Tousansons

Why not adapt to this patch and participate to the discussion? You might not like some of the changes (although your one exemple is lacking and probably need further testing) but reverting to an older patch will just make you play with the old problems too. This is clearly not intended in an Alpha testing. Finally using this patch of busted accuracy for the purpose of finding where and why the damage model need improvements (and oh boy it need improvements) seems more appropriate than "need realistik accuracy. Fix plz, here's this extensive wikipedia sheet for proof!$!" I'm certain we need a working game with a fun gameplay before making it more realistic and accurate.

- About the accuracy improvements: Smaller guns can hit and cripple something, this is a welcomed change. This was asked for several patches and as nothing to do with historical accuracy or an imaginary arcade mafia taking over the world. We are playing the Alpha version of a video game depicting ships armed with guns of various size that are meant to hit things at various ranges. If they can't do that, or if we can't tell the difference when they do, there is a problem and it need fixing. If they hit too often and do too much damage at X range, this is another problem which can be adressed now because at least they hit and damage. In the previous versions I mostly designed my capital ships around main battery with no secondaries. DD's with all torpedoes armament and one mandatory token gun. This was efficient but wasn't good for testing. There was at lots of extra weight left for armour/speed, most of the hulls looked silly and empty, BB's of lower weight were unaturally tankier because of that. Now the game at least invite you and reward you to try them, this is good and needed for the later stage of the development. On the other hand, I too think that the sliders have been pushed a bit too far in the other direction now. Main battery + secondaries hit rate are through the roof and battles ends much faster because of that. - In the last few posts I see an interesting trend about battle durations: Note that I'm clearly not against faster battles. For now most of the engagement are fairly simple and there is very little to do after the initial course orders besides some small adjustements when torpedoes are spotted. This doesn't mean we need to change drastically the value to arcade level though. Changing how the base time is handled could be an elegant solution. For example if one minute in real time is equal to two minute in game you have battle going twice as fast without changing the ships value. Twice as fast is probably too much, but you get the idea. Don't change the value of the ships and technologies. Change how fast the game is played around these values. - Floodings: Since the latest big alpha patch I noticed that flooding are really frequents/dangerous and not only after torpedo hits. I already stated that I found large caliber HE shells able to reliably flood the lightly protected compartiments of a ship. Now with the improved smol gun accuracy I'm confident to say that they cause flooding pretty frequently too (at closer ranges). On bigger warships these can lead to catastrophic events. Overall I like it, ships are now more frequently sunk by floodings and less by just throwing enough shell at them as to reduce their structure integrity to zero. - Range shell selection rules: HE still seems the way to go at longer ranges on BB's. AP is used at short range or against cruisers/BC. I'm nowhere near being an expert in this area but it just feels a bit wrong and too "gamey" for my taste. The fact that the IA use AP most of the time even at longer range doesn't help either, staying at 10+ km (depending on technology) and raining HE is a safe and pretty reliable way of winning a BB engagement. When we get crew values, HE could be even more valuable if fires have an impact on them. - AI behavior: This is a common trend after the last patch. The AI just give up with some/all of his ship and sail away. Stern chase are not really exciting, even if I welcome the fact that at least we have an IA that react if it think it can't win an engagement. Ships falling back into formation when they can't keep up with it's speed are a problem. When this happen they need to be babysitted as to not expose themselves further and as to not expose the rest of your fleet. Ships on collision course generaly can't avoid it (I'm fine with that). What bother me is that after the collision they are stuck in a long loop of course changes, often in the same direction. This usually slow down the rest of the formation to a crawl and lead to a pathfinding nightmare. Ship designer like pulling destroyers with below 30knots speed, even in late game technologies. They often can't keep up with human designed capital ships.

Some initial thoughts: - Still not convinced about how ships fall back into the back of a formation when their speed is reduced. If not babysitted, they just make a long U turn, exposing themselves even more. I had one instance where a bleeding lady tried to fall back, sailing right into the way of spotted torpedoes. Note that all of this can be avoided with micromanagement. - HE shells still feel more reliable at mid and long ranges, I might need more games before being absolutely certain. They punch through the soft parts, start fire, flooding, can break guns, ect. I mostly played with high end technologies, but some 1910+ battles gave me the same feeling. - Still not seeing any use with low caliber secondary guns (other than being pretty). DD's still have issue hitting/damaging things with other things than torpedoes. Am I missing something here? - Torpedo protection/counterflooding is pretty strong overall. While damages are okayish, flooding seems to be easily fixed on bigger ships, even after multiple hits. - Torpedo warning is a very nice addition and custom battle are welcome.

