killjoy1941

Ah, that explains it. However, using the example design I posted, even if you unmask the rear turret you won't get a target lock unless you manually retarget. If you don't, both turrets will fire independently with no lock benefits until the AI picks a new target. It's easy enough to confirm: Custom battle, 1 v 1 CA, give yours just two turrets, turn broadside after engagement and don't manually target anything. Your turrets will engage individually forever until you manually retarget the enemy ship.

Just tested free rotating turrets and target lock. Maneuvers no longer cause the lock to be lost, but an occluded turret does, so we're halfway there. This type of design will cause repeated lock loss if the rear turret is obstructed by the superstructure. It's 100% guaranteed and repeatable:

Think in naval design terms instead of armor thickness and modifiers - i.e.: for a Fuso, penetration-proof your ship against your own guns at 10-15km or so. Using nice, round numbers for an example, if you have guns with 400mm of penetration at that range and your armor modifier is +100%, you want at least 200mm of armor. Yup. The BC will always have 17" or 18" guns and will always be faster than you, but will always have thin armor. It took a few attempts, but I did it by using an all-forward design and slapping as much armor on my ship as I possibly could with no torpedo protection. I then played torpedo slalom while blasting away at the escorts as I rushed the BC and sank it. Forget the transports - if you sink the BC you win. Also, you posted a perfect screencap of the target lock bug. Your rear turret can rotate through 360 degrees, is occluded, and you probably have no target lock.

@Nick Thomadis I'm pretty sure I found the target lock bug. It happens under the following conditions: Violent maneuvers combined with inadequate turret traverse to maintain a firing solution. When free rotating (i.e.: 360deg) turrets exist in a design. 1. I don't think this is all that important. Ships nearly always reacquire after a bit if they can bring their guns to bear on the target. 2. This is the real issue. Ships will immediately lose lock with almost any maneuver, no matter how small. Manually retargeting will force a target lock, but the ship will immediately lose it on the next maneuver. Additionally, an occluded free rotating turret will often cause the loss of target lock even if no maneuvers are undertaken. Adjusting a design to eliminate free rotating turrets will always fix this problem. Additionally, we have a problem with the AI and station-keeping in formations. The culprit is almost certainly varying rated speeds in a formation, and it's by far the most obvious in screening and scouting formations as they like to move at the maximum rated speed for the fastest ship in that formation. Station-keeping and maneuvers were pretty much the primary reason ships rarely fought at maximum speeds, and it's showing in the game right now. Varying design speeds and damage are playing havoc with formations and the AI is struggling with it. This results in formations which don't maintain any set speed, to say nothing of an optimal speed, and they often spread across 10km or more in long, running battles. I think this could be fixed pretty handily by the following: Formations should begin the battle at no more than 90% of the rated speed of the slowest ship in any given formation. If the player orders maximum speed, that's on them and they'll get the current formation performance. Damaged ships which are unable to maintain formation speed should reverse course and detach. Notify the player in the log and let them decide what to do with the ship in question.

That's curious. Why not make metric the base system and then display imperial conversions just after? e.g.: 25.4mm (1in)

I probably overreacted a bit there. I've helped out several community management teams for devs over the years. The demands for additional features can range from simple ignorance of how games are made - asking for things that require 100s to 1,000s of work-hours for free - to outright mob torch-and-pitchfork digital behavior over simple misunderstood statements. Once you've seen it in action, it's astonishing the entitlement a significant number of players will happily display. In my experience, if a team has a product popular enough to warrant a paid community management team, they also have a significant population of malcontents waiting to cause trouble. It's kind of a thankless, shit job even if you do it very well. I dislike the microtransaction model - I think it's psychologically manipulative. I do like the DLC model, particularly for the benefits it can bring smaller studios and even better, artists. Art assets are often the first things that get cut if development drops behind schedule, which it often does. It's a good way to compensate artists and get what was often planned content into a game without forcing it into an old-school, expansion-type addition which players might not want. It's also often a good thing to let teams know what their player base is interested in content-wise, e.g.: An excellent soundtrack might prompt a separate release which might not ever have happened if the community didn't express interest. Generally, small teams in niche markets avoid most, if not all of the ugliness, but it's absolutely there and I've dealt with it personally. A lot. I guess it's also made me snappish when it seems the conversation might be going down the "I'll never pay money for that" , or "Why would you ever acknowledge you would pay for that" lines of discussion.

