TBRSIM

This (and some other things like range/accuracy nerfs for more rapid loading systems discussed in another thread) is a sign that UA:D currently strays too far into arcade territory. Instead of making the game more approachable and fun such things are "gamey" and detract from the potential of a "sim-like" approach which strives to respect realism. That visual sight range for any dreadnought can be less than 12km when the more modern enemy has a sight range of 26km is ludicrous, but that is how the variables for hull, component "signatures" and vision boni of the towers currently work. I sincerely hope Darth will allow/enable modding of the game as he himself is a modder of note. Some variables might still be a matter of historic interpretation (like flash fire rate and cause) but the current "arcade" approach to some variables massively detracts from the game's potential. At the very least we need a "historical" or "realism" mode in addition to the current "arcade" mode.

Not necessarily. WWII saw torpedoes introduced that were significantly faster than previous ones. So even with impact fuzes the added kinetic energy of the higher impact velocity could be too much, i.e. the fuzing system was destroyed be impact (especially steeper angle impacts) before ignition. Steeper angle impacts also became more the norm due to modern hullforms adding more variability in the vertical plane. In addition the magnetuc fuze idea also pushed fuze development into a different direction and the kinetic/impact part of the fuze lost space (and engineering man-hours) to the magnetic part, meaning newer torpedoes often had less reliable impact fuzes than older ones.

HE of 3-7inch are not effective enough against TB/DD (at least early ones), this is notwithstanding that 10inch+ effectivenes against the same seems OK.

Barbettes only come in three sizes and therefore are near always too big optically. This really ruis some ship designs visually. Could we have the barbettes automatically re-size to the size of the turret ring placed above it please?

One very important reinforcement of a statement in one of the previous posts, since I played some more naval academy scenarios: Ditch visual "detection range" and "spotting bonus" balancing! It is ludicrous for ships to have thousands of metres disadvantage in visual sighting versus others due to "technology". Have you ever been at sea? In clear weather you can litterally see to the visual horizon (which depends on your eye height). While there were (and are) some advantages to higher masts for visual detecting ships their main purpose within game timeframe was spotting fall of shot. Any "sighting advantage" is at most for initial detection, in general, if one ship could see another in daytime it could be seen in turn. Mast tops etc. are quite visible, especially if you have smoke (including gunsmoke) and gunfire noise to give you a cue and bearing to search. The differences in bad visual conditions (rain, fog, night) are more a matter of training than design of the ships, with a minor excetion for small DD/TB. The current visual detection mechanism is one major element in retarding the major potential of thius game to "arcade" status. Mast design could represent additional fire control capability and things like easier estimation of contact course, quicker identification etc. and result in boni on identification speed and hit chance if you want to play with stats. The one exception where major differences in vice versa detection range can exist within game timeframe (barely) is radar, once that is available it may become a one-sided detection capability at night and in bad visual conditions for the side which has it against the one which does not have it.

Something I did triggered the development console while loading combat. How do you close it? It is annoying...

There might be an issue with the "cell" nature of the damage model where destroyed elements (guns, hull/armor parts, funnels etc.) "block" damage from other "cells" and act as armor...

I just played the scenario where the player is supposed to attack a convoy escorted by a CA with DD's. That CA is still floating and fighting after about three dozen or more (36+) 22inch torpedo hits... For any ship, even an Iowa class BB, 12+ heavy "late" torpedo hits (even contact fused) would be "the end". AFAIK there is no historic evidence of any warship surviving more than three torpedo hits. That written, without a redo of how secondaries work against close-in DD/TB the balance could well tip too far in the other direction when torpedo damage is increased. Because the other lesson from the above scenario is that my DD's do not receive enough hits for minutes spent within 1km from the AC...

I sure hope we will be able to mod the game and edit save files. For me that is a huge part of RTW/RTW2 longevity, like editing in a massive budget raise for your AI opponents to keep the game challenging or doing some silly things with tech progress..

At the moment propellant and burst charge for ammunition are combined in one designer choice. But both were seprate (though interrelated) technology issues and should be separated in the tech tree and the designer (e.g. you could have guncotton burst charges and cordite propellant).

