Accipiter

so that's it eh? if the current state of gameplay and balance is really representative of what the final game will play like, just with more hulls and a campaign, color me not impressed... it's so unfortunate too because i think most of the issues we keep listing over and over aren't too hard to fix... while i keep seeing "small team" mentionned by everyone (i don't have the original post but i think they said at one point there are only 3 people working on this game)... i'm starting to wonder: How many people do they have at Game Labs anyway?? surely more than 3 and judging by their website, they are currently hiring 1 more... can't they put just a few more peoples on Dreadnoughts? like, what other game are they currently developping anyway ?

i'll join my voice here since it's as good a time as any: i've been following this game's pre-alpha progress since nearly week 1, and played every patch, and frankly, i'm starting to get worried with the direction this game is going. it's what i call the "War Thunder Syndrome": every patch, the devs add more shiny toys (hulls) and a few fancy new effects/extra mechanics (like flash fire lately), but none of it really matters because deep down the more crucial key mechanics of the game are broken and nothing is ever done about it, even when improvement whould be easy... here is my personnal list of TOP PRIORITY things that need to be improved, Everything else, new hulls, fancy new additional mechanics, even singleplayer testing, should be second priority to these: No1: ships become impenetrable when facing bow/stern to incoming fire. this is due to a combination of 2 things: first, due to transeverse (AKA: front and back) belt armor of the ships not being properly modelled, every hit from the bow or stern is counted as a sidehit to the belt at an extreme angle and always bounce. secondly, due to how the compartimentalized damage model work, when facing bow or stern, your bow and stern compartiments will all turn red from damage, but after that has happened, they will act as an invulnerable shield for all the compartiments behind them, catching and detonating every single incoming shell, preventing any further damage to the ship. this is because shells overpenetrating troug a red (destroyed) compartiment to arm and explod further inside the ship is not properly modelled either. No2: accuracy calculations are Bogus. i've lost rack of how many times i've seen pre dreads BB's broadsiding each other from within 2km literally like Galleons from the age of sail and still have less than 10% chance to hit at that range... literally today on the present patch, i've had secondary guns with only about 15% chance to hit a DD sailing in straight line from less than 1km away, using stereo 5 and fire control radar 2 rangefinder and high mark guns... i've also seen so often older BB's using worse rangefinders than me, older mark guns and no radar get 2X or more accuracy on me than i have shooting at them, even though i have better rangefinder, guns and radar, and we are both sailing in straight line at the same speed... excuse me, HOW?! things like these should NEVER happen! also, as other have correctly pointed out, speed debuff to accuracy should be removed altogether, end of story. raw speed alone makes Zero difference to difficulty to hit if you're sailing in straight line. only variations of speed and course should degrade accuracy of incoming fire, for a time. to be clear, i'm not nessesarily asking for, nor do i want, an across-the-board increase in accuracy. what i'm asking is for things to make sence and be consistent and be logical. 9/10 chances to miss the broadside of warship (even a DD is big!) at 1km away is not logical, i mean at that range it's basically point-and-shoot direct fire, there isn't even any need for balistics calculations from so close! having worse fire control systems than the enemy in every way yet having more chances to hit him than he has to hit you when both sailing in straight line is not logical. ect ect... No3: Bulkheads are OP. already been well explained by Steeltrap so i won't go into too much details myself. basically agree with everything he said. currently ALWAYS going for Max bulkhead+Max bulkead armor on every ship you make, no matter what, always, is a no brainer choice. you need them much more than armor, or torpedo protection. also, main magazine detonations should be 100% instakill everytime. yet almost everytime in game i see the ship survive it and still continue to fight well. i can't think of any warship in all history within the game's time period, that did not sink after having one of its main magazines detonated. also also, Flash Fire feels a bit like a Bogus mechanic to me that is kind of redundant with magazine detonation... imo the 2 could be lumped together for simplicity's sake maybe? (whereas Flash fire is just a detonation of turet or barbette that did not propagate to main magazine)? if it isn't really obvious to me, a relatively knowledgeable naval enthusiast, what this flash fire thing is supposed to represent that is fundamentally different from ammo detonation, i can guarentee you most players are gonna be confused by it at release. also also also, there have been rumors for a while now that if you put a main battery turret outside of the ships central 3 compartiments (where the game counts the main belt to be), then the magazines for that turret (which are in the compartiments under it) do NOT count as being protected by the main belt... can you confirm if this is true or not? because if this is true, this is a Colossal oversight in the damage model and this needs to be fixed ASAP. this is a little connected to my comment in No1: where i say transverse belt armor (which is the one normally protecting these forwards and afterwards magazines) needs to be modelled properly in the game. No4: Maneuvering AI just can't hold formations, just sail in circles, or sometimes even come to a complete stop while being shot at. the game really need better pathfinding and formation keeping. come on! BattleStations: Midway/Pacific's AI was great at keeping formations for the most part and those games are from the early 2000's... surely it can't be that hard! on that note, we really need more formation options than just line ahead/abreast too. there is an easy way to do it as well: i'll just leave here an old comment i made on this in another thread long ago: --- i remember Battlestations: Midway and Battlestations: Pacific, there was a mix of very good and very bad things about those games but one of the things they did superbly well well was ship formations: basically in those games, when you had ships grouped together in a formation, you just had to hit a buton to enter the fromation menu, and in there, you had an overhead view of the formation centered on the commanding ship, then you could select and drag every ship in the group to whatever position you want it to have relative to the commanding ship, and when you're done setting every ship in the formation to where you want, you hit ok. from now on the AI will always try to keep the ship in that position relative to the commanding ship, adjusting speed and turning as nessesary, you just give move orders to the commanding ship to move the entire formation. it was intuitive, quick and simple and it worked perfectly well. EVERY single game that does ship combat should use the same system for formation imo. whould very much like to see this emulated in this game. was kind of hard to find good pictures of it but i got one, it looked like this: the commanding ship is in white, the yellow ship is the one currently selected, of which you are setting his position in the formation (the transparent outline shows where the ship is right now, the arrow where he is gonna go when you hit OK) ----- that's about all i can think off for now. i really hope something is done to adress those issues before release (or at the very least, someday). with that said, i know it's a small team and i'm still grateful for the hardwork up untill now, i hope the game continue to improve in the future (while i sound harsh, it still did noticabely improve in many aspects since this alpha begun).