No, it's not. It's letting the devs know what I, as one person, am willing to pay for. If they do it, great. If not, then that's fine too. I don't know what world you live in, but in the real one where devs need to make money to recoup time spent making a product so they can live and hopefully make more, development needs to end and a product needs to be released. Alpha sales are a pittance which usually allow small dev teams to continue working. Having worked with other dev teams in the past, I know what tends to make the cut and what doesn't. Realistically, this game will probably ship with the campaign, more hulls, components, and superstructures to add national flavor, as well as the features mentioned by Nick in the roadmap post he put up a few weeks ago. Camouflages, spotting aircraft, and CVs? Highly unlikely, unless their art staff and coders have the spare time. Being critical of the DLC model is also bizarre. While I can understand and support disliking EA and other large publishers for their tactics, DLC are a simple way for smaller publishers to finance further features that otherwise wouldn't make the cut given their limited resources. Gamers are absurdly and illogically stingy, thinking the $30-$60 they spend for a product is somehow a bad deal for something they play on average for a few hours more or less than 10, but it's fine to drop the same amount for dinner and a movie for two that takes four hours of their time?

Note: Before you reply, this is a "My Perfect Game" kind of thread, modified of course by knowledge of what we already have. I'll probably add to it over time, so feel free to drop your own version below. Maybe we get some of it, or maybe Nick and the crew go a different way? I don't know, but this way I know they've probably, at least eventually, seen it and know what I like. Maybe that helps them out. Who knows? On release: Fewer torpedo reloads - I would actually like them to be potent first-strike weapons at their pinnacle. Use 'em up, then disengage or go in guns blazing as you wish. I'd love one shot on reduced torpedo complement, half reload on normal, and one full reload on increased. Torpedo characteristics shouldn't change from what they are by propellant. Exception to #2 - Oxygen torpedoes should have a higher chance to explode, equivalent to a magazine detonation. Relevant to #1, Seriously nerfed impact of hydro and sonar stations equipped - Let them be a strategic asset best left to designs oriented to convoy and ASW. Right now they're too powerful in countering torpedoes, and combined with reduced reloads, they'd work just fine I think. Darker nights - At least some of the time. There's a beauty to the increased confusion and muzzle flashes in dark environments. I think the aesthetics would be fantastic. Related to 3, add functional searchlights - It doesn't need to be tech-related as ship-based lights weren't spectacularly different over the covered period, but it was quite important. Drastically reduced emissions from stacks for semi-oil ships and once again for oil ships - What we see in-game for oil-powered ships is what we might see for semi-oil ships. Oil-fired ships emit precious little smoke. And for you doubters, don't even bother to drop photos of oil-fired ships with streaming smoke to counter this. Those are usually shake-down photos where they're testing the boilers to their limits. Oh, and the same for late-war IJN ships; they're often running on unrefined Balikpapan crude at that point, one of the few oil deposits capable of being used in that way. There should be a mechanism to cause minor damage to ships for using max speed everywhere - That was usually a combat or transit-to-combat thing. Regarding #8, France should get an exception. France was the only nation to have a doctrine where their ships were to be capable of maximum speed without damage to a combat location and be expected to fight. Call it their national flavor. DLC: Signal lights - If your lead ship turns, I'd love signals to be passed down the formation by lamp. Same with targeting orders and targeting changes. Historical camouflages - If these came in packs, I'd buy them even if there were dozens, or lap tem up from modders if you make ship skins somehow moddable. Either way, though I really don't mind paying for pretty post-dev. Catapult aircraft - Deployed in a great number of WWII engagements, I'd love to see them added eventually. Should give a detection bonus to ships and a bonus to gunnery, with a tiny chance to advance torpedo detection. Need aircraft storage and catapults. CVs - Yes, I'd love them. Do it DLC-style so you have time to make it work. I don't even need to have control of the attack squadrons, but they're such an integral part of 1940s combat that I really want them eventually. Do it right and this will be an enduring classic. That's it for now. If I think of other things, I'll post them below with a date.

