TBRSIM
-
Posts
39 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by TBRSIM
-
-
4 hours ago, Wakelessrex said:
And I assume those torpedo's are markedly advanced compared to pre dreadnought and dreadnought era torps? suggesting an even higher dud rate?
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?
-
5
-
-
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...
-
2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
It is planned to improve. Sink effect is not yet complete.
Torpedo damage is going to be improved in next update. Specifically, the damage according to torpedo diamater is going to be increased significantly, so that late torpedoes will be devastating without appropriate torpedo protection.
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..
-
4
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, fremen said:
3-IMHO very confussed and caothic fleet orders. No real sensation to my ships accomplish orders. A few minutes after going into combat with multiple ships (a battleship two division with five ships total) my ships get into total disorder. Order follow, order simply continue ahead, no order solution the problem. Unable to get ships to form a single line to cut T of the enemy. Imagine i lost something, i dont know.
4-IMHO excessive speed in game, everything happens very fast. (of course i mean without use the compress time)
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).
-
1
-
-
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.
-
On 5/5/2019 at 9:13 PM, Commodore Sandurz said:
Reading the Designing Warships blog post, the following caught my eye:
Specifically the torpedoes part. Does anyone have any info about non-visual torpedo detections in WW1 or WW2 that resulted in a warship successfully avoiding a torpedo attack? To my knowledge, torpedo detection by a moving warship at any meaningful range by hydrophones or asdic in the WW1 to WW2 era was improbable. For hydrophones, while there were systems with a "torpedo detection" mode I'm not aware of any actual successful use of this to detect, identify and avoid wartime torpedo attacks. I suspect that these were "brochure" capabilities; perhaps a lone escort moving at slow to moderate speed in sea state 1 or 2 could detect and identify an inbound torpedo, though whether it would have sufficient time to accelerate and maneuver to avoid it I would question. But I doubt this being realistic for a fleet moving at speed.
For WW2 active sonar with it's limited fov this would be even worse; it would need to be pointed in the right direction, detection ranges would be extremely short for torpedoes, and the operator would need to identify the contact as a torpedo.
From my readings, even in the Falklands war 40 years after WW2, none of the submarine launched torpedoes from either side were detected by their targets or escorts.
So I'm hoping that this isn't really an effective capability in the game as I would find it highly immersion breaking if ships are regularly able to detect and avoid torpedo attacks by just equipping some hydrophone/sonar equipment. Or at least, that there is some way to minimize or remove it by modding. I admit that the blog post doesn't outright say that the detection range would be sufficient to successfully evade so perhaps I am worrying about nothing. But I thought I'd bring this up as perhaps someone does have information about the successful use of hydrophones or sonar to detect torpedo attacks in the WW1-WW2 era.
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.
-
1
-
Destroy a Full Fleet Scenario
in General Discussions
Posted
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.