These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Battleships and above,...weapon systems and such

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sumthinburnin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#121 - 2013-05-31 12:41:02 UTC
smokess wrote:
Eve ≠ real life.

Also, balance.



CCP opened that door as soon as they allowed size info to come out. The ships all have real sizes, as does the ship I compared to them.

Simple fact, a tiny ship (compared to eve ships ) has a ton more weaponry than any eve warship, and its mixed in sizes and quantities.

Balance,...the point people love to bring up when something is broken in their favor. I know all the PVP pilots love to scream about how un fair it is that they cant kill this or that in their frigates.....get a real ship or find a better way to generate income so u can afford more ships.

For the record, Battleships are also classified wrong. They were capital ships/Flagships here in the omg real world.....shocking I know.
The only reason carriers beat them in reality is range, if a battleship could ever have gotten in range, carriers would get smoked every time.

Here in eve land, u would need a massive fleet of BS to even dent a carrier that was dumb enough to let u into gun range....oddly backwards.
Ultim8Evil
Exit-Strategy
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#122 - 2013-05-31 12:42:07 UTC
Sumthinburnin wrote:
Ultim8Evil wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Can I just interrupt your "U S A, U S A" chanting for a second and point out that the Yamato-class battleships had both superior firepower and range over the Iowa-class (USS Missouri).

It took 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs to sink the Musashi
It took at least 11 torpedoes and 6 bombs to sink the Yamato



Oh yes they were sooo superior,....that's why they reside on the ocean bottom. Big Mo and her sisters were still rockin an rollin even into the 1990's,....and your superior ships were where,....oh yea rusting on the ocean floor. Up until this moment I wasn't chanting USA or" Mericuh! F**k yeah".

I had some knowledge of the ship, I used it because it was a survivor.
In that way I didn't have losers pointing out the fact that my example was,...rusting on the bottom of the ocean.
Instead I have some anti American BULLS**T to deal with.
Like it or not, ALL Axis owned Battleships are inferior to the Iowa class, why because they got sunk.

so,..... Mericuh! F**k yeah

Until someone builds a battleship that can and does sink an Iowa, all y'all just got owned.


20 lolfit Cruise Ravens gang up on 2 pimp Machariels and kill them.

Does that make pimp Macheriels ****? No.

Does that make lolfit Cruise Ravens awesomesauce? No.

If you could just hold back on the fist pumping, flag waving and teary-eyed star spangled banner singing, you would realise that you have once again missed my point entirely.

I'm not saying "down with Americ*nts, Imperialist Japan rulez".

I'm pointing out that SHIP VS SHIP, the Yamato and Musashi outclassed the Missouri.

Which ships actually survived the war is totally irrelevant in the context of my original post, not that you understood it.

You are either a 2nd class troll or a 1st class moron.

Follow me on Twitter for literally no good reason @TheUltim8Evil
Sumthinburnin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#123 - 2013-05-31 12:47:46 UTC
Ultim8Evil wrote:
Sumthinburnin wrote:
Ultim8Evil wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Can I just interrupt your "U S A, U S A" chanting for a second and point out that the Yamato-class battleships had both superior firepower and range over the Iowa-class (USS Missouri).

It took 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs to sink the Musashi
It took at least 11 torpedoes and 6 bombs to sink the Yamato



Oh yes they were sooo superior,....that's why they reside on the ocean bottom. Big Mo and her sisters were still rockin an rollin even into the 1990's,....and your superior ships were where,....oh yea rusting on the ocean floor. Up until this moment I wasn't chanting USA or" Mericuh! F**k yeah".

I had some knowledge of the ship, I used it because it was a survivor.
In that way I didn't have losers pointing out the fact that my example was,...rusting on the bottom of the ocean.
Instead I have some anti American BULLS**T to deal with.
Like it or not, ALL Axis owned Battleships are inferior to the Iowa class, why because they got sunk.

so,..... Mericuh! F**k yeah

Until someone builds a battleship that can and does sink an Iowa, all y'all just got owned.


20 lolfit Cruise Ravens gang up on 2 pimp Machariels and kill them.

Does that make pimp Macheriels ****? No.

Does that make lolfit Cruise Ravens awesomesauce? No.