i know some ppls have asked about armor model rework already, but my question is Very Specifically on the topic of World of Warhips-style Bow and Stern Tanking. -Right now, ships that have even only moderate armor can easily become all but impenetrable to even the heaviest guns in the game, even at point blank, as long as they keep their bow or stern pointed at the shooter. this is because the game only considers side belt armor but not the transverse bulkeads that run across the ship to connect the belts at their front and aft ends. because of this, any hits happening when showing bow or stern to shooter will be counted as extreme angle hits (80°+) and always bounce; even when in real life they whould be penetrating trough the bow/stern and hit the transverse bulkhead or the barbette at an almost perpendicular angle. this has been pointed out on multiple occasions but never answered by devs as far as i know. so my question is: is this intended by the devs? even though it is not realistic, maybe because you think it creates interesting game dynamics/ favors careful maneuvering, ect...? or is this something that you plan to improve on later? because if you do plan to solve this issue, this is something that should be high priority as this is not a trivial matter! ships really do become almost unsinkable as long as they sail towards or away from the enemy right now!

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.

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.

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.

^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.

^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.

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...

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.

+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)

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%).

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 ͡°)

Done. cheche the *Edit* section i added after conclusions in the OP

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%.

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...

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.

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.

Time of Acceleration from Stand still to Full Speed: about by the time you arrive at your destination, after having crossed the whole ocean.

more seriously, i get the feeling too that fleet monetary managment, training managment, logistics, ect... where not really the main things the devs had in mind for this game. now that i think about it, is it weird that i just realized i REALLY whould love a Tycoon purely economic managment game but where you are trying to build a Navy to be as effective as possible as the admiral, having to take everything into account and deal with the politicans meddling in your projects/budget, ect... even if all the battles where auto-resolve or there wasn't even a war at all, and it was just trying to make your navy strong and scary, i'd be OK with it for such a game 😛 as for UA:D however, i hope at the very least we get someting like HOI Naval works: where you can put any of your ships, in any combination, in a fleet, and then assign this fleet to a particular mission set (transport escort, souting/patrol, coastal bombardment, Search&Destroy for ennemies, hit&run enemy transports, ect ect...) and stances as to when starting an engagement or when to run (balanced, safe, agressive)... that sort of thing whould be a bare minimum but whould do the job. but PLEASE, please, no "Just throw your ships in that zone and the AI will randomly generate engagement and you can't control or command or customize anything about it"... ^+1 on selling/buying/licence building ships with other nations, and sharing/exchanging techs too.