Wargame: Red Dragon naval combat is awful and refered as a joke in pretty much every serious discussions. Don't get me wrong, the game itself is amazing. But its naval component is good only for his addition of amphibious units. The recent CMO: for Command Modern Operation (or his older version CMANO: Command Modern Air/Naval Operation) is a much better depiction of modern naval operation. A word of warning, its also fairly complex and expensive. Finally I agree with the comments above. Modern naval combat are just long range missiles strike from other ships, submarines or planes with occasional short burst of cannons for self defense. Significant adjustement needs to be made if you want something close to that in UA:D.

I'm curious to see how weight will be balanced with an all forward armament ship depending on its hull and caliber. It sure look pretty damn sexy though.

There is so much wrong things in this: First: Modern gaming IS following the trend of "everyone needs a trophy". Todays multiplayer games are the epithome of daily rewards without efforts and the "everyone's welcome" motto. I know how it works and this is one of the first reason I'm reluctant when someone wants multiplayer in a solo game who was first sold as a solo game. Thanks for pointing this out but my opinion will not change about it. Second: Your perception of Midway is a bit old fashioned. The US navy wasn't outdated and arguably outskilled. Like some writer in an interesting book about the subject said "The US wanted the win more than Japan did" (Shattered Sword, it's pretty good) It is an accepted knowledge that Japan went into battle with low intel, incomplete air groups and overly complex battle plan (Overconfidence and rigid commanders mind, too). Against a US navy with better intel, heavily fortifed islands and daring commanders. There was strokes of luck on both sides and in the end the US won by a pretty large margin. This wasn't a miracle in my opinion. It is also probable that Japan was already starting to show some cracks, with or without a defeat at Midway. Its industry and manpower couldn't replace the losses in time. Taking the island of Midway was a strategic mistake because there was no way of supporting it against the near Hawaï. And of course the US industry was well on it's way to severly ramp up its production in quantity and quality. Third: I don't understand what you are refering to with game balance. In a competitive multiplayer environnement, balance IS important. Otherwise there is nothing competitive about it. On the other hand, solo game doesn't need the same balance. They need to be fun and challenging to play against an AI or a puzzle/situation. This point you are right, for now the naval academy of UA:D lacks challenge and some of them are redundant. But I insist, there is a better way of making it than dreaming the perfect persistent multiplayer game as an alternative. I don't know how you want to realisticly make the two components coexist in this game, with the already mentioned small development team. Once again: Your topic title is a troll bait, change it if you can. Your way of saying things isn't better because despite your claims it wasn't at all positive (Like the "multiplayer or bust" or "AI stompers attitude" "Triggered".. These sort of things). Perhaps I misunderstood your point in the first place, but the more you encroach yourself in it, the more I'm pretty sure I was right to lash at your ideas in the first place. If you spent 50 brouzoufs on a niche game and expected these niche gamers to listen to your modern view of persistent multiplayer gaming experience(tm), you are delusional and clearly approaching these gamers with an awful choice of words. If you have another personal attack to throw please do so in private. There is no need to further pollute your topic with them if some people still wants to discuss the way you see how UA:D should be developped.

The other alternative before saying that some type of vessel is underpowered is seeing her in the campaign environnement. We don't really know how fleets will be used/formed, do we? If my DD's are able to screen my Battleboats in an engagement, they are useful. If they can protect some convoy against submarines without sinking by the dozen, they are useful. I agree they are weak (as all low tonnage ships should be) in the naval academy environnement because they are often pitted against ships way stronger, in total contradiction with their actual roles in naval warfare. Even if your post is a bit long, I agree with you RAMJB. Don't take WoWs as an exemple and don't forget the cost of each ships, there is a reason DD's were the most numerous and active ships in major navies. Sure I would be happy if sometimes one of my tincan fight like a battleship against overwhelming odds, but let it be an exception.

