Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts - Excellent Performance
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 11. 2019
- We get to build 1 ship: a battlecruiser or dreadnought. The enemy consists of a fleet of ships. We're going to need excellent performance.
Mission: Super Dreadnought or Battlecruiser?
Get the game here: www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmi...
=============================
Social/support
----------------------------------------------------------
Gain monthly perks by supporting me on Patreon: / stealth17gaming
Livestreams: / stealth17gaming
Join my Discord: / discord
Send in your Wargame replays: www.stealth17gaming.com/send-m...
=============================
Patreon Supports
Colonel Brendryen
Lt Colonel Elfwyn
Major Moleeman
Major Carbohydrate
Major Weber
Major Chung
Major Metzger
Captain Morscher
Captain Meyer
Captain Jack
Captain Tam
Captain Pulliam
Captain Iceman
=============================
Cheers,
Stealth - Hry
I always liked the idea of ships with heavy rear firepower leading their enemies on a merry chase while feeding them a steady diet of HE Death.
hey stealth just a tip, if you want individual ships in a division to target different enemies, do Lctrl + click to make just the selected ship engage. This will let you target multiple ships with the same division :)
Oh thanks! I didn't know you could do that.
This is by no means to nitpick or criticize - you did some excellent work controlling the DD's - but just for the purposes of this particular scenario, if you don't want to have to micromanage 3 different ships, you can simply give the DD's a Screen command. They don't have to be fast enough to keep up with your BB when screening - they will maneuver to keep themselves somewhere between your BB and the enemy ships - basically, just trying to keep everything spotted, and will maneuver to attack with guns and torps anything that gets within a certain range of your BB. The AI seems quite competent in this regard - more than once I've played this scenario, with the DD's set on Screen and left to their own devices, and they managed to score a fair amount of damage with guns and torps against the lighter ships, even outright sinking one or more of them.
a big pointer here, but the barbette is not only for when you chose barnett's it's effectively in the hull of the ship for all main and secondary guns and protect the aminition from detonating, so even when not having raised barbett's it is needed to not go full HMS Hood
Crumpled and bought this game after the Fridays live stream. Had just finished this mission, closed the game, opened youtube and found you had uploaded this. A couple of things you missed that may be of benefit when you come back for a replay of this mission. A minor one, have a look at the stats between the 2 and 3 barrelled main guns in the same calibre, the 3 have a accuracy penalty, for example at 10,000 the 16" 2 barrel is 13% and the 3 is 11%. That fig is without the towers fitted to the hull, soon as you fit the towers it shows the modified accuracy. In the case of the high end towers at 10,000m the 16" 2B becomes 19% and 3B becomes 16%. In regards to towers, on the D III hull a number of the main and secondary towers have built in barbettes (only takes up to a 15"), meaning you could have a superfiring 2 front/3 rear layout without adding any barbettes, the real challenge is to do it within budget or weight. One of the reasons why I use the 10,000m as the marker point in selecting around accuracy for this this mission, 12,000+ is where you loose contact with the big ships, making the 12,500 and greater figures not relevant in this case. Edit: I remembered the modified numbers for the 16" @ 10,000m wrong, it is more like 22% and 19%, really depends on the tower set up.
you're lucky. im probably gonna wait for it to come out on steam and then buy it during the summer sale,
@@rustiboy1144 same here
I saw someone play and select 16" 2 gun mounts that are much accurate than 3 gun. I have never seen in this game the difference between a 3 gun turret and a triple turret. The 3 guns can fire separately while a triple fire all at once.
Another distinction that the USN uses, is that in a 3 gun turret, each gun can elevate independently, whilst in a triple turret, all three guns are locked together for elevation. I'm impressed good sir, not many people these days know the difference.
It'd be nice to see this distinction, as well as 4 gun/quadruple turrets for certain gun calibers (I believe these were very rare, but still cool)
they don't really fire all at the same time, its just that elevation is locked together. Some turrets still have the center gun delayed by half a second regardless if its 3-gun or triple.
Not all navies had the same firing system. There are US navy training films from the 40's on CZcams about loading and firing the guns and all 3 guns at near the same time was rare.
My point is. There is no choice. You get a 3X gun turret that fires all at targets guns at the same time expect for the 1st ranging shot regardless of nation or barrel size. It doesn't matter that much in this development of the game since no matter what you build, you get a random nation. I'm not sure that is even the goal of the game at this point.
Just like World of Warships. It's an arcade rendering of naval war.
Its actually not at all rare, I just meant they aren't forced to fire at the same time.