Torpedoes are indeed very weak. Going by the "late"modern batleship scenario damage for a single torpedo hit on my battleship does not exceed "30", admittedly with full torpedo protection and lots of armor. Ths is ecessively low. Howevre, torpedoes also hit far too often, this is part of a multifaceted issue: 1) Torpedo damage is to low and there seems to be no flooding caused by torpedo hits 2) Reloadable on deck torpedo tubes are a late 1930's thing a the earliest and even there it is debatable if there ever was a tactical in battle reload capability, in the current game version deck tubes can be reloaded multiple times. 3) Even with late technology secnodaries and tertiares fire individually and in local control with low probability of hit. Range finders, central firing and directors for secodnaries and tertiaries were difnitely a thing though, and for a reason... 4) If the player designates a target for the ship this works for all batteries (primary, secondary and tertiary) if in range, this means one cannot defent with secondaries at close DD's while firing with the main guns at more distant battleship. 2, 3 and 4 lead to far higher incidence of torpedo hits in battles but 1 means they are of less consequence than a "partially penetrating" 11inch gun hit. There might also be an issue with ship and torpedo speed, both "feel" high to me, but this could just be an impression.

3 - Yes, that is part of what I meant with "AI". In RTW every ship in your fleet "knows" what to do. The full fleet formation "works" and there are tech tree aspects that evolve it over time. The player is not concerned with what specifically a destroýer/TB divisionj among more than a hundred ships in the fleet does, it starts the scenario in formation with a correct role (screen/support for a BB/CA/CL diviion usually) and positions itself and actsa accordingly, including charging the enemy fleet when the flagship orders a torpedo attack. The beauty of this system is that you can really play as you like, with full micro of every ship or just by commanding speed/course for the flagship and assgning/reassigning roles and positioning of divisions in the fleet (e.g. switching a BC division from scouting to tag along at the end of the battleline). 4 - Yes, speed as in "base time" in combat currently "feels" too fast. It is not as bad as it was initially with Victory in the Pacific but it still "feels" like the interrelationships between ship speed, combat range and every thing else "timed" is off. Sorry I cannot speifiy more but at the moment combat "feels" rushed. This might appeal to more casual gamers but us grognards would most likely all prefer the more relaxed pace (of course that means more time accel options are needed).

The game is already quite polished and a blast of an experience, lengths above everything in the genre but RTW/RTW2. Really appreciate your work! However: Weights seem off. I cannot seem to be able to build a "standard" predreadnought within 14-15kton (2x2x12in, 10-12x 1x6in, 10-12x 1x3in, 4-6 underwater torpedo tubes, 18kn speed). Heavy gun turrets seem light but everything else exceedingly heavy, so that any design I create comes in heavier than it "feels" it should be. I do not want to be free of weight restrictions but at the moment it feels overly restrictive. Something like 10-15% less "weight" in general would help to stay within the expected weight/ship fit range. In general the game feels less simulation and more arcade in comparison with RTW/RTW2. The AI and the "fleet command" UI need work. The RTW UI is obtuse but offers options the current UA:D does not. Quick betterments I would like to see: Ability to spread/concentrate fire of a division among the enemy targets, separate for primary and secondary/tertiary guns. Better formation orders. Distinc torpedo firing order capability For all of the above TFighting Steel|s UI should provide very good inspiration.

The only regular and doctrinal torpedo detection in the WWI/II era by sonar was by the launching submarines, the sonar operator usually listened when a torpedo was launched to determine if it was "running hot, straight and normal". This was a safety measure to enable evasion if a circle run (e.g. due to a defective gyro) occured. But those submarines were at far lower speeds than any target with scant flow noise on the sonar when doing this and the torpedo's propulsion system blasted its noise directly at them at very close range. Even today Torpedo Detection, Classification and Localisation (TDCL) is by far not an universal capability of naval ships. Outside of ideal conditions and low speeds passive sonar based torpedo detection systems encounter false alarm rates approaching unity, i.e. thery are worse than useless. More modern approaches incorporate active sonar but fielding is "in progress"... Just have a look at the programs of topical conferences such as UDT and at the DOTE's annual reports of the last decade or so to get an idea, all this is public information if one knows where to look. As described on the website the whole "torpedo detection" aspect is massively immersion breaking. And, as the game only goes to 1936, most if not all torpedoes will be wet heaters ("steam") anyway and come with wakes that are distinctly visible in all but the highest sea states. Visual torpedo detection and the quickness of evasive action could be influenced by "tower" design and the related research, more size for additional "torpedo/periscope" lookouts (looking at the sea, not the horizon), more and better binoculars, sound powered telephones for lookouts, a "lookout doctrine" such as quartered optical searches, "step aside" reporting/command language etc. could reflect increasing awareness of the torpedo threat and enable quicker "detection" of torpedo wakes. But much/most of this would be doctrinal and "soft" tech that would be introduced navy-wide regardless of the individual ship's design and without the need for redesigns/refits. Now, if destroyer (and perhaps CL) "towers" would reflect submarine (as opposed to torpedo) detection capabilities (i.e. the anti-submarine sonar hardware fit) that could work, but tying sonar to the "tower" feels contraintuitive.