you wanted to.
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:46 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
I suspect Posts #416 and #417 in this thread may be pertinent, as it seems my suspicions may have been right about the problem Guctony encountered when trying to replenish Yamato's main battery magazines.
The problem seems to lie in the hard-coded ceiling on ops point expenditure when attempting to replenish: if the replenishment cost for a particular weapons slots exceeds 1000 then the operation just gets aborted. With the Yamatos and possibly some Allied BB's, the increased ammunition load has this effect.
Since Guctony was able to replenish successfully his rear-facing main battery magazine (3 rifles in one triple mount), it may be that the only way the increased ammunition load can be accommodated is by having each main battery turret taking up a single weapons slot: Weapons slots 1 and 2 each having Num 3, Turrets 3, forward facing, and Weapons slot 3 having Num 3, Turrets 3, rear facing. That may overcome the replenishment problem, but at the cost of another weapons slot, which may introduce other problems, including possible exhaustion of slots. There might also be side effects upon the ship's gunnery in a surface fight.
Best to test, I would think.
<edit> I don't actually know whether there is a 1000 op point upper limit for replenishing a slot, but that was what Juan surmised. </edit>
Ships do indeed have a 1000 ops points limit - for everything. Loading, refueling, rearming, moving, etc.
Took a few minutes to check out the ops limit issue.
Yamato's 46cm guns have an effect of 3219.
The calculation for guns is effect *2, which is 6438. Note that this is in "pounds".
The 6 forward firing 46mm guns have 9 ammo points each. 6 * 9 = 54. 54 * 6438 = 347,652.
There is an additional adjustment of *4. Don't recall what that is for. This raises to 1,390,608.
Conversion to tons, with rounding gives us the final ops cost number of 696.
Bottom line, ops costs can delay rearming but Yamato is fully capable of rearming within the 1000 ops points limit.
RE: Yamato
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:58 pm
by John 3rd
ORIGINAL: FatR
They should be done as 3x3 (and they are done as 3x3 already, as far as I know). The number in "turrets" column is the number of barrels per turret, not the number of turrets. Post #926 is the correct setup. Post #917 is the wrong one. Don't be dense, John, please, you have even looked at the setup of the medium calibre already, so I don't know why you still missing the right idea.
Othwerwise, you can send me the file if you think you've done all you wanted to.
OK...perhaps it is drug, eghaustion, and/or denseness! Could be some, none, or all...
EDIT: Cannot spell either!