There were different salvo orders that were given. Half-salvo(one gun per turret) typically was done for ranging shot so the other guns could follow up quickly, or for straddling towards the firing solution. Rippling also existed but it seems to have been something simply carried over from the age of sail. Firing a full salvo is more accurate because they all are using the same firing solution at that exact time. However triple and 3 gun turrets typically had a delay on the middle gun so the muzzle blast don't interfere with the shells as much.
Full salvo becomes less valued when more advanced fire control are developed, or at short ranges where rate of fire of each individual gun matter more.
Triple turrets are more restrictive and sometimes less accurate because they are all mounted on one cradle but it saves a lot of space and weight. Hopefully this difference could be implemented in the game.
The goal is for you to build ships for a country in a campaign and I assume also command them on a strategic map in addition to each individual battle. Also no you don't get a random nation, that's only for the single missions. You can pick your nation on the custom scenario, and likely you will pick a belligerent you will stick to in campaign.
Not that salvo orders differed all too much between nations.
It was a surprisingly interesting game. I always thought that the escorts are not very useful, but the way you used them both to spot for your BC and to attack ships with weak secondaries is kind of cool. Is also shows that if you are facing off against enemy with good destroyers it can be dangerous to not have secondaries available. All in all, well played, Stealth.
And MVP is DD
I feel like having torpedo protection is unnecessary considering the range at which you plan on staying. Plus, even if you were to somehow get hit by torpedoes, you'd have many other systems (such as aux engine, many bulkheads, etc.) to mitigate the damage.
I think it's important to be aware of what is necessary and what is unnecessary, considering what you know about the battle and your plan for it, so that you don't have major redundancies that take away from the weight and money you could be using on things you need.
Good point. I'll keep it in mind!
Personally some of my favorite guns on the larger ships is the 14-inch gun. They don't exactly eviscerate things in one hit, but they're fairly accurate and reload pretty fast for their size. They're also just big enough to punch through just about anything you'd need them to at medium to medium-long ranges, particularly with Heavy shells and certain explosives.
18 inch guns on a WW1 era battlecruiser would have been a bit crazy irl, no?
Just a bit
@@Stealth17Gaming If i am correct the pre-dreadnought HMS Hood had 455 mm guns in the 1890's
@@robbertbroere1427 wiki says 1891 HMS Hood had four 340 mm guns. Perhaps you mixed up size of the 450 mm torpedo tubes with the main armament?
@@Soonzuh No , i mixed it up with ships of the Courageous class which had 2 single guns of 455 mm .
AoN _increases_ the weight of the armor? What? The whole point of AoN is that by armoring only the important parts of the ship you can make it much thicker for the same weight!
It only increases the weight of the deck and deck extended, as opposed to the overall increase in all armor weight compared to the turtleback armor.
Basically, it's keeping the armor you already have, and adding citadel armor in the "all or nothing" form.
40:50 almost jinxed it there
I always go for the biggest gun that is the highest "Mark" so in this case i would go with 16" mark 3 guns
I think you could have gone lower than 41kt by doing what you did just after you stopped trying to downsize it and adjusting the tower and funnels. The best way to optimise your ship seems to be trying to keep the weight and cost %s aligned when getting towards the end of the build, then doing the armour when both are in the upper 90s and you've got all the modules and guns you want.
There is something you should try low caliber Guns on a Small Ship with High armor or in short a Flipping Dreadnought and no a dreadnought and a Super dreadnought/Battleship Aren't the same
38:03 All habds, this is the Captain. Bend over, grab your ankles and kiss your ass goodbye
The Mighty Jingles - 2017
armor base ship , firepower base ,and speed, u must start with armor lay out first like belt deck etc , and have less speed but maybe have enough fire power, or fire power base, sacrifice bit armor and lot of speed or make speed base and sacrifice armor but u can have torps
"I wonder why it thinks this is more interesting"
*CL gets deleted by the Moltke
...oh
Never seen anyone take the extra cash...
Was that a vacuum or a dog howling
And the game seems really do not care about salvos. Salvos will not increase the ACC, at least I believe.
So I would say that it is not so necessary to unify all main guns' caliber. Since this game doesn't need to consider salvos or the ammo's problems, I can mix and fit both 18" 17" 16" in one ship.
So if the front has two 16"s, and it is heavier, just put an 18" at the stern. (Well, if have better Techs. Mark1/2 are not so good.
