Passive modifiers in campaign

[Norbert Sattler]

I was wondering if the passive modifiers you can unlock with technology in the campaign, like central fire control, only work on new ships, or if they also have their effect on the already designed and built ships.

[Toby]

a question i never considered but now you've said it i do wonder myself. thank you for asking it

 

[TBRSIM]

They only work with new ships, some even do not work if you start the new design as a copy of an old one.

[RedParadize]

On 12/14/2021 at 7:07 PM, TBRSIM said:

They only work with new ships, some even do not work if you start the new design as a copy of an old one.

I noticed that too... Mather of fact if duplicating do not allow the use of newer tech like rangefinder. Since they are currently working on the campaign you may want to report that in Core Patch 1.0 Feedback.

[Norbert Sattler]

I think copies (right now) can only use the same technology. I noticed the same for turrets (both bigger and calibre and higher marks), engines and boilders.

That aside, I hope they will also adress the issue of at least some passive modifyers. While it makes sense that central firecontrol or improved turret rotation would only affect new ships, things like updated ammunition (amour piercing caps or longer range torpedoes for example) should really affect every active ship.

[Nick Thomadis]

We will add the "Refit" function in the coming updates, so all of those issues will be resolved.

[Norbert Sattler]

Not all issues in my opinion.

Improved ammunition and better firefighters should apply without having to refit a ship. You don't need a full refit to load up with new shells and to get some specialist firefighters on board, the ship doesn't even necessarily have to return to port, but they can be ferried over on other ships.

But with no way (currently) to have the ships out at sea without returning to port for longer times, those modifiers might as well be applied right away to all ships.

[Nick Thomadis]

When adding new ammunition, this action alone affects weights and can cause your ship to become overweight without your notice, if this action is auto.

In addition, changing ammunition on a ship is not as easy as it may sound. The guns are designed to work with specific ammunition, so if you change the ammunition, some modification should be needed to support it, costing money and work that is measured in time. 

[Norbert Sattler]

I don't mean selectable ammunition components (i.e. the explosives, charges and ligh/normal/heavy shells).

I mean technologies that solely add passive modifiers like AP caps, in terms of gameplay.

And historically speaking I'm pretty sure the British ships in WW1 didn't require any refit to carry the new greenboy shells, or the American subs in WW2 for the revised (and working) Mark 14s torpedoes.

Edited December 17, 2021 by Norbert Sattler

[akd]

1 hour ago, Norbert Sattler said:

I don't mean selectable ammunition components (i.e. the explosives, charges and ligh/normal/heavy shells).

I mean technologies that solely add passive modifiers like AP caps, in terms of gameplay.

And historically speaking I'm pretty sure the British ships in WW1 didn't require any refit to carry the new greenboy shells, or the American subs in WW2 for the revised (and working) Mark 14s torpedoes.

Generally changes to ammunition were fairly independent of ship design, the exception being shell length (light, heavy, super-heavy), which would obviously effect the whole design of the ammunition handling system, and propellants or explosive fillers that would require different levels of climate control in the magazines to maintain stability.

[Danelin Aruna]

On 12/17/2021 at 10:08 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

When adding new ammunition, this action alone affects weights and can cause your ship to become overweight without your notice, if this action is auto.

In addition, changing ammunition on a ship is not as easy as it may sound. The guns are designed to work with specific ammunition, so if you change the ammunition, some modification should be needed to support it, costing money and work that is measured in time. 

the gun it self shouldn't need a rebuild, but i could see how the shell weight change could be a problem, although wouldn't they just load fewer shells.

[Somhairle]

20 hours ago, Danelin Aruna said:

the gun it self shouldn't need a rebuild, but i could see how the shell weight change could be a problem, although wouldn't they just load fewer shells.

Depends on WHY the shell is heavier. Is it just more dense (different base metal/case structure/filler) or is the main body longer? Is the shoulder angle the same? Is the cap wider/cover more of the nose? All THOSE things would effect the dimensions of the shell hoists and their through-deck passageways. That could/would probably require a rebuild of the turret trunk, handling rooms, hoists, handling equipment, rammers, breeches, etc..

[SapphironZA]

If I recall from watching Drachinifel's youtube channel, when WW1 era BB's were updated for WW2, most kept their barrels (after being relined), turret casing, barbettes and turret rings, but the breaches, ammunition handling, fire control and hydraulics all were replaced.  Basically akin to keeping the the engine and gearbox in a car, but managing the use the same exhaust. bonnet and engine mounting hardware as before.

Quite often, the refurbishing process cost as much, or more than the manufacturing new.  It was mainly done to save time and due to limited availability of manufacturing of large armor pieces.

[Karlchen]

1 hour ago, SapphironZA said:

If I recall from watching Drachinifel's youtube channel, when WW1 era BB's were updated for WW2, most kept their barrels (after being relined), turret casing, barbettes and turret rings, but the breaches, ammunition handling, fire control and hydraulics all were replaced.  Basically akin to keeping the the engine and gearbox in a car, but managing the use the same exhaust. bonnet and engine mounting hardware as before.

Quite often, the refurbishing process cost as much, or more than the manufacturing new.  It was mainly done to save time and due to limited availability of manufacturing of large armor pieces.

I think it was because naval treaties prohibited building new battleships

[SapphironZA]

Just now, Karlchen said:

I think it was because naval treaties prohibited building new battleships

Forgot about that one, very true