Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Entropy Avatar

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Entropy Avatar

  1. My interest is mostly how the damage model in the game works. I'm wondering if it's possible that when HE does damage to an unarmoured portion of the hull, does the "splash damage" to neighbouring portions of the hull take armour into account. As you say, the thickness of the armour should have an effect on the spread of damage from one part to another - but that won't happen unless it's explicitly coded in the damage model. Overall, I get the sense that the dev's use armour to determine penetration level but perhaps haven't considered all of the effects.
  2. The splash damage part is interesting. My understanding is that if a large HE shell exploded in unarmoured forward part of the ship, the internals would still be protected by a transverse armoured bulkhead. Is armor only used for penetration calculations and not to protect against the actual explosions?
  3. It seems like it would relatively simple for the game to change how it calculates which sections are covered by main belt and deck. Instead of the main belt always being the central 3 and the extended being the outer 4, you say that any segment with a primary turret or an engine is covered with main belt and deck. If you decide to cover your entire ship with primary turrets, congrats, everything is covered by main belt and deck (and you pay the cost in terms of weight and dollars).
  4. To be clear any model of gunnery is going to have some random factors. In reality, there is going to be some "random noise" in each part of the process. E.g. a rangfinder is going to have some error with some standard deviation. When you estimate a targets speed, you will be off by some random amount, etc. So I'm not against aiming essentially being a function with some randomness and luck. If you've got a 3% hit chance, you might go a whole lot of salvos before getting a single hit (that then bounces...). Or you might penetrate that turrent roof and set off an ammo explosion on your very firs
  5. Yeah I think the current design is driven by wanting to have a hit percentage and breakdown of the terms in that hit percentage function. It's nice feedback to the player and can maybe explain to them why they are missing. But that's not something people really had. They had their methods and technology and that was that. What I like about the simulation approach is that it's very natural and problems at any stage will have natural consequences. So you don't have weird edge cases like "our bonus for close range isn't enough in situation X to counteract the penalty for small target size and hig
  6. I am definitely more in favour of a simulationist model of gunnery. Correctly estimating the hit chance under all possible conditions (and how all possible conditions affect hit chance) is a very difficult problem. Deciding what the hit chance should be and then forcing shells to hit or miss can look super bad in some conditions. Having a system where you try to estimate where to aim and then model where the shells falls just seems easier and less error-prone. You can break down each component and think of it in real terms. E.g. this range-finder tech should have this much uncertainty at this
  7. That would be great. Helps provide a nice sense of scale.
  8. The ballistics and damage model changes sound great! Does the game model hitting the front and rear armoured bulkheads or is a shot from the front and rear of the ship treated as an extreme-angle hit on the armour?
  9. I played the H-class mission, and took the extra money. However, as far as I can tell, I still had all the techs? Maybe the guns were one mark down from what they would have been? Anyway, I built a ship with 4x3 18-inch guns, 30 knots, 20 belt and turret armor and I think 12 inches deck? It didn't seem to be much bothered by anything the other fleet threw at it, but actually sinking anything bigger than a DD was a problem. The first BB I targeted suffered 3(!) ammo explosions and scores of penetrating hits from long range, but was only down to 35% structure with no sign of internal floodi
  10. Am I the only one who read this as "mage cast towers"? Seemed a bit ahistorical.
  11. My experience aligns with the OP. If guns currently have lower penetration than they should, then it makes sense that you need the absolute biggest guns to cross that penetration threshold. If penetration becomes easier across the board, the weight and ROF advantages of slightly smaller guns can make more of a difference.
  12. What does the weight reduction in higher-tech armours represent?
  13. It feels weird to me as well. In RTW, selecting "all or nothing" doesn't cost you anything. As far as I know, it limits the effect of flooding and damage to the unprotected sections. So you could do some damage to the unprotected sections, but not really stop the ship that way. I feel like the designers want the citadel options to be "balanced" in some sense, when in reality the later options were simply better because they reflect people better understanding how to make robust ships.
  14. I tried my first crack at this scenario last night. I think I came close to the 70% threshold, but the remaining enemies fled beyond the visibility range and both my ships took enough damage that I couldn't catch up to them. Even the almost-completely sunk BC managed to slip away somehow. I didn't take much damage from the approach fire, but having ships just vanish into the fog was rather annoying.
  15. I'm aware of the factors on the left side. My question was more about how those hit chance percentages get converted into simulated "physical" aim direction for the shells, but I think I've worked that out enough to be satisfied.
  16. How does the game calculate that chance? Let's say that for a particular gun at a particular moment in time, there is an azimuth and elevation angle that will cause the shell to fall on some reference point of the target, assuming the targets maintains it's current manuever. Shells don't actually land here, so there is some distribution of error in azimuth and elevation. Now let's say some component gives me +20% to hit. Somehow that percentage has to translate into an effect on the firing angle error distribution. I suppose if you multiply the angle error std by sqrt(1/1.2) that wo
  17. So the game offers (1) percentage hit chance based on a large number of factors and (2) shells follow trajectories defined by physical factors such as drag, gravity, etc. As far as I can tell, if (2) is true, then (1) has to be some kind of estimate, rather than a "true" hit chance? E.g. some games calculate a hit chance and then make a random roll to determine if a weapon hits or not. But that can't be the case here because the weapon is fired and THEN ships can change course. Does the game use a bunch of factors to generate an error distribution in initial pointing angle and express these i
  18. Is the weight and cost for armour calculated geometrically, based on the surface area that needs to be covered?
  19. It seems like you are OK with hull form affecting stability, but why wouldn't the hull form all affect overall toughness? Maybe a wider ship has the space to place another bulkhead between the armor and the machinery. Arranging critical components in a longer line makes it harder to armor the citadel to the same extent, but also harder to put subdivision around it all, I would think.
  20. I think the game should represent the reasons for this, rather than dictate an end-point. So make sure early hulls having bad drag parameters for their volume, with required power increasing with the cube of top speed, and you should effectively have a reasonable limit.
  21. In Rule The Waves 2, you can lose control over divisions that are too far from the flagship, reverting to AI operation. What happens in this game if you sail your flag ship and escort in opposite directions for long enough?
  22. I ran out of ammo in the last scenario. The long-range shots are devastating when they hit, but I needed to save more firepower for closer-range fighting I think. Speaking of ammo, it would be nice to have a slider rather than just 3 options (one of which I would never take). Edit: Possibly if I was even further way, the miss rate would be acceptable since the plunging shot would penetrate more.
  23. How the game decide the azimuth angle of the firing guns? My understanding was that it was usually harder to get the range correct, but pointing the guns in the right azimuth was usually easier. I'm seeing pretty large errors in azimuth angle?
  24. One thing I like in RTW2 that I'm missing in this ship designer is the weight contribution from various elements (or maybe I'm not looking in the right spot?). It would be nice to what my deck armor is costing me, what the engine costs, etc. I guess that would apply to financial costs as well. I was a little annoyed that when I increased the displacement, some of the previously-mounted components moved to invalid positions. I can see that happening if I decrease ship size, but increasing size should IMO give more room for everything. Placement of the forward and rear towers seems a b
  • Create New...