Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Accipiter

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

About Accipiter

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman
  1. i don't know if anyone has encountered this, but there definitely seems to be some kind of weird issue going on with very large calibre (i used 18inch) HE shells during plunging fire at long range: sometimes they do Super-Mega damage for no obvious reason, nuking many compartiments (often the entire Bow or Stern especially) in a single hit, about 40% worth of structure damage, and causing fire+flooding in those compartiments. overall it even looks like a detonation but i checked the damage log and it didn't register any detonation. it's really strange and it doesn't look intended. in one instance i've nuked from 100% to less than 20% structure an enemy BB of about 48000 Tons in a SINGLE 18 Inch HE salvo from close to 30km away... no detonation, i checked.
  2. yeah i agree 100% that ship size is ridiculous especially in the way it scales, and totally needs to be reworked. a ship with 1920 tech and old towers should NEVER have 2X higher hit chances at long range than a modern BB let alone a modern BB with radar. target speed penality as a whole is F***ed and should be removed entirely in my opinion anyway. like, from a realistic point of view, as long as a target ship sails in straight line at a constant speed, it doesn't matter if that constant speed is 5kts or 45kts, it won't hardly (if at all) make any difference in how long it takes to calculate a good firing solution and how hard it is to hit it. it is variations of speed (and/or course) that should give a targeting penality by reducing the lock/on of the weapons to like 50% locked on (not back all the way to zero obviously, and more or less depending how big was the change in speed and course), and then you go back to locked-on over time, until they maneuvre or change speed again obviously. i know this is already implemented in the game but it should have a much, much bigger impact.
  3. yeah don't worry it's clear now. i was the one being dumb. for hit chances alone though, i think the only issue i can see with your method is that it does not account for hull width (beam) which can be important especially at longer ranges where the fire is more plunging, a broadside ship around 10 metres wide (like a big DD) or around 30 metres wide (most BB) whould make a big difference in hit chances then.
  4. ^that is a good point and i realize now i was kind confusing target signature and surface visibility. all of the points i've made still stants mind you, but just for surface visibility. so as for target signature, if i get this straight this is basically the "target size modifier" value we have on the accuracy window while in battle? in that case that should only be affected (imo) by, like, 70% Hull, 20% Superstructure and 10% Main turrets number, size and placement.
  5. ^with that said i still agree that the citadel mechanic needs to be reworked to actually let you change and fine-tune the position of armor on your ship. having a bit more freedom on that would be very good. rather than giving a reduction to detonation/engine damage chance when you get penetrated, which isn't really what the citadel does, citadel type is just the armor scheme philosophy. internal layout of the ship, bulkhead armor, quick-flooding system for magazine rooms, ect... those are the kind of things that whould lower the chance of detonation/engine damage when citadel penetrated.
  6. by the way just as a heads up, in real life too, All or Nothing was merely a design philosophy and a guideline, it does not mean LITERALLY no armor whatsoever outside the citadel and turrets/barbetts. it just means maximum armor possible to vital parts, while reducing to the reasonable bare minumum (but rarely to nothing) other armor. in most places a few mm of armor to act as anti-splinter and anti-HE was kept. and in addition, there is almost always a decent amount of casemate armor for the upper decks, plus some rather heavy armor on some crucial parts outside the citadel too, like, often, the rudder steering compartiment, and the main battery director towers. especially the americans which often used very high quality and expensive STS steel (which is armor, by the way) as the Structural steel as well on all of their ships (!) from WW1 onwards. so effectively all of their ships had a minimum of 5-15mm or so of armor absolutely everywhere, which helps a lot already vs HE and splinters. but all nations still added armor in various places outside of the citadel and had some "skin armor" across the hull too, to an extent. so if you did a literal all or nothing design in game, with zero armor on most of the ship, it's not a problem in my view that it sucks and has crippling vulnerability all over the hull. it was a known danger irl and was basically never done on any real ships either. Nelson Class was probably the closest BB to literally no armor at all outside the citadel (as far as i know), and that sucked. the lack of armor and light superstructure meant they always caused serious damage to their own hulls from just the muzzle blast of their own guns (sometimes even rupturing electric and hydraulic lines in their bow section when firing many broadsides in a row.) let alone what whould have happened to them if they had ever actually been shot at in combat... see for yourself: Iowa class: all or nothing? Yes. but...note the long citadel tail-end extension to cover the whole steering gear machinery, the 38mm of weatherdeck armor all along the ship, 13-16mm of armor on all the lower compartiments in the bow, 25mm casemate armor, 38mm fire control tower armor, ect ect... Littorio class: all or nothing? yes. but... notice the 2 armored deck extensions in the bow in front of the 1st turret, and in the stern above the citadel, 70mm casemate armor, long rear citadel extension to cover the steering gears. 45 mm deck armor on the casemate between turrets 2 and 3, ect ect... Yamato class: all or nothing? yes. but... notice the 35-50mm weatherdeck armor. mutiple small armored compartiments at the rear for the steering room and damage control centre. 50mm armor on the funnel, ect ect...