jump into your tank with no fuel and ammo, see how far it gets

so i just did a test in Custom Battle to see how late game torpedoes behave vs late game Ships, and i build a bunch of Destroyers with the most powerful torpedoes available in the game and launched them at 1 enemy BB + 2 CA to see how much damage they did and how much it took to sink them with torpedoes alone. setup: 24 inch (610mm) Oxygen Propulsion Torpedoes with 1940 tech and Unlock Mode on (the MOST powerful Torpedoes possible in the entire game) thankfully the AI was nice enough to actually use a late game super BB hull (the one that is based on Iowa Class, it displaced just a little over 100 000 Tons). it had Maximum Bulkheads but i do not know what Bulkhead Armor, Pumps, and Torpedo Protection System the AI chose because the info card doesn't tell you that. Result: 89 Torpedo hits total (took about 3 or 4 to sink each CA trough Structure Damage more often than flooding) Just over 80 Torpedo Hits in multiple volleys to Finally sink the BB trough Flooding. -the first 20-something torpedoes got the structure down to about 70% Health and cause a little flooding that was almost always pumped out completely. and damaged 1 out of the 3 engines, that's all. -after about 40-something torpedoes, the structure was a little under 50% and flooding stabilized at over 70%. Rudder and 2 out of 3 Engines damaged. -after about 60 something torpedo hits, the structure was down to where ALL compartiments at the bottom of the hull where red and most above that where either Yellow or Red, all other compartiments had no damage. 3 out of 3 engines and rudder damaged at this point. hull Structure HP was around 30%, and after that all further torpedo hits did NOTHING at all to structure. flooding stabilized at about 40%. -Further Volleys of torps finally slowly brought flooding to 0%. sinking after just over 80 Hits total (more than 1 hour ingame time). structure still at around 30% while sinking. about 1/3 of all the torpedoes that hit did not cause any flooding, just structure damage. also, it took a LONG time (over 30 ingame minutes) for the BB to finally come to a stop after all 3 out of 3 of its engine modules where destroyed. that is someting i noticed with Late game Hulls, especially the BB: they take a ridiculous amount of time to drop speed after losing engines or after you cut the engine to Zero kts in the speed bar. even if you maneuvre in a sharp turn. probably something to do with their massive Hull Shape stat. definitely needs looking into as well. i suspect the reason late game Hulls Specifically are so resistant to torpedoes is the way their massive Hull Resistence stat interacts with the Torpedo Protection System's Percentage based Bonus. but i'm not sure obviously.

here is the thing though, it's just an approximation that's kind of needed for gameplay reasons to make gameplay more interesting, you're just reading too much into it. imagine if they did made it so ingame it takes 30 mins to hours to put out a fire, they'd have to DRASTICALLY reduce the fire start chance too, or every single battle ingame whould always end up with both ships sinking each other due to heavy fire, in every case. and if you do that (lower fire start chance + higher fire duration) you just end up with more frustrating RNG totally outside your control: since fires last so long, just dumb luck of which ship gets to score lots fire starts on the enemy early on in the battle has a huge influence in who will win. if it bothers you so much from a realistic point of view you can totally explain the current fire extinction speed away with a bit of logical thinking: let's say for exemple: when a fire burns ingame= fire is out of control, spreading and causing damage to ship structure, systems, crew, ect... when a fire is out after a few mins ingame= fire isn't Actually out yet but merely under control: it's been contained in a sealed compartiment, or at least the Damage Control Parties are fighting back the flames and damage as quickly as they are spreading, meaning it's already not very damaging or dangerous anymore to the ship (counts as extinct) and from a realism point of view, it's being put out little by little over the next minutes/hours.

turn by turn campaign, as opposed to real time, has already been 100% Confirmed, it's in the devblog. and i don't see it likely they will change their minds on that, concidering how much ressources and effort it whould take to do real time. friendly reminder that the entire dev team for this game is a whole 3 peoples, according to one of the past stickied threads. now as much as i want to see a real time campaign like HOI that goes trough the years quickly at peace and slow down to individual days of sailing your fleets around the world during wartime, total war games prove to me that even turn by turn can be fun, and at least feel adequately authentic, if done well. now i've never played naval action or age of sail, but if that has already a working real time campaign, then Maybe just maybe there is a chance they could re-purpose it for this game too without impossibly high developement time, i guess... skesis, you probably already know about it i imagine, but the game you are describing (where the entire ocean and every ship and fleets are modelled in real time, basically like the silent hunter campaign map but where you control the whole fleet) is what the upcoming Task Force Admiral game is trying to accomplish, so i guess we can look forward to that one as well. (PS: with "Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts", "Task Force Admiral" and "Sea Power: Naval Combat in the Missile Age" all upcoming, these truly are exiting times for the niche genre of naval warfare strategy games! we rarely ever get new games at all, and now we suddenly have 3 Fantastic looking ones on the horizon!)

no, this is a case of some people just projecting their expectations onto the game as facts, without realizing its THEIR vision and never what the devs stated or advertized. i've seen too, some people (not gonna quote names lol) arguing how UA:D apparently sets out to be "the most realistic and historically accurate naval combat game ever made", i feel bad for them, they are just setting themselves up for disapointment lol 😛 there is this devblog https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/deep-battle-system where they mention "realistic" -spotting and weather -ammo -ballistics, targeting and penetration -damage system though even then, what exactly they mean by "realistic" is open to interpretation, especially if you read each paragraph, you'll see for exemple by "realistic ammo", they just mean ships don't have unlimited ammo in the game, and you need to not fire from too far away to not waste them. they don't mean fully realistic ammo like separate stock of HE and AP shells for exemple, which at least as far as we know doesn't seem to be planned at all.