If you could just hold back on the fist pumping, flag waving and teary-eyed star spangled banner singing, you would realise that you have once again missed my point entirely.

I'm not saying "down with Americ*nts, Imperialist Japan rulez".

I'm pointing out that SHIP VS SHIP, the Yamato and Musashi outclassed the Missouri.

Which ships actually survived the war is totally irrelevant in the context of my original post, not that you understood it.

You are either a 2nd class troll or a 1st class moron.



so much anger did I hit a nerve? its ok that your ships sucked and got sunk. Japan never used them for more than transports. at least the germans put theres out to fight. ship vs. ship maybe your right, but because Japanese high command sucked balls and used them as transports we will never know will we.
CCP Falcon
#124 - 2013-05-31 12:54:06 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Falcon
You're thinking far too small in terms of scale. It's all about muzzle velocity.

Rounds fired from projectile weapons in EVE aren't simply a case of a projectile propelled by cordite in a metal jacket. Most of them are rocket propelled and carry, at the very least, nuclear payloads.

If you want to take an example, look at rockets. The four smallest missile types have the following warheads :

EM - EMP
Explosive - Nuclear
Kinetic - Armor Piercing
Thermic - Plasma

In short, it's not about how wide your barrel is, it's got everything to do with what you're firing, how you're firing it, and at what speed. Blink

Also, comparing an EVE battleship to any vessel used in a modern day navy is a ridiculous concept. They're completely different, and share only the name of their class in common.

Also, cool off the attitudes, trolling and personal attacks in this thread. Keep it civil. Smile

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
Ultim8Evil
Exit-Strategy
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#125 - 2013-05-31 13:00:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Ultim8Evil
Sumthinburnin wrote:
Ultim8Evil wrote:
Sumthinburnin wrote:
Ultim8Evil wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Can I just interrupt your "U S A, U S A" chanting for a second and point out that the Yamato-class battleships had both superior firepower and range over the Iowa-class (USS Missouri).

It took 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs to sink the Musashi
It took at least 11 torpedoes and 6 bombs to sink the Yamato



Oh yes they were sooo superior,....that's why they reside on the ocean bottom. Big Mo and her sisters were still rockin an rollin even into the 1990's,....and your superior ships were where,....oh yea rusting on the ocean floor. Up until this moment I wasn't chanting USA or" Mericuh! F**k yeah".

I had some knowledge of the ship, I used it because it was a survivor.
In that way I didn't have losers pointing out the fact that my example was,...rusting on the bottom of the ocean.
Instead I have some anti American BULLS**T to deal with.
Like it or not, ALL Axis owned Battleships are inferior to the Iowa class, why because they got sunk.

so,..... Mericuh! F**k yeah

Until someone builds a battleship that can and does sink an Iowa, all y'all just got owned.


20 lolfit Cruise Ravens gang up on 2 pimp Machariels and kill them.

Does that make pimp Macheriels ****? No.

Does that make lolfit Cruise Ravens awesomesauce? No.

If you could just hold back on the fist pumping, flag waving and teary-eyed star spangled banner singing, you would realise that you have once again missed my point entirely.

I'm not saying "down with Americ*nts, Imperialist Japan rulez".

I'm pointing out that SHIP VS SHIP, the Yamato and Musashi outclassed the Missouri.

Which ships actually survived the war is totally irrelevant in the context of my original post, not that you understood it.

You are either a 2nd class troll or a 1st class moron.



so much anger did I hit a nerve? its ok that your ships sucked and got sunk. Japan never used them for more than transports. at least the germans put theres out to fight. ship vs. ship maybe your right, but because Japanese high command sucked balls and used them as transports we will never know will we.


Its ≠ it is
Theres ≠ theirs
Your ≠ you are

But I digress.

I feel like I could spend the rest of my life having this conversation.

I am genuinely intrigued as to why you can't understand just because Ship A (let's make this easy for you) was sunk by planes and other ships, that does not make it worse than Ship B.

Are you saying every person that survived WW2 was better than everyone who died in WW2 because they lived?

Please tell me you get it now? I don't have any wax crayons to hand, or I'd do you a diagram.