I'd be perfectly okay with 1 reload, if the player/AI chose "Increased" torpedo reload. People either don't understand or don't want to consider the cost and purpose of IJN torpedo reloads: They were meant to happen outside combat. How does that work? You fire your torpedo complement, then withdraw, reload, then reengage. You now fire again. Now you engage in gunnery. Ideally, you'd not know your opponent's torpedo reload. If they detect you, fire torpedoes, withdraw, and reload, you'd never know other than the two waves of torpedoes. IJN surface engagement: Identify Target Fire torpedoes Assess damage Retreat, fire again @Cptbarney is right. Torpedoes should be limited, but potent. I'd add that detection equipment should mitigate torpedo strikes to an extent, but not eliminate them.

The current list of nations seems to reflect those which could either afford to buy significant numbers of warships or home-produce designs from other nations. That means: United States Great Britain France Germany Italy Japan Republic of China Spain Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Greece and the Ottoman Empire bought just a few warships from other nations, leaving their fleets quite lacking, to be fair. Their respective naval commands purchased a handful of Fletchers, Sumners, and Gearings post-war to be sure, but they're far better represented post 1910 by the designs of other nations, if only just because they won't be push-overs. A case can be made for "lesser" nations to have their navies included, but that's entirely up to the developers to decide if it's worth their time. Remember, Nick and crew are almost certainly less than 20 people, so whatever it is you (or I) want, it's less important than that they deliver a strong Dreadnaught-based product. Anything else is something we all hope for. 🙂

Here's how to win First Casemates. @HistoricalAccuracyMan is correct - you just have to catch the DD, not fight it. I'll also second custom battles as a way to explore what the various techs do.

Torpedoes are in an odd place right now in that they seem to get a fair amount of complaints. 1. My ideal would be a selectable spread and center firing point. Select torpedoes -> set spread by degree -> aim here -> fire. Not that much different from what you're proposing. War on the Sea does this and it's great, allowing for real historical torpedo tactics. 2. It's a function of torpedo detection modifiers and target sensors, but doesn't factor in target speed at all as far as I can tell. This makes for some extremely bizarre behavior, where early and mid-era torpedoes are devastating because TBs and DDs can quickly close due to poor weapon and fire control characteristics on the target, but late-era, powerful torpedoes are all but useless if the enemy fleet has a screen of any kind with sensors. 3. The AI is actually quite good with torpedoes, but target reactions to even slight maneuvers tend to make its solutions worthless. This more than anything else is why I'd prefer to have more control. It's also very much an interface topic which is why I don't expect any serious changes, if they're coming at all, until the campaign is well established. Since the base mechanics are working, there isn't a huge amount of incentive to do more than dribble in changes as they're developed while the game is still in such an early alpha state.

That doesn't happen. I've done it twice. 😉

Monitor wasn't equipped to ram, but Virginia was. I don't think she tried to ram the Monitor, but she did ram the Cumberland the previous day. 🙂

This one was frustrating because it's well, fairly realistic. Rather, I should say it was until I turned back the clock a few centuries. Here's what you do: Choose "Speed" as your bonus going into the scenario. Max out your displacement, speed, and bulkheads. Max out your propulsion techs. Add your towers, three funnels, and one 8" gun. Use up your remaining displacement by adding belt or belt extended armor and put the odd last few tons into the tower. Start the battle. Forget your gun - ram the Monitor. Win. I tried it twice and it takes about five minutes. You win every time because I'm pretty sure ramming takes relative displacement into account, so the lighter Monitor always sinks first. The most difficult part is calculating the ramming run to strike amidships, but a bow or stern hit should just mean you have a slower target to strike for the next attempt. Hopefully this helps a few people who want to complete it and haven't. 🙂

The easiest way to implement CVs is by AI strikes in assumed sea zones where CVs exist. AI strikes relevant to the game period could come in predetermined packages and outside player control, as they should. I'd love to see them in a well-considered DLC, where they deserve to be. 🙂