You can't run a multiplayer game like the one you described with a small development team. You can't develop it in a reasonable timeframe, you can't run it, you can't pay for it's servers. It's impossible. Pulling awesome sales numbers like a random Epic store salesman will not give you any more credibility. I'd also argue about the "fun" of said multiplayer. Actually the game is just putting your battle line on course, refreshing smoke screens when needed and sometime turn to avoid some probable torpedoes. Finaly wait for your big guns to sink the enemy while in maximum game speed. How do you plan to balance the "bigger is always better" of these years? What about players who want to play in a certain time period in your "persistent multiplayer environment?" without splitting the playerbase? What about technologies between players? What about the obligatory balance issues when something is so strong everyone starts to use it and it ruins the fun? How do you plan to make a convoy defence fun for the poor sod with 10 slow ass transports and five destroyers against a cruiser division? Your topic title is a troll. You are not here to discuss anything, just to throw your "brilliant ideas" at the face of the few idiots (like myself) willing to read them and hoping for some recognition don't act all surprised now. Get on with it.

Hell no. She sure fired a lots of shells. Probably some torpedoes and probably hit Chokai with them. But she surely didn't sink 2 freakin heavy cruisers with 127mm gunfire alone. There was TBD in the air and other destroyers fired torpedoes as well. In what world did Sammy B. score two kills with gunfire alone?

You are either pretty rude or delusional for the most part of your "brilliant ideas". The only salvageable part lies in your "minor stuffs". I like the ideas of adding colour schemes. The rest as already been suggested (or is being worked on) in the dedicated topics. I rate it low effort/10

Number matters. Just strip the armor/engine of your ships, use only the biggest main guns with the best radar/director and build as many as you can. Stay at range, fire HE and enjoy your pretty easy victory (You'll probably need one or two trys if the insane enemy accuracy ammorack too much of your gun platforms) As for the "biased" rng, I think it's a bit too soon to tell. It's just rng after all. With only two or three "tests" you can't really tell something when there is so many thing that depends on chance in these kind of encounter. I trust the dev for this one and never noticed something out of the ordinary, but if you want to prove them wrong come back with more data.

We can shun off 1940+ because the scope of this game is 1895-1930. It's not the presence of one or two puzzle with a yamato hull that suddenly make Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnought becoming Ultimate Admiral:WW2. The vast majority of the missions and probably the campaign will be focused on surface engagement without planes, for now. Let's not forget the scope of this game, it's scale and overall feasability with an engine like unity. It would be utter madness to inject a whole new dimension and scale of warfare in a game who still have a tendency to crash with 8km engagement. We don't even know how the strategic map in the campaign will work. Like all people with at least an ounce of reason in those topics: Make the dreadnought game work before asking for a vastly different game with carriers/planes. Stop "wanting" things when the basics of a naval wargame are barely here. I don't want 300km+ engagement range without a working minimap. I don't want carriers when my freakin' DD's are not even able to sail properly in formations. I don't want floatplanes when my secondaries are not able to hit a thing past 1.5km. I don't want naval aviation when game balance is not even in question at this stage of development. And finally I don't want some poor abstraction of carrier/air warfare. Make them work like true carriers/planes or don't make them at all. Make poll, show interest in the class/type of warfare you want. Make suggestion, ect. But I don't see the point of blaming the other asses about something not in the game when we are barely three patch in. There, is your blood pressure okay?

I should have been more precise, I agree. "According to the poll on the CV topic, the majority of the people reading the forum wants CV's/plane." However: There is not that much RTS games with pretty realistic naval battle and aviation. I know the recent Victory at sea, they are pretty arcade and the second one is.. Not that good. Pacific Storm is another attemps with nice ideas and a poor execution, it need some extensive modding before starting to be enjoyable. Rule the waves 2 (my personnal favorite) does this in a simple yet elegant way, even if the graphics are.. Well. I found it a good (and fun) depiction of aviation in a naval environment. I would like to know if I missed some, I mostly looked "recent" titles and my searches never really showed anything more. The others naval RTS I know doesn't include aviation. And after that there are plethora of turn based wargames, or strange hybrids like battlestation but they are not the subject of UA:D (an RTS) In the end we both agree on one point. "Yes, but not now."