Follow me on Twitter for literally no good reason @TheUltim8Evil
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#126 - 2013-05-31 13:10:32 UTC
Sumthinburnin wrote:
The Germans didn't build Huge warships they were limited by the treaty of Versailles. Anglo-German Naval Agreement in 1935 allowed the Germany to build Bismark and all the other warships that fought WW2 but they were still limited in size. German battleships were smaller, but that made them faster. Their gun size was limited but that just made Germany make better smaller guns.

Japan on the other hand made huge battleships that spent most of the war as troop and supply transports as they wanted to save them for some massive fleet engagement that never happened. With their limited supplies of steel they would have benefited from more carriers, but would 4 or 5 more carriers have really mattered,...maybe lol

As to them NOT being under gunned, well we probably will never agree.

Part of my argument is based on size.

Yes eve is fictional, however they did go so far as to give them (the ships)very real sizes. Based on that and the fact that weapon systems of similar caliber also exist currently, these vessels are, just by space alone under gunned.

The argument that guns are "sufficient" to destroy other vessels maybe true. However, battleships unless lucky, are no threat to frigs, destroyers, or cruisers because their weapon systems simply cannot engage smaller faster vessels.
Those vessels were however in history crunchy little treats for battleships and their BIG GUNS

Battleships are victims of game balance. Instead of them being a true pinnacle of sub capital (lol Battleships sub capital. They ARE capital ships in reality lol) they are a money sinks for eve.

Strategic and command cruisers are far more capable vessels that put out roughly the same amount of DPS and have better abilities

Pocket battleships like the Graf Spee and Lutzow were smaller. The Tirpitz and the Bismarck were the 3rd largest battleship of any nation in WW2 at 50,000. On the Americans at 55,000 and the Japanese at 70,000 tons were bigger.

As for the battleships like I said earlier they were great small ship killers at the outset of EvE. They were nerfed later for some ridiculous reason. They didn't originally suffer from what they suffer from now. Very first time I saw a battleship in EvE was in FD-MJL in a Thorax... I was right next to him, less then a kilometre coming out of warp, zipping along on MWD, traversal must have been insane and he about blew half my ship's armor off on the first salvo. No way he would have scratched my paint now.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Sumthinburnin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#127 - 2013-05-31 13:20:23 UTC
those are missiles though boss. this could turn into a very looong discussion.
Ammo for guns in eve is still very similar. (based on your own artwork =]) Its still a shell with a propellant of some kind, and a bullet again of some type.

As for the "size of my barrel" u gave me that info. 425mm is not much different from 406mm. The size of the gun, and corresponding turret based on that info should remain close. There maybe some other internal differences, but those will be contained inside the vessel. the turret and barrel are probably very much the same.

I suppose I may be comparing apples and oranges.
The 406mm is more like an arty gun (based on ammo) I understand that a railgun is different it uses magnets to fire a metal slug of some kind.
They do both throw something of a similar size, technically a rail gun might need a longer barrel to achieve the proper velocity but the basic size of the turrets and barrels are gonna be close just based on basic math.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#128 - 2013-05-31 13:22:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Frostys Virpio
CCP Falcon wrote:
You're thinking far too small in terms of scale. It's all about muzzle velocity.

Rounds fired from projectile weapons in EVE aren't simply a case of a projectile propelled by cordite in a metal jacket. Most of them are rocket propelled and carry, at the very least, nuclear payloads.

If you want to take an example, look at rockets. The four smallest missile types have the following warheads :

EM - EMP
Explosive - Nuclear
Kinetic - Armor Piercing
Thermic - Plasma

In short, it's not about how wide your barrel is, it's got everything to do with what you're firing, how you're firing it, and at what speed. Blink

Also, comparing an EVE battleship to any vessel used in a modern day navy is a ridiculous concept. They're completely different, and share only the name of their class in common.

Also, cool off the attitudes, trolling and personal attacks in this thread. Keep it civil. Smile


How do we manage to accelerate matter (projectile and charges) to the same speed as light?

Also,

"Maneuver props engaged"
Kult Altol
The Safe Space
#129 - 2013-05-31 13:30:10 UTC
Ultim8Evil wrote:
Kult Altol wrote:
Ultim8Evil wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Can I just interrupt your "U S A, U S A" chanting for a second and point out that the Yamato-class battleships had both superior firepower and range over the Iowa-class (USS Missouri).

