WafflesToo

I don't think you can consider what the USN did to Yamato and Musashi as a proper test of their TDS arrangement (god I hope I don't have to start hearing, "It took twenty torpedoes to sink the Yamato!!!" drivel start up again... just because she was shot that many times doesn't mean that all of them were required to put them down).

Hitting 'Start Mission'? 😁 I don't know how Accipiter managed because I've had the BB focus-fire on my CLs multiple times now. Trying to torpedo the thing has been a suicide run every time I've tried it.

"Naval Strategy is Build Strategy"

At what point did I say otherwise? My argument wasn't that they should be on-par-with my argument was that they still had a role to play outside of the large fleet actions

An operation the size of Jutland only happened once; but a whole lot of smaller operations took place throughout the war period (mostly involving cruisers, as the battleships were largely tied up making faces at one another across the north sea)

If true, then that would explain a LOT of what we're witnessing right now. URGH! If we only had access to a true, "Sandbox" mission where we control force composition on both sides it would be so easy to test for this phenomenon instead of just guessing. Hopefully we get that in a future update.

...not to mention getting better information on game balance and mechanics which will help with quality feedback!

This is why I giggle whenever I hear anyone talk about how "Realistic" WoWS is; (sorry, I grew up playing the, "Great Naval Battles" series; yes, all five of them. Fun, but doesn't hold a candle to those old games for realism). Back on subject; as Steeltrap pointed out, we might be judging the forest by the look of a tree. Battleships are likely going to dominate tactically but there's going to be lots of jobs for cruisers and destroyers to do both strategically and operationally. Light and Heavy cruisers will be needed for commerce-raiding and protection missions, as well as to maintain your national presence on foreign holdings. Destroyers and other small craft are ideal for coastal patrols and ASW work, tactically as screening ships to help protect your mission units by for spotting (and occasionally absorbing) torpedo attacks. All of the light craft will be good for operational scouting to locate and shadow hostiles so you can get your battlefleet in position. Battleships are too expensive, take too long to build, and cost too much to operate to expect them to be capable of doing everything and being everywhere. ...of course, all of this gets thrown out the window if the dev-team decide to make this "Masters of Orion: High-Seas edition". If that happens then I can accurately predict two things: #1) The game strategy will be dominated by doom-fleets. #2) I will sorely regret having preordered the game.

Is it just me or does just about every aspect of this game feel simultaneously over-powered and under-powered? Except armor... which is vastly over-performing... mostly... except against HE. Torpedoes are way too easy to use and hit with... but do way too little damage (Especially to turn-of-the-century hulls) when they do hit (there is no way that any warship can eat 12x 22" torps on a regular basis) Fires are way too easy to start... but don't really seem to do much to affect the ship (until every single compartment is burning of course; when the ship sudden-deaths). Torpedo boats are the scourge of the seven seas; being simultaneously difficult to hit (fair enough, I suppose) and able to absorb damage out-of-proportion to their displacement (though this may have more to do with goofy victory conditions than anything really inherently wrong with them, I'm just not sure). Spotting ranges are way too close (why do I keep losing sight of a burning transport ship at 5.5km in clear weather?) AP shells keep bouncing/shattering doing minimal (if any) damage; HE does MORE (and more consistent) damage in all cases that I've personally witnessed. (For example; in the scenario, "Armed Convoy" the hostile CA kept bouncing 12" AP shells at a range of 5.4km, switched to HE and within 3 salvos I detonated their magazine). Did I miss anything?

I will honestly be satisfied if this game turns out to be nothing more than a Rule-the-Waves clone that is less eye-bleedie to look at.

I'd be happy to see coasts; let alone forts on them 😁

Its not? What is it supposed to be then?

This is very much true I'd say. Battle of Jutland, Adm Scheer got Adm Jellicoe to pull his battleships back just by moving his TBs into position to threaten the Grand Fleet causing them to turn away and deploy their destroyers allowing the High Seas fleet to retire from action. Even if they're one-hit-wonders, their torpedoes should still be dangerous enough that you have to be ready for them; destroyers and CLs to defend your heavy assets (which was supposedly the point of DD v TB mission... they just borked up their victory conditions making the TBs the focus instead of the battleships and armored cruisers.

I've been assuming that a structural kill is exactly this. It seems more reasonable to me than simply taking for granted that the ship's hull breaks up into kindling when that last critical hitpoint is gone.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *AHEM*, sorry not laughing at you I'mmmm... well, okay, I'm laughing at you The victory conditions on this mission are as borked as DD v TB; the escorts simply should not be part of the victory conditions IMNSHO.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I only know of one capital ship in all of history that was actually destroyed by a non-flash fire reaching the magazine and that was USS Maine. On every other instance that I know of the magazine was flooded once it started being threatened by fire. This of course would still have the effect of disabling the gun serviced by that magazine of course.