Its entertaining to watch your designs... Altought a lot of the time i go "why on earth would you do this??", since i base my own designs much more on what was really built. Therefore for example 2x3 aft and 2x2 fwd turrets look really weired to me. Also, i know krupp iV is good, but i never use less than 12" belt and 5" deck... Even if i have to compromise on other things. When it comes to speed i found that just like IRL: 27-28 knots os absolutely sufficient (even when i drop to 24 for more acc in combat). 31 is usefull in a chase mission. 33 is overkill :)
not very imaginative that way, but to each their own
@@Pittigpiertje True. Its not like im trying to copy anything - it's just there is a reason why bettleship evolved the way it did: mixed caliber guns were more trouble than gains, side turets were a waste of space, mid hull tureets suffer from poor arcs so they are fare less usefull etc. So in the end if one is going for most efficient form you'd end up with thing closely resembling modern dreadnoughts: all big gun with superfireing turrets etc. Also weight distribution in game does work a bit weired and superstructure location influences is disproportionaly. In reality a lot would depend in internals: magazines, machinery etc. Placing turrets so far back offers only benefits on game when it comes to balance. In reality i'd cause the main belt to be extended way too much causing severe displacement losses. Also much better config would be twin turrets superfireing over tripple ones. Btw - Pensacola class cruisers had oposite setup: with trp turrets over twin ones (hull in the bow and stern area was not wide enaugh to fit a barbettes for the trip tureets) and those suffered a lot from being top-heavy
I have some idea of what designs were really built. But I find it much more interesting to go outside of those designs and see what else might work in this game.
@@Stealth17Gaming ...which is good and fun to watch. I'd like to see your approach to "defend a convoy" mission. I did it with CA armed with 4x3 autoloading 11" (risky with little armor but enemy BC has thin belt to... And with with ROF i started to score hits fast). 2 crusiers with 4x2 11" on standard loading guns also seem to work. I wonder wahat you can come up woth. Btw - if penetration is what you're going for always use TNT
This ship, is the 1st one which i really like. Nice thing. I have one question. I have problems with inch metric system. Can i switch this to "cm"?
1 Inch = 2.54cm or 25.4mm
You're welcome.
Also this game is in Alpha, and if the Dev is made aware of Stealth's channel, may read the comments. I own the game too, so I might submit the suggestion you've made.
@@S.ASmith thanks you a lot. You welcome
There are options in game to switch to metric
Inch to mm conversion is easy. 25mm, you can ignore the .4 because the margin of error is only 0.1 inches even at several decimeter ranges. Basically, not all that significant. If you are somewhat familiar with gun calibers, you can use 4 inch = 100mm and estimate closely enough to then round off to historical calibers.
I mainly use inches for naval stuff due to navyfield, but got in to WoT and started using mm for ground vehicles. So converting became common practice and ocne you are used to it, you can quickly give a reliable estimate faster than someone can whip out a calculator or conversion table. It is just basic multiplication afterall.
You can switch off the auto rudder and control it yourself
23:07 well that radio you said you didn't need helps with radar and enemy ship spotting from it's description.
I can't quite make out whether it's radar or not. It says "radar 1" but doesn't give any stats. That's why I was hesitant to use it.
@@Stealth17Gaming The Advanced Radio pings the map, so even if you can't see the enemy, it gives you a bearing (without radar) or pings on the map where they actually are every 10 seconds (with radar).
It's useful, especially with radar. Base Radio would only be useful in Campaign.
Took me about 18 tries to get this one done.. kept giving the enemy bb's better range accuracy than I could muster, at farther range..
I literaly had to just go with half long range half midrange main guns. The mid range have secondary accuracy on dd's so they cleaned house there, and maximum 7' and 6' secondaries. About12 barrels of each per side. Basicly was 2 double barreled 14" and 2 triple 10". And all the saved weight got put into top deck an sides.
"This design worked out really well" says the guy that mostly had the DDs he didn't design do most of the ship sinking. Those DD's sank 2 enemy ships outright and seriously damaged a third with their first torpedo salvo. They went on to nail *both* of the enemy battleships, and I think also killed another DD with their guns. If I counted correctly, your design did some good damage, but it's tally of the kills was one cruiser mostly alone, and one where you finished off what the DDs had started with that first torpedo salvo. In fact, even the damage your design did was *all* due to the spotting of the DDs, as without them the enemy were engaging you without being seen - apparently your design had more visibility than vision. XD
There is never any pleasing you is there?
If you look at the damage screen you'll see that his guns did a bit more than 30k damage combined, while his torps did about 8k damage, which I think includes the battleship they sunk all by themselves. So no, most of the work was not done by DDs, but you were right about the importance of spotting they did.