It took 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs to sink the Musashi
It took at least 11 torpedoes and 6 bombs to sink the Yamato


So did your mom, lol. Joking.


Also, what is more important battles or wars?
Just because something is mechanically superior doesn't make the entity superior. Our tanks where out matched in world war 2 I believe as well.


My point ---> .














\o/ <--- You


Actually, that's a period, something I'm sure you experience








When you write.

[u]Can't wait untill when Eve online is Freemium.[/u] WiS only 10$, SP booster for one month 15$, DPS Boost 2$, EHP Boost 2$ Real money trading hub! Cosmeitic ship skins 15$ --> If you don't [u]pay **[/u]for a product, you ARE the [u]**product[/u].

Sumthinburnin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#130 - 2013-05-31 13:31:15 UTC
Ultim8Evil wrote:
[


Its ≠ it is
Theres ≠ theirs
Your ≠ you are

But I digress.

I feel like I could spend the rest of my life having this conversation.

I am genuinely intrigued as to why you can't understand just because Ship A (let's make this easy for you) was sunk by planes and other ships, that does not make it worse than Ship B.

Are you saying every person that survived WW2 was better than everyone who died in WW2 because they lived?

Please tell me you get it now? I don't have any wax crayons to hand, or I'd do you a diagram.


OH nice grammar cop me now,....love it thank you.

see now the whole comparison to people who lived was a bad choice. Lets compare shall we

Yamoto and Musashi we in the rear with the gear and got killed by snipers (subs and aircraft lol)
Iowa class Battleships busy on the front lines fighting since launch and continued on through many wars. That would make them,...oh whats the word,...oh yeah war heroes in comparison.

You wanna say they were better just because they were bigger.
That's it, bigger makes them better and I'm to one who's wrong.
You have no leg to stand on. Japan was afraid to use them and they died inglorious deaths because of it.
Ultim8Evil
Exit-Strategy
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#131 - 2013-05-31 13:35:32 UTC
Kult Altol wrote:
Ultim8Evil wrote:
Kult Altol wrote:
Ultim8Evil wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Can I just interrupt your "U S A, U S A" chanting for a second and point out that the Yamato-class battleships had both superior firepower and range over the Iowa-class (USS Missouri).

It took 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs to sink the Musashi
It took at least 11 torpedoes and 6 bombs to sink the Yamato


So did your mom, lol. Joking.


Also, what is more important battles or wars?
Just because something is mechanically superior doesn't make the entity superior. Our tanks where out matched in world war 2 I believe as well.


My point ---> .














\o/ <--- You


Actually, that's a period, something I'm sure you experience








When you write.


Actually, it's a full stop.

But your menstrual joke wouldn't work then, would it?

Follow me on Twitter for literally no good reason @TheUltim8Evil
Kult Altol
The Safe Space
#132 - 2013-05-31 13:51:04 UTC
Ultim8Evil - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop

Same difference, I think they call that a synonym in American.

Still works.

[u]Can't wait untill when Eve online is Freemium.[/u] WiS only 10$, SP booster for one month 15$, DPS Boost 2$, EHP Boost 2$ Real money trading hub! Cosmeitic ship skins 15$ --> If you don't [u]pay **[/u]for a product, you ARE the [u]**product[/u].

Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#133 - 2013-05-31 14:33:37 UTC
Frake Lomes wrote:
BS's in EVE can use drones for point D, or if you're really squirrelly, smart bombs, nuets, nos and whatever else you feel is necessary.
Besides, nothing stops you from putting point guns on your BS...not recommended but hey, it's EVE, go ahead and do it!!!

As for the USS Missouri, it was designed to destroy horribad CGI Alien ships from another planet.
EVE Battleships don't get to kill any aliens (rogue drones and sleepers don't count)


Just a side note here, but, your a frigging moron. The USS Missouri is one of the USA's historic battleships that was mothballed when it was retired from active duty, and borrowed to be used in that movie. It was never "designed to destroy horribad CGI Alien ships". Learn to distinguish real life from make believe, please.
SB Rico
Sumo Wrestlers
#134 - 2013-05-31 14:41:41 UTC
Radius Prime wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck.