I'm gonna have to side with Lobokai here; fires should not sink ships, fires should disable, damage, and destroy equipment in ships through various effects (a flooded magazine is kind of useless for the gun it services). I can only think of two ships that were nearly sunk solely by fire (or rather, by the copious amounts of water being pumped onboard fighting those fires); USS Forestall and USS Franklin. What happened to the SMS Seydlitz looks to be more the exception than the rule for turn-of-the-century capital ships; and even then she weathered it and lived to fight another day.

I'd rather see TBs take more damage from hits rather than be easier to hit. Their only real defense should be avoiding getting hit. That they can withstand multiple hits from 4", 5", and even 6" weaponry feels really far off the mark for me.

Just glancing over the records, it looks like the vast majority were lost to torpedos / mines and capsizing from flooding. Magazine explosions come in second. Fire should still be a factor though; just not a fatal one. There are more than a few instances where crews were forced away from their stations by fire (or more accurately; smoke from the fire).

I think the issue isn't so much as, "you can't hit the bloody things" as, "there isn't enough effect on target when you do hit them". A hit from a 4" or 5" gun should pretty much ruin a 400-tonner's day; not mildly inconvenience them. ...by comparison: This is a 400 ton ship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valiant-class_harbor_tug and this is a 5" gun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M109_howitzer (admittedly, a modern one but still).

Ok, maybe not, "Most Hated" but I've still got a bunch of problems with the mission. So far, on every attempt I start off well inside his effective gun range and outside of my own with my cruisers out of position to even lay covering smoke. Hell, on two attempts I've had my towers destroyed before my turrets even rotate far enough to return fire (once), or get off more than ranging shots (the second time) Third attempt I crippled the bastard but one of the two CLs ran off to the moon and the mission timed out. So, critically speaking, here are my problems with the scenario balance. 1) You have even numbers going into the fight (and given the VC you'd BETTER have even numbers since you game over if even a portion of your heavy force is lost) 2) OPFOR has a significant tech advantage over BLUE (both light and heavy units; if the relative speeds of your escorting units are anything to judge by) 3) Victory conditions are lopsided favoring the OPFOR (they only need to defeat a single heavy unit; even if you brought more than one, you need to sink their entire force) 4) Start conditions arguably favor the OPFOR (although I suppose I should be grateful not to have to weather their long-range fire to get even that close). 5) That BBIII hull... oh god that BBIII hull. Can't effectively mount larger than 11" guns (I have heard of a cheat to get the 13" guns on though), can't mount tower III if you still want a front turret, nearly impossible to balance (I've always ended up with a serious aft-bias no matter what I've done). The CA hull is okay though.

I have a new, "MOST HATED MISSION" It's not just the funds, the hull you're saddled with can't make use of the funds you do get. It can't mount 13" guns (even though they're technically an option). It can't mount "Tower III" (even though it is likewise offered) unless you want to forgo having a forward gun turret. You literally have to take an inferior force up against a superior one. Couple this with being teleported into action well within range of the enemy battleship at time+0 so you don't even have time to organize your CLs into a screening force to try and close the range under smoke. Every time I've tried this mission my flagship suffers serious damage within 60-seconds of starting; long before anything I try can influence the course of the battle.

I'm with you, as a ship's health deteriorates it should become more-and-more vulnerable to critical hits and critical damage; fires should be harder to contain and put out, flooding should be harder to control, etc until something finishes her off. This, "Critical Hitpoint" system just doesn't feel right to me.

Devs are on-record as saying, "Not ever going to happen"

Pretty much THIS. In a campaign setting if I had a BB caught out by a force of PTs / E-boats I'd be happy with survival; I really don't care if I sink any or not. Winning this mission pretty much requires me to play the Battleship WAY more aggressively than I otherwise would in this situation. The all-or-nothing victory conditions kind of bother me in some of these scenarios. The victory conditions in Destroyers vs Torpedo Boats is really broken. A more realistic condition would revolved around the BB vs CA conflict with the DD vs PT conflict being in support of that; maybe changing the conditions to "'Destroy both CAs' and 'The Battleship must survive'" would be more realistic. My favorite scenario is either 'Armed Convoy Attack' or 'Destroyer Convoy Attack' since both require creative thinking and realistic sailing in order to accomplish.