1. It was extremely rare to have any kind of hydro-acoustic or sonar suites on anything larger than a CL. I'm okay with the option so long as the AI rarely picks it and it's expensive for the player. In any case, it should be discouraged for CA/BC/BB classes. 3. You'd be surprised by how little it takes to deflect objects of great mass moving at high speed. A standard ice-breaking plate should be sufficient to "bounce" a large caliber shell at extreme angles. Would it wreck the impacted plate? Probably. Would it be sufficient to destroy the section? Not even close. If you've got 2-5" of extended belt and your bow is pointed directly at the enemy, you should be taking green-yellow-red successive hits, not defaulting to red and flooding, which is what we have right now. 4. That's why I said DLC and post-dev. 😉 I too want the best surface fleet sim first and foremost, but it doesn't hurt to let Nick and the team to know that we have an interest in CVs and aircraft as well, particularly if the game does well and can justify DLC down the road. Thanks to you and the others for chiming in - discussion is good. 🙂

1. Ships larger than CL class shouldn't have access to hydro-acoustics of any kind. Let's make 'scorts realistic and valuable as a screen beyond 1920. 2. Radar should penetrate smoke screens and weather. Even better, I'd love to see salvo-chasing by radar. If your ships fail to hit the target, an inexperienced crew should fire at the last salvo generated, not the target, thus missing. Gunnery should correct with visual confirmation. 3. Immunity zones. I don't care if you have 20" guns, you can't penetrate 1/10th that if you impact at roughly 15deg or less. It should be a simple yes/no calculation against the deck/belt. Is this a thing now? It doesn't seem to be... 4. Aircraft? Yes, please. Add them in as a part of post-dev 1.0. Make this your first-ever DLC - I don't care how or why, just so it happens one way or another. Spotters, strike waves, lone attackers? I'd looooove this! It'd create a reason to add < 4" guns in post 1910+ designs, and could be simulated with random targets modified by surface spotting value. I realize this is a huge ask, but the payoff could be enormous - just give CVs X-number of AI-commanded strikes modified by CAP and you have an entire decade of naval warfare covered. Please, please think about doing it... Pwetty pwease? That's it for now, though I'm sure I'll add to it over time. Unlike some here, I'm more than happy with the alpha product on offer. It's quite impressive for a simple fleet simulator, and I'm looking forward to more. 😊

After the war, Americans mostly wanted to move past it. For Enterprise, there was an effort by her former crew to raise money for her preservation, but it was mostly met with indifference by the public at large. The effort failed and she was broken up for scrap. It was only three to four decades later when interest in preserving the memory of the war, particularly in the form of veteran testimony and physical objects/vehicles, that the loss of the most storied warship in US history was truly realized.

Absolutely. Enterprise was scrapped too. They'd almost certainly look the ones from The Expanse literary series, though with a lot more AI-controlled, automated systems.

In a nutshell. They're slowly being transferred over to the National Park Service, but those fights are lengthy and Congress doesn't even view the Park Service as a national asset, to say nothing of adding warships to its inventory of national treasures. Meanwhile, it's basically up to ordinary citizens to privately fund ship maintenance so they don't sink.

Correct. I know of no primary source which indicates torpedo gyros were ever actually engaged on US surface ships. As far as I can determine, gyro use wasn't even part of the training for the torpedo mount crews, at least other than an "oh, by the way, the torpedoes have gyros" kind of way. Crenshaw spends quite a bit of time discussing the shortcomings of the Mk15 at the end of his book (South Pacific Destroyer), which is still the best primary source for the actual performance of the Mk15. It wasn't that the Mk15 couldn't keep depth, but that it consistently ran far deeper than set. The US started scoring torpedo hits when captains began ordering torpedoes set to the minimum allowable depth.

That's an ongoing process. Most warship museums in the US are privately funded with the consequence that money is never certain, so maintenance is naturally a constant priority over permanent preservation. Texas is currently scheduled for some hull restoration, and then she's supposed to get the Mikasa treatment sometime in the future. The one in worse shape than all the others is North Carolina. The hull beneath the waterline has rusted so badly that in some places it's almost paper-thin. As they're important and physical pieces of history, I tend to donate small amounts to the various warship museum foundations when I can.

I wasn't trying to interrupt the fun of historical debate, but make a point about the game design which wasn't being made. Please continue in your entertainment. 😉

I suspect a ship in that condition will eventually qualify for some kind of destruction-by-abandonment mechanic in future builds.