Bismarck was smaller then the Missouri, smaller guns, armor and boat.. and if it wasn't for the weakness of the British Hood it would have gone down as silent as its sister Tirpitz...


Tirpitz was highly effective in her own way, while never directly sinking a ship her presence at sea in the early part of the war caused the disbanding of convoys and resultant sinking of many tons of shipping by U-boats. Tirpitz was ultimately undermined by the fact Germany lacked the ability to offer a support fleet to cover her and thus was forced to remain inactive for risk of being overwhelmed by superior numbers of smaller ships. (think Titan engaged by subcaps).

As for Bismarck vs Hood, HMS Hood was outdated and a design flaw allowed a shell to penetrate a torpedo magazine leading to a fatal explosion (analogy: Star Wars and Death Star exhaust port.) That being said the Hood was supported by a much more modern Battleship HMS Prince of Wales which was so shiny and new it turned out the guns could not be aimed properly and so was unable to support the Hood. (Bismarck also had a consort in the engagement the Prince Eugen). HMS Prince of Wales received several severe hits herself but was able to disengage using a smokescreen (HMS Prince of Wales was sunk by Japanese Aircraft less than 7 months later).

I still love these history/EVE threads.

Scammers are currently selling killrights on this toon for up to 5mil, if you have paid for this service demand your money back at once.

Killing me should be for free.
Sumthinburnin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#135 - 2013-05-31 15:32:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Sumthinburnin
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm Iowa class guns,

Armor Penetration with 2,700 lbs. (1,224.5 kg) AP Mark 8
.

Range Side Armor Deck Armor Striking Velocity Angle of Fall


0 yards (0 m) 32.62" (829 mm) --- 2,500 fps (762 mps) 0
5,000 yards (4,572 m) 29.39" (747 mm) 0.67" (17 mm) 2,280 fps (695 mps) 2.5
10,000 yards (9,144 m) 26.16" (664 mm) 1.71" (43 mm) 2,074 fps (632 mps) 5.7
15,000 yards (13,716 m) 23.04" (585 mm) 2.79" (71 mm) 1,893 fps (577 mps) 9.8
20,000 yards (18,288 m) 20.04" (509 mm) 3.90" (99 mm) 1,740 fps (530 mps) 14.9
25,000 yards (22,860 m) 17.36" (441 mm) 5.17" (131 mm) 1,632 fps (497 mps) 21.1
30,000 yards (27,432 m) 14.97" (380 mm) 6.65" (169 mm) 1,567 fps (478 mps) 28.25
35,000 yards (32,004 m) 12.97" (329 mm) 8.48" (215 mm) 1,555 fps (474 mps) 36.0
40,000 yards (36,576 m) 11.02" (280 mm) 11.26" (286 mm) 1,607 fps (490 mps) 45.47
42,345 yards (38,720 m) 9.51" (241 mm) 14.05" (357 mm) 1,686 fps (514 mps) 53.25


Note: The above information is from "Battleships: United States Battleships 1935-1992" for a muzzle velocity of 2,500 fps (762 mps) and is based upon the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration. These values are in substantial agreement with armor penetration curves published in 1942.

Yamato's armor

650 mm (26 in) on face of main turrets[7]
410 mm (16 in) side armour[7]
200 mm (7.9 in) central(75%) armoured deck[7]
226.5 mm (8.92 in) outer(25%) armoured deck[7]

at long range the iowa class will smke the yamato's main decks. if she got close without to much damage,...once within 25k yards, she is smoked from the side.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.htm Yamato's guns to be fair =]

Armor Penetration with 3,219 lbs. (1,460 kg) APC
.

Range Side Armor Deck Armor
0 yards (0 m) 34.01" (864 mm) ---
21,872 yards (20,000 m) 19.43" (494 mm) 4.30" (109 mm)
32,808 yards (30,000 m) 14.19" (360 mm) 7.43" (189 mm)
Note: This data is from "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II" for a muzzle velocity of 2,559 fps (780 mps) and is based upon the USN Empirical Formula for armor penetration.
.

Range Striking Velocity Side Armor Deck Armor Angle of Fall
21,872 yards (20,000 m) 1,713 fps (522 mps) 22.28" (566 mm) 6.57" (167 mm) 16.5
32,808 yards (30,000 m) 1,558 fps (475 mps) 16.38" (416 mm) 9.06" (230 mm) 31.4
Note: This data is from "Anatomy of the Ship: The Battleship Yamato," but has been corrected for typographical errors in that publication.