  7. this is interesting and obviously a big oversight by the devs. all main battery ammo in addition to the machinery should always be counted as being inside the spaces protected by the main belt and main deck as this is the entire point (not just of all or nothing, but of any modern ship armor scheme using a belt and an armored deck in general). the "Conning Tower" armor slider is not the entire superstructure but just the small armored conning tower that is inside of it (google it for pictures: "armored conning tower"): basically it's a VERY heavily armored narrow tower (typically just a few metres wide) that goes trough the front superstructure of the ship and acts as a refuge for spotters and officers in case of battle. in some case it goes all the way down into the citadel with stairs inside it, in some other cases, it just "sits" on top of the weatherdeck without a direct connection to the citadel. in game, all the conning tower armor does (i believe) is it reduce the chances of getting the "captain/officer disabled" critical hit on your ship in case of hits to your superstructure.
  8. +1 i like this a lot. but this whould need to be tempered with other factors though, because if we just did Line of Sight like you propose, all the secondary turrets and other things whould make basically no difference in target signature... while in real life they make the ship more recognizable. "target signature" in game is (at least in my mind) not only the ability to see a ship but also how immediately recognizable it is, as opposed to any other warship. which in turn is important for targetting and judging distance better, ect... exemple: "this distant silhouette looks like it has big guns... but is this a heavy cruiser at 10 km or a BB at 20km...?" so for exemple a ship with 1 turret forward 1 aft and a superstructure in the middle, compared to the same ship but with both turret forward and the superstructure at the rear of the hull. both of those ships whould have exactly the same signature in your system, but logically speaking, the 2nd one should be much more unique and recognizable even as just a silhouette from far away. because All-forward turrets ships are much more uncommon globally, ect... other considerations beyond just the angle of apsect: -target signature could increase if the the ship is on fire -target signature could increase if the ship has fired recently (particularily main battery big guns for BB, which makes huge clouds of smoke that fly high and persist a long time after firing) -target signature could increase in case of funnel damage and/or low funnel efficiency ship (lower efficiency= more opaque smoke and more of it, since it's not properly dissipated) -target signature could change depending on fuel type (much more for coal, much less for oil)
  9. what do you mean by no damage at all? if they didnt explode at all, they ran out range just before hitting. if they exploded but did nothing, they only hit compartiments that were already red, and already flooded (or the flooding was pumped so fast it remained at 100%).
  10. Do you Like my Ship? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 100% Winrate so far, out of about 5 battles in 1vs5 against enemy BB's. if anything, it's actually more effective and quick than any guns to attack at long range (20km+). even 2 times, the AI used the super BB hulls with close to 100 000 Tons displacement and 12x 18 inch guns each, still sunk all 5, they got all my upper hull compartiments red (about 30% Structure left) but couldnt do anything to my lower hull compartiments. they destroyed most of my torpedo tubes with the HE splash, but i have so many, there will always be more where that came from. try it! it's fun. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
  11. Done. cheche the *Edit* section i added after conclusions in the OP
  12. This is a Followup to this other topic, since the game has been updated, the old one is now obsolete. I have reproduced 2 times the same test as described in the original topic, under the Hotfix patch: 610mm Torpedoes with Oxygen Propulsion and 1940 Tech with Unlock mode: ON , the MOST powerful torpedoes possible in the game. Target was an AI BB with 2 esport CA, the 1st one was based on the Bismark Hull and displaced around 80 000 Tons, on the second test, the BB was just a little under 100 000 Tons displacement, also based on the Bismark Hull. In both tests, the BB Had Maximum Bulkheads. but i have no way to know what Bulkhead armor, Hull Bottom, Pumps, Auxilliary Power Plant, and Torpedo Protection Level the AI chose. Results: The 1st BB (80 000 Tons) was sunk in just about 20 Torpedos, the first 5-7 Torpedo hits almost completely nuked the structure to about 30% (like in the 1st test, after it reached that point structure would not go down further because all compartiments at the bottom of the hull where already red). and it flooded kind of slowly but continually (the flooding was not stopped quickly, unlike in the pre-hotfix test) untill sinking trough flooding. it is hard to tell if less torpedoes than 20 whould have been enough to sink it slowly trough flooding or not. i suspect the AI had not chosen good pumps or Bulkhead armor option, nor good torpedo defence system in this one, because the BB in the 2nd test did not behave the same (read on). The 2nd BB (almost 100 000 Tons) took 31 Torpedoes to sink but even after over 20 Torpedoes hit (the initial volleys) first, his flooding eventually stabilized at around 20%, and the structure was still at 40% or so. the flooding was stabilized and the BB Still going; albeit with 3 out of 3 engines and the rudder