Otter Admiral

Torpedoes, re-load speeds and, ammo amounts in general, still seem to be a work in progress. It doesn't seem to make much sense to use historic figures for ammo amounts and re-load rates, while using completely fictional accuracy and/or, damage calculations. Waiting forever for your BB's main guns to reload, while a merchant vessel turns your BB into confetti with its single 2-4 inch gun, through 13-15 inches of armor, and 11 inches of deck gun armor+ citadel armor, isn't remotely realistic or fun. If were are going to forego realistic naval battle tactics, and use gimmicks such as timers to force the action, than things like ammo amounts shouldn't even be a thing. Rendering half of all the other considerations in building your ship superfluous. Your only real option is how much armor can this thing take, and how fast can it fire? If 2"-4" guns can take out a BB in less time than it takes to fire 2 salvos from its main guns, than you need not worry about even using them. *Which could be the main reason you are forced to add main guns in the first place. And then its the question of who decides how fast you SHOULD have won the engagement? GOD? "Yes, Mr. President, we did spot a completely helpless convoy, in clear weather, at 06:00, and were sinking them faster than you can say "IMPEACH TRUMP!", but the egg-timer went off at 06:15, and so we had to leave the other other half of the convoy...and lost the engagement. We regret having let our country down." (FACE-PALM!) Who decides HOW you should have won the war? It would seem that that decision should be up to the player.

So, OK...Lets say your not in a single ship, but a small fleet, that just happens to stumble onto a larger force. (Insert my response here). Why does anybody need to "calculate" who won? If your ships managed to get away...You live to fight another day. If you lose... You Lose. If you win,...Guess what?...YOU WIN! A timer just forces you to use idiotic tactics, and not act anything like your in a naval engagement. I've played many naval games and never had an engagement that lasted "forever". Many hours? Yes...but with being able to speed up time, that only meant that I spent a few mins watching my ship(s) creep farther and farther away, while biting my nails that they didn't land a "lucky shot" on me, thus forcing me to fight it out. The multi-player comment wasn't directed at anybody in particular; just an observation. I'm certainly not trying to stop YOU from doing anything your heart desires. Just stating a point of fact, for general consumption. I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. I have been know to caution people against doing things that I know will hurt them...so...Hopefully, I've put it in a way that they can both comprehend and doesn't insult their intelligence any more than need be. As far as competitive vs non-competitive, one could assume that a naval combat game, is going to be bit one-sided in that regard. No matter how much I, or anyone else may want to create sim city ultimate dreadnoughts, I'm fairly comfortable that this is not going to happen.

Exactly! Sinking ships is the fun part, and dare I say it...kinda the point of the game. The "timers" idea would seem, and currently does, insist that you not use your brain when engaging the enemy...but instead rush headlong into a kamikaze attack, hoping that you inflict more damage than you receive, and hoping luck(not skill), is on your side. I guess we will just have to wait, pray, hope, and see, what route the developers choose to take.