I'm not sure there is any "hate on CV's or planes". The CV topic show that at least those reading the forums want them. However there is probably some concerns about "how" will they work in the game environnement. For now we are fighting with wonky pathfinding, busted armor resulting in underwhelmind AP shells, weak low caliber guns and so on. The "dreadnought" game does not work that well (even if its pretty, promising and obviously only in alpha) In my opinion I need a more fleshed out UI and an early version of the campaign playable before "wanting or not" the whole aviation thing. For exemple: If there is no minimap in game, there is no way we can play with planes and carriers. If we can't organise our TF's and their engagement range (or scouting actions) on the strategic map, there is no way carriers will ever work, too. And what about AA screens, or pickets DD's for early plane spotting? And after that how do we make land based aviation then? Fighting against them could be "easy enough" to do (just waves of planes, after all). But what about retaliation? Without some way of fighting an airbase on land (worst if it's INland), I don't see how we could knock them out. Certainly not with carriers, as we all know it was temporary at best, inefficient most of the time. As a comparison, fighting in the mediteranean sea in the first versions of Rule the waves 2 was an absolute nightmare past 1940+. Waves and waves after waves of shitty land based aircraft from both sides and everywhere in any conflict with a major presence in the area. Night battles and bad weather where a blessing for all of your remaining non-AA heavy surface ships. Sure it could be cool to have planes, seaplanes, CV's, CAV/BBV, airbases and the more respectable AV too, it's an important step in naval warfare. But if Rule the waves 2 needed another game to make them work. I'm pretty sure UA:D will need the same, it's a whole different beast, from a technical and gameplay perspective. I can wait, boats firing at each others with a strategic layer is good enough if its done well.

I think it would be a good time to stop this mess of biased misinformation and go back on the topic of "do we want carriers into UA:D" (Nagato sunk by US DD's after Baker? Yorcktown "easily" sunk? Really?) It's fine to downplay a little the importance of CV's and pointing their weaknesses. Doing it while omitting (once again) the main purpose of the CV (once again, projection of air power when the nation using it can't use airbases in the area. Not some kind of famed BB's only hunter killer) start to bother me, it fails to point the absolute necessity of carriers in the environment they where used the most, not only for sinking ships at sea, but also in ports. Or to scout them. Or to protect the fleet with CAP, or to transfer planes to airbases on island. It bother me even more when the so called arguments strategically omit the weaknesses of the other classes fighting against them (Do we need to talk about thoses powerfull battleboats taken out in one mine/torpedo/stray shell?) I know internet is not really a place about exchanging unbiased point of view. But at least do it in private or in a dedicated topic. I don't want carriers in UA:D for now. Make the base dreadnought game work first.

Yes, surely trading an expensive "water grave" armed with planes for another expensive "water grave" armed with missiles is the way to go in a period where the loss of one life is a tragedy. Carriers are vulnerable, as all ships are today and before. No one is arguing against that. Back in WW2 carriers needed extensive AA and ASW escorts for protection. Today they need better anti-missiles/torpedoes systems or "stealth" technology. However I don't see what make them more obsolote than some random missile DD escorting him. Their relative weakness is compensated by other fleet element and strategic positioning in the area of operation. Carriers are not "the" fleet, they are a part of it, important or not depending on the situation. They are designed as an asset able to extend the range of an air force who can't afford land base in an area for various reasons (hence their extensive use in the pacific in ww2). They are more versatile than any other ships because planes/helicopters/drones (unlike missiles) can fulfill a broader variety of roles and .. Be armed with missiles (yay). As long as there is a puddle of water between two country (and planes fuel can't afford them to make a round earth trip), carriers or their derivative form will exists. Be it drones, submarines or whatever progress may throw at us. I don't see BB's coming back from their graves as glorified missile plate-formes. In our times where we want our weapons able to do a lots of things, these seems.. Limited in scope and utility when a bunch of missiles DD can perform the same job and cover more water.