damaged. the flooding whould probably have been brought back up a bit trough pumping too, given time. after the next torpedo volley hit (32 Hits total) the flooding was enough to bring the flooding from about 20% down to sinking (rather quickly). i count 31 hits to sink instead of 32 because the last hit happened just seconds before sinking and i do not think it made a difference. structure was still at about 40% when sinking. As for the CA: on the second test, the AI did build 2 modern CA Hulls, the ones based on Admiral Hipper Hull (i think). they had Many bulkheads, and displaced about 17 500 Tons each. both where absolutely nuked and sunk near-instantly by 3 torpedoes hit each. the 1st one had its structure brougt very low (i think it was less than 10%) by the 3 hits, but moreover, started flooding incredibly quickly (some of the fastest flooding i've ever seen in this game) and went down from 100% to 0% Flooding and sunk in less than 10 seconds. the 2nd CA had the 3 torpedoes hit at good spacing all across the hull (one in the middle, one in the bow, one near the stern) and was instantly nuked to 0% Structure, sinking instantly trough structure damage. considering how quickly they sunk, i am pretty sure 2 torpedoes each whould have been enoug to sink them, 1 torpedo hit each whould have at least nearly sunk and crippled them. Conclusion: Much better than Pre-Hotfix. yet the late game BBs still seem overly survivable to torpedoes. bear in mind these are the most powerful torpedoes in the entire game, and it is unlikely the AI fully maxed out all the torpedo protection options; yet one BB was able to survive and stabilize after more than 20 torpedo hits well spread all across the hull! Considering how easily they sunk the big 17 500 tons CA, i don't think the issue is the late game torpedoes being underpowered. i think it's more a case of big late game BB and BC with all the maxed out torpedo defence options stacking with their huge hull resistance stat becomes exponentially too much torpedo-resistant compared to smaller ships (though this is only my guess of course, i'm not sure). *Edit* i have also tried designing the BB myself: 130 000 Tons based on Bismark hull. Maxed out everything relating to hull resistance, torpedo protection and flooding reduction. 0% Weight offset. Diesel 2 engine (because it has more damage resistance). Also, 1000mm main belt and 280mm belt extended (don't think it makes any difference for torpedoes, but i had a bunch of weight leftover so...) result: Test 1: 39 torpedoes to sink. 47% structure remaining. AI was using 22 Inch torpedoes with (i think) fast propulsion, 10059dmg stat per torpedo. Test 2: 43 torpedoes to sink. 48% (or 47%) structure remaining. AI was using 23 Inch torpedoes with (i think) Oxygen propulsion, 14119dmg stat per torpedo. interesting to note the torpedo dmg and size essentially made no difference, and in both case it takes around 40 torpedoes to sink, and structure cannot be damaged more than to 47%.
  13. i think when targeting a BB ships get an accuracy boost for "target large size" that is not even nearly as much for battlecruisers, probably the reason. and yes, this is completely stupid since a typical Battlecruiser is basically the same size as a BB or only marginally smaller in terms of dimentions, masts height, ect...
  14. torpedo duds are NOT implemented in the game, or at least, i have never ever seen it, and i've played this game quite a bit, nor have i ever seen anyone else report seeing a dud torpedo on this forum. are you REALLY sure this torpedo really did hit the hull of the ship and pass trough? because sometimes they can just barely graze the hull of the ship passing only 1 or 2 metres away and not detonate. that, i did see happen several times. the game doesn't model proximity fuze at all for torpedoes, so they need to directly hit the hull to detonate. sometimes, the ship moving fast and the eddy wake it leaves behind makes it look like the torpedo passed trough its stern while it actually just barely missed. if it really does pass trough without exploding, this is a bug, and next time you see it happen please report it, and try to capture a video or screenshot of it too if you can.
  15. no one outside the dev team knows the exact RNG formula how the game calculates detonations. just max out Citadel and Barbettes armor, this is the best way to minimize risks of detonation. better Belt/deck and turret/turret roof armor thickness also, since these are the parts that protect your magazines. belt/deck extended isn't as important, it's mostly to avoid flooding and fire at the bow and stern of your ship. some stuff like your shell warhead/propellant choice, your ammo weight (standard/heavy ect..), the amount of ammo you take and the calibre of guns you use can increase your risk of detonation, but this is typically more than made up for by having good citadel/barbette armor. also, Secondary guns can detonate too, when it happens this is what give those small detonations for "only" 600 damage or so that turn red a few compartiments at once but do not threaten the whole ship. whereas main gun detonation is typically instakill or near-instakill. for this reason, do NOT neglect your secondary guns armor (especially if you got big secondaries like 6 inch or more), because if you leave them unarmored they might get detonated and cause a bunch of structure damage, i generally try to use at least 150mm of secondary guns armor on most ships, weight permitting obviously. i believe torpedoes can detonate too if they are on deck-top mounts, altough i don't recall seeing it happen often.
×
×
  • Create New...