In response to G777GUN, Sarrumac, and CptBarney: Thanks G777GUN, for your kind words, and for the reply and, helpful suggestions. Again, I'm not sure I understand what your getting at. "Finishing off" or the sinking of the enemy ships is great, but rarely pursued. The doctrine of causing just enough damage to the enemy as to limit their ability to function in their intended role, and force them to return to whatever port for months of repair, would be a far more advantageous outcome. Allowing you to dis-engage and prevent the same outcome from happening to your ships. This is where timers cause the most consternation. Both proper engagement (to your advantage), and proper dis-engagement after doing sufficient damage to the enemy, can be a very time-consuming process. It usually took days to both position forces, and to completely and safely extract forces from an engagement. The loss of Hood to the Bismark, and the list of ships which were lost during the Jutland engagement being major exceptions to the rule, as these losses were largely the result of advanced techs, and mainly due to that fact that the British Navy had begun the practice of turning warships into large TNT barges, in an effort to increase their rate of fire. The stacking of gunpowder all over the place, and the removal or refusal to use the proper fire-prevention doors etc..meant that smoking a cigarette on such a vessel would have been an extreme version of Russian roulette, and had time permitted, probably lead to the sinking of far more ships than the enemy could have ever dreamed of doing on their own. For the most part fleets and especially single warships would avoid direct conflict with other warships, as much as possible, as that would most likely not help either side in its war efforts. It was far better to track the enemy fleet or ship so as to keep your non-combatant/merchant ships safe, until such time as you were assured of overwhelming superiority.(*See the battle of The North Cape) The odds of large fleet-on-fleet engagements ending in your favor are not set in stone, nor do they care how much better your ship(s) are supposed to be. We can see this in full detail at the battle(s) off Jutland, and the Bismark/Hood engagements. That being said, engagements of course happen. These were usually battles of necessity in which one of the two sides had a perceived advantage/dis-advantage, and insisted on fighting. It rarely ended well for either side. Regardless of who won, the repairs needed on both sides would usually result in either severe restrictions of operational capability, or months of in-port repair. Thanks for your feedback as well, Cptbarney. Again, I don't see how timers help. For example:If you think that your are up against a certain ship, or group of ships, and you discover to your horror that there are more, or different ships involved, you may want to get out of there in a hurry. However, your ship is just barely faster than the ships you have encountered. You can get away, but it may take hours to do so. It may take many hours of maneuver to avoid damage, and the enemy's maneuvers, and fully dis-engage from the battle. A timer would just make you lose, or in the case that you happen to be the over-whelming force...give you a win, that you really didn't earn...and that you wouldn't have won in real life. Making effective designs seems a good thing, and something you will probably learn as you go. We all know what happens if you try to build a ship to do everything...(Well, in case some don't)...You will end up with a ship that can so a lot of things but, none of them especially well. On this we agree; building "speshul" ships that can do one, or two things, very well, is probably going to be better in the long run. Please, please, don't be me started on the nightmare that is multi-player. The hacks, the cheats, the impossibility of coding for every possible scenario, the networking issues, etc..etc...etc... the list of issues in this en-devour are endless, or at least TWICE as long as the list of gripes associated with its inherent problems. If you want this game to be finished in your lifetime, and do HALF of what most of us would like, PLEASE stop with the multi-player request. You are only shooting yourself in the foot.

Fleet/AI maneuvering is something that is being worked on. Its far from perfect atm, but things look promising. In the meantime, expect a bit of wonky behavior from both sides when under AI control, or trying to follow your orders.

Well, the game says "shooting through smoke", shows an aim penalty, and the graphical representations certainly make it appear that the smoke is being constantly generated in all directions,(Maybe with some kind of smoke screen gun-rounds or grenades, kinda like the hedge-hog depth-charger deployment.) This may be a graphics issue atm. If things are as you say, then this will be ironed out in the future. In any case TWO direct hits to my DD from the SINGLE barreled gun on the stern of a moving ship, in the first two salvos,(and the first min of a 60 min engagement.), is a bit much when one considers the dreadful accuracy of the player in that same position. The odds of that happening border on the mathematically impossible. I'm sure this is being worked on, but atm its no fun. The same can be said for ANY salvo at a ship bow on, or stern on to the enemy at any realistic distances. The size of the target is so greatly diminished, and all but the luckiest of shots will have no hope of landing on such a thin strip of [MOVING/MANEUVERING] target at any normal engagement range(s). However; currently getting caught in that position in game, is a guarantee of getting hit, and must likely multiple times. In fact the enemy projectiles seem to change course whenever you do...in mid air. They seem to know where you are going before you do. How did ships IRL manage to break-off engagements?...Usually, by turning, popping smoke(if possible), and putting their stern towards the enemy ship, and running like heck. The chance of the other ship hitting them or following were low, especially if the ship trying to break-off the engagement had any torpedo capability, and if/or the enemy had sustained any damage as well. It is worth noting, that the accuracy of the AI seems, from all indications, to increase the closer one gets to actually finishing the mission, and with a total disregard of ANY damage done to the ship, its towers, its hull, etc... Hence my sincere hope that timers are not a major part of this game. The temptation to script extra difficulty in, or fudge the numbers to get a result that the player has no real control over, - is too great. For tutorial reasons this may be overlooked, although I'm still not sure of the function of the timer(s). One of the team has already stated that adjustments had be made to scenarios to prevent players from actually winning too easily. One wonders what that might mean? Is my ship too good? Did I get the one-in-a-million shot ...once? Is there a problem with that? Anyway, until the accuracy of the AI and player gets better balanced, I guess I'll just wait it out. I love the idea of building your own ships, the anticipated economics of the campaign, the enemy countries, research, cost, available materials, and the difficulty in actually finding and defeating the enemy. This should be more than sufficient hardship. IMHO; The use of artificial "timers" would lower the realism of this game to a level that would be seriously disappointing and, as already discovered, add un-imaginable difficulty to what already should be a very complex and challenging game. Ships just don't stop fighting after 15 mins because an egg-timer went off...Unless, your playing Space-Invaders...NOT naval warfare. PS: The reason you have fuel is too find and dispatch the enemy. Why would you need a timer to stop you from doing exactly what it is your supposed to be doing with all that fuel? One would hope that with proper campaign play, fuel would/should, of necessity, be carefully managed. It is not rare to stumble upon, or be caught by the enemy in a low fuel situation, and yes, you will most likely come out on the bad end of the stick in such cases. This is why its called "Warfare" and not "Cakewalk". Thanks for your feed-back.