Well it worked, didn’t it?
@@Stealth17Gaming I never said I wasn't pleased. I just like to also point out irony, which for me is added pleasure. Life is full of ironies and surprises, which is why it is so true that life is described as "the stuff that happens while you were making other plans". XD
@@user-gi4wg9ib8i yes, his design definitely did more damage, which is why I was so specific about the sinking. Unlike World of Warships and similar, this game separates structural damage and floatability, meaning you can sink and destroy a ship without taking it's hitpoints to zero. It's kind of the difference between a hit, and a critical hit. A torpedo that sinks a ship may not do much damage, but it eliminated the ship, without being credited for all the hitpoints. Meanwhile, you can blaze away to structure doing a lot of overall damage and only a tiny fraction of those shots might be below the waterline, or causing an ammo detonation, or disabling an engine. Sadly, we don't really know how many hit points the enemy force had in total, to know what proportion of those hitpoints 30k represents. We do know that Stealth's BC managed to damage some enemy guns, some funnels and engines, and in other ways limit the capacity of the force to fight back. That he'd caused both BBs to be slowed, making them easier to torpedo is certainly true ... but as we said, that was only due to the spotting of targets by the DDs.
The fact then is that the DDs were absolutely essential to the win ... but we don't know if they could have won without the Battlecruiser. But I'll bet that in this battle, the Battlecruiser could not have won without the DDs. Stealth has shown us in earlier videos what a massive advantage it is to be able to see and shoot even a powerful enemy without retaliation because he can't see you to shoot back, while you burn him down over time.
So I know I'm a bit late, but you could have added more armour and better parts if you decreased your displacement, since you had so much to spare.
MOLTKE FOR DA WIN
only 1 issue i have with this vid......your destroyers towards the end were between your battlecruiser and the enemy DD's.....and you failed to keep track of those torps the enemy was sending......game could have ended without you even knowing why....Always be aware of whats going on around all your ships.
i wan this game . . .
30:12 who the crap puts 2 Single barreled turrets on a heavy cruiser?
Some old armored cruisers had single barrel turret as main guns. Examples include HMS Orlando and Dupuy de Lome. Remember that USN CA designation was initially for armored cruisers, it was later changed to designate heavy cruisers. And in game, CA have both heavy and armored cruiser hulls. In this case, the ship is using a armored cruiser hull
With today's graphics cards you'd think they could step up these graphics a little.
Graphics is pretty acceptable to me. And when there are 30+ ships it gets laggy.
Why don't you just mix gun sizes? 18 on the barbette and 17 below it.
Mixed main guns make spotting harder in real life because the ballistics are different and you are not sure which splashes are for what - not sure if the game enforces a penalty for that but it should - real life the same main gun size is necessary to ensure proper target adjustments
Am I the only gamer that spends at least 20 min optimizing a games graphics when I download it?
Yes!
No :)
Should of stuck with a single turret up front.
Why?
@@Stealth17Gaming you'd be able to have three triple turrets at the cost of just one gun. You would of kept the ship more balanced which would improve accuracy likely making up for one less gun. Also reducing cost for more improvement elsewhere would also be a big plus. In short 9 guns vs ten would of likely been a far better idea. Plus it would of looked better. =D
@@Alte.Kameraden "Would have" or "would've".
Apologies for being a grammar police.
@@Soonzuh And proper english primarily comes from what someone else considered to be 'formal' but all language is slang. It is why Stephen Fry dislikes Grammar Nazis. czcams.com/video/J7E-aoXLZGY/video.html
@@Alte.Kameraden I love Stephen Fry! :)
The two words "have" and "of" do not mean the same thing. Have you considered what the phrase "would of" actually means?
Too bad there's no option to continue the fight after finishing the objectives.
Yea, would be nice to do a bit of analysis on the damages your fleet has taken. Could be fun and learn a few things from what worked and what didn't.
lol youtube thinks this is world of warships
Literally just use smaller barbettes...
As opposed to figuratively using smaller barbettes?
@@Stealth17Gaming sick burn
@@Stealth17Gaming If i buy early acces, i get acces to the finishrd Game too right? I consider buying IT...
Depends on the version. The more expensive package gets you in right now. With the cheaper variant you have to wait till the game is released.
@@Stealth17Gaming ok, ijust bought the cheaper one. when does the game release? and also, it said it would send an email, but i nly got the confirmation from paypal, is that normal?