Mission I like the most: Pre dreadnought conflict: the concept of a "real" fleet battle is good. Pathfinding is wonky, small guns can't damage sh*t. But all the ingredients for what I want in the campaign are there. Overpriced lump of metal firing at each other, with tin cans zooming between them, laying smoke and zoning out the enemy with torpedoes. Destroyer vs Torpedo Boat is a fun concept too. Things like TB thoughness and (once again) small gun damage needs to be adressed at some point, but I like it. Missions I dislike: All the "puzzle" like things that make you design dumb things for equally dumb objectives. I understand these naval academy are designed as individual missions with no intention to resemble the campaign but I have the feeling they focus too much on a single gimmick and less on what "could" be a naval engagement with limited assets at the player disposal. Like "torpedo the dreadnought" where you're basically forced to design long range stealth torpedo destroyers if you want to reliably hit the enemy, money and tech rulling out all other options. "The modern battleship" and all the other BB's duels are designed around dragged out and slow long range battle where you strip all secondary guns for more main armaments, the only thing changing between missions is the actual range of the guns. Special rewards for those who allow the creation of moving board of steel with no armor and only guns with directors. Don't get me wrong, It's fun in a way, I'm not entirely a fan seeing these solutions be some of the most efficient way to "win" though. It feel limited and well.. Far away from what a "naval academy" would teach. What I would like to see more: Fleet/squadron battles with various composition. More fund/equal technology to the opposing faction, basically offer the player the opportunity to have fun with an actual naval battle, not with designing the most cheesiest design just for winning the next puzzle. I'm also fine with less missions if all of them offer something different than "Use a XX with slightly more range and sink a XX with slightly more firepower" The way I see naval academy is an extensive tutorial and showcase of what the player can see when he dive into the campaign. I'm not entirely sold with these puzzle like missions. Ex: Crossing/Getting crossed the T with an enemy: get the better out of that kind of engagement with some BB's you designed and a screening DD/CL squadron. Bonus point if you allow the use of Nelson/Richelieu hull in these one. DD knife fight: using modern destroyer design, fight your way through an equally competent enemy screen while some Big Boys are hurling explosive umbrellas at each others from across the map. Bonus point if you can land some fishes on the enemy Big Boys before the timer end.

Done with 5 steel board with 3*3 18inches, radars, fire directors, and not really much else. HE spam from start to finish. Lost one board to an ammo detonation, nothing really happened after that. I don't think the player is outgunned and outperformed. "The modern battleship" mission is harder because sometimes you need to avoid torpedoes. I'm pretty sure it's the same model as the Yamato hull from the modern battleship. Only with different displacement.

I too find concerning to see a nerf of small guns (main and secondaries) while there is already report of them being inacurate and too weak damage wise. They look good but cost money and weight. Why invest in something like that when I can put another triple 18inch turret in the modern battleship scenario for example, they hit DD's far more often than the constant shower of fire of secondary guns.

Rule the waves needed another game to make carriers (and planes) works. The first game was already great without them and without spotter planes either. I think adding carriers need more thought than an abstract layer like submarines. Carriers operations are really interesting and can translate well in an RTS, unlike submarines. It would be a shame to make them work behind the scene (while still needing significant AA bubbles as an escort) I'm perfectly fine with UA:D ditching carriers for a more dreadnought focused approach. It's better to make one thing work well first.

The "admiral" mode of Rule the waves without the ability to see what is going on somewhere else on the map? While this "could" be manageable and somewhat fun in smaller engagement, I fail to see the point of even an option like that in a larger and longer battle. Realisticaly speaking, admiral and captains were not just looking at the vastness of the ocean before ordering a turn or firing their main battery. They had maps, radio, binoculars, friendlies using flags or morse, later they used radar and now satellite. More importantly they had experience and training in all of this. The game is abstracting all of it with a bird eye view of the situation and RTS controls, it's easy to understand and the end result is fonctional. Locking the camera to one single element will just force the player to painfully "guess" (while fighting the camera angles and why not his flagship smoke, for added realism) some basic things like the course of his own ships. But "what if" they add a map and "what if" you can use said map to give orders (or just have a basic understanding of what is going on) Well this will just change where the player will see basic informations about the battle and render the locked camera option pointless in the long run. In my opinion you are asking for a different game. There is so much basic QoL needed to make an option like that work, without just being tedious. You can't just disable some critical RTS element and call it a feature for "realism" (which is not, trust me). You're just taking this critical gameplay element away from the player without adding something to play with in a video-game. Even as "just" an option this will need significant changes to the core gameplay to be usable and enjoyable. For the sake of argument, this "could" work with some basic wasd control for the flasgship. Detailed/incomplete report of your fleet behavior when you (the player) ask for it when targeting the lead of other squadrons, using radio/signals. A map where you (the player) move some tokens representing your ships or the enemy, with why not some radar screen when they are developped later.. These are just exemple of what the game could be if it was not designed as an RTS. I would love playing that, but for UA:D I'm fine with a classic RTS control scheme and all of these features abstracted.

Balanced tech is the way to go. With it you can use Turbines and Krupp armor II. This significantly save hull weight and it's still possible to use 20inch electric torpedoes.