Iowa class armor

Belt: 12.1 in (310 mm),[5]
Bulkheads: 11.3 in (290 mm),[5]
Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (295 to 439 mm),[5]
Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm),[5]
Decks: 7.5 in (190 mm)[5]


It would have been an ugly fight. there is no accuracy data for the yamoto. load times are 2 per min for Iowa, 1.5 for yamoto.
If we assume that they are similar it is still anyone's fight.



Accuracy During World War II
.

A Naval War College study performed during World War II estimated that an Iowa Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship Bismarck would be expected to achieve the following hit percentages.
Range Percentage hits against a broadside target Percentage hits against an end-on target Ratio
10,000 yards (9,144 m) 32.7 22.3 1.47:1
20,000 yards (18,288 m) 10.5 4.1 2.56:1
30,000 yards (27,432 m) 2.7 1.4 1.92:1

Yamato is bigger, Iowa class are all smaller, this will give Iowa a small advantage based on accuracy of the time. Again a hell of a fight.
Kult Altol
The Safe Space
#136 - 2013-05-31 15:45:17 UTC
Nice post ^

[u]Can't wait untill when Eve online is Freemium.[/u] WiS only 10$, SP booster for one month 15$, DPS Boost 2$, EHP Boost 2$ Real money trading hub! Cosmeitic ship skins 15$ --> If you don't [u]pay **[/u]for a product, you ARE the [u]**product[/u].

Sumthinburnin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#137 - 2013-05-31 15:55:11 UTC
it was very well put together,..don't know what happened.
Korah Arnelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2013-05-31 16:34:09 UTC
Yeah, IRL battleships really didn't work out because they were designed around their guns if you think about how they were used. EVE battleships oddly come in many different flavors in terms of bonused modules and module slots. For example, there's no way you could compare a Scorpion BS with any of the vessels of the WW2. Electronics then weren't a common item on naval vessels. But over all, battleships to me were about taking hits and/or dishing them out. I think that's about the only thing EVE BS class vessels may have in common with their IRL analogs even with the tiercide going on.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#139 - 2013-05-31 16:59:33 UTC
If you tried to cram a warp drive into the USS Missouri, you might find little space left over for weaponry.

Mr Epeen Cool
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#140 - 2013-05-31 17:40:10 UTC
Sumthinburnin wrote:
something i have thought about for some time, but never asked. Why are our big nasty ships soo under gunned?
I know alot of people are gonna think im nutz (its ok i kinda am lol)

Hear me out first....On our precious little rock the battleship era ended with WW2 (mostly i know we in the US used them a bit longer)

Those ships had BIG guns, medium guns and AA guns. Massive numbers of them too
....... etc etc etc not well though argument



look pal, its simply called balance, if EVE had "realist" fitting and weaponry designs, Battleships would be night indestructible and would have so much firepower they could glass planet surfaces like an star wars ISD does in SW lore.

put it this way, with the 1.5 km long an hyperion got, you could fit something like:

100 point defence anti missile lasers feed by a fusion reactor so they would be ammo less, being in space this same things would shoot down smaller ships like firing nukes at flies.

Blasters are particle accelerators, given the power outputs you could get, you could arguably fire at a planet 2 or 3 kilograms of neutronium at relativistic speed and get the shoot go straight through the crust, mantle, core and exit the other side of the planet, while forcing any matter being hit undergo nuclear fusion, and probably making the atmosphere of the planet start a self sustained but short lived combustion

a Raven missiles would be able to fly easily at speeds up to million of kilometers per hour using ion engines and target and hit targets at the other side of the solar system, with damage outputs I cannot even fathom to calculate, but probably enough to destroy entire nations, not to mention given it fires how many? 8 ******* ICBM sized antimatter warheads each 5 seconds... you could cover an entire planet surface with ordenance in a few minutes...


it is just not feasible to try make it realistic... I have done some modding in Freespace making eve online ships realist there... the end results were that they could single handledly destroy entire fleets of whatever you tossed at them from any universe or even of the same eve universe with current balance.