These miraculous one-shots on my DD's from 2 miles away while bow-on,(with their first two shots) taking out the main mast, conning tower, funnel, and forward main gun, in the first two salvos with their ONLY single-barreled aft gun, at full speed, and while I was in smoke... is currently taking all the fun out of this alpha. That and the sickening feeling that, if UA:Age of Sail is any indication, "Timers" are going to play a major role in this game. Was hoping for something to replace the fantastic work by SSI with "Great Naval Battles" et al. Most of these scenarios would be great to play, given realistic constraints with regards to time of day, weather, ammo and fuel limitations, etc...but to try and sink a dreadnought using an egg-timer just strikes me as a bit, well... Fisher-Price. I certainly hope this game fleshes out to be a more robust experience.

Since latest minor(?) update; *These are not complaints; just observations of things that may, or may not, need more work. 1. I played the un-escorted convoy mission and all the various ships/setups I used are very accurate. *The time limit is a bit low IMO. Even heavily damaged ships take time to sink. (10 Transports / Time remaining once located), usually equals 90-120 seconds per ship.- (that's damage time + Sink rate). Granted that spamming DDs or some such might work. However; it does forgo any creativity while waiting for the full game. This could be said of all the tutorial scenarios. It would be nice to temporarily remove the time constraints for all of the "tutorial" scenarios till such time as the game is more fleshed out, to allow for more play-ability in the mean-time. 1a. Other scenarios do not have accuracy anywhere near the afore mentioned. In fact, the phrase "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." keeps coming to mind. *Granted you are not shooting at sitting ducks, still the hit-rate seems appalling,(or realistic) no matter the choice of hull, guns, towers, etc...In either case, either the un-escorted convoy mission is realistic and the rest aren't so much, or vise-verse. 3a. I've noticed that turrets placed on the bow, and those placed at the very stern, seem to crisscross their fire. If that is an attempt to converge fire, then the accuracy of said ship is way off. This attempt at fire conversion is happening miles away from the target under perfectly optimal range conditions and after target lock, etc... The result being that said shells land way ahead of the target and way behind the target. If you only have two main gun mounts then your hit rate borders on the miraculous. *Having thought more about it; it may be that I am to close to the target. 1b. AI accuracy is down-right frightening. In later scenarios, hits occur on your ship with the first range-finding salvo(or the first 30 seconds, whichever comes first.). Currently no amount of maneuvering will deter this event. I believe this is the scenario where you are put against late game "super-dreadnoughts/BBs". It does seem that the accuracy of the AI in this scenario, borders on "can't miss". 1c, Turning directly toward/away from AI ships, (a tactic that should, in-real-life, reduce the chance of the enemy scoring a direct hit substantially), currently, all but insures an immediate spread of shells hitting your ship from stem to stern with all subsequent shots. 2. Speeding up the game, only serves to make the AI much more accurate, while your own ships retain the in-ability to hit anything. 3. I have to concur with the previous poster on the way you steer your ship. Using the right mouse-button to both steer and select the target does indeed lead to huge, lets call them complications in maneuver. Ran into my first reproduce-able crash on latter missions with large battle group fights. *I'm fairly certain that this is a known issue but, I just wanted to point out that it is still there. Combining the necessity to sink all/or some ships (and the fact that the enemy ships can sink to just at the water-line, and thus realistically become all but impossible to hit), with a time constraint, seems a bit harsh. I'm hoping that time constraints(negating the amount of daylight etc...) will not be a part of the campaign's battles. Minor damage done to ships usually required months of repair, effectively removing them from the war effort for a large amount of time. Significant damage was enough to keep them in repair longer than it took to build them in the first place, taking them out of action longer than the war itself. In other words - As fun as sinking ships is; damage was far more costly to the enemy, and much more advantageous to the war effort. Much like casualties