Torpedo the dreadnought is (for now) dependent on luck. Luck landing enough long range torpedoes the first time, and damaging engines/rudder. Luck not being instagibbed in your smokescreen while closing in (If the enemy has 2-3% chance of hit, it can still happen and one large caliber hit is usually enough to take out a DD). Luck having an opponent kind enough to not just angle away when sufficienty damaged and finaly luck flooding the dreadnought enough to sink it without running out of explosive fish. While definitively doable with the last hotfix, I have yet to figure a consistant way of finishing this particular scenario.

Hi there, Some observations having played a few hours, mostly about combat stuff. Lots of "buts" and I hope, in a readable engrish. - Ship armor is kind of busted. In most of the later scenarios it's easy to design any kind of dreadnought wich is practically immune to large caliber gun penetration on the belt or deck as long as you stay at a respectable range. On the other hand, armor scheme of light cruisers or battlecruiser doesn't allow this. While kind of realistic, this just means that (Like in Rule the waves, already cited in some topics) these type of ships are nearly useless if they are not used in some very specific cases. Armored cruiser/Heavy cruiser can tank shells to some extent (I have seen an IA design to be surprisingly resilient) but as of now it's always better to mount the biggest gun possible with the best belt/deck turret and extended armor (with all compartiment, double/triple bottom, barbettes and citadel armor, too). This doesn't mean you have created an invincible death machine, as I will explain in my second point. - AP ammos are... not that good. With gunnery duels happening at ranges further than 20km in the modern battleship scenario, AP shells are just an unreliable waste of reload (not even 20% of penetration chances) Continuing with the exemple of this specific scenario, I designed a monstrosity with twelve 18 inch guns divided in four triple turrets, with an armor scheme able to withstand its own shells at range, yadayada you know the thing. The ultimate aircraft carrier magnet. It was all alone against the enemy fleet, and after the first two salvoes it only fired HE at the opposing side. The amount of penetrating hit with HE was off the chart even against the larger ships, it was only one test with the 18 inches and I don't know if it was the opposing ship armor design lacking in some way but the damage at range was consistent. On another test, the pre-dreadnoughts battle against two dreadnoughts was a similar experience: after designing a bunch (eight to be precise) of floating gun platforms with okay-ish armor design, my battle plan was to stay at the most efficient range and just rain some HE at the two approaching ships. Needless to say It did not go well for them. Even with relatively low caliber guns (ten inches) once again these kind of ammunitions is enough to wreck anything, regardless of the range. The IA understands this as well and uses mostly this type of ammunitions when engaging targets. This is probably reacting to my tendancy to create heavily armored warships. Battles break down to raging barbecues parties where teams try to cook the opponents ships faster than his is grilled down. Now let's speak of calibers. - Guns calibers of two to eight (arguably nine) seem inefficient. This is probably due to the nature of most of the naval academy encounters, but I found myself willing to ditch some guns for more torpedoes on destroyers, or to take something bigger than cruisers for a mission even at the risk of being severely outnumbered. AP ammo once again have a tendency to bounce, even against lightly armored target and this time HE shells deal really light damages in most occasions. The worst offender comes from the secondary guns. Their accuracy is dreadful and if you add the low damage output, you're starting to wonder if they were ever worth taking in the first place (their constant firing looks pretty good, on the other hand). In the modern battleship scenario, my salvoes of more than nine six inch in triple turret was barely enough to damage the engine of an approaching destroyer. Their chances to start fires is pretty good (that is if they hit something) but I'm not sure of the efficiency of said fires as of now. - Torpedoes and torpedo boats/destroyers are underwhelming in a number of ways. These as already been written here, but torpedo damage are too low, wether it's due to their stats (while taking the biggest size available, mind you) or the ship armor, I do not really know. The few scenarios where destroyers/torpedo boats are available to the player are not that well balanced, the opposing forces have always something that outguns (obviously) and still "can" outmaneuver your nimble ships. I found very hard to design a destroyer that can reach decent speed, carry enough torpedoes AND can be built in decent numbers to overrun the enemy. In all cases, this is done by ditching all but one two inch gun, low ammo count, light shells and sometimes even less torpedoes. On a final note, the standard and fast torpedoes types are easily detected and avoided, because once again the opposing ship design can turn on a dim. Electric torpedoes fare better, with the already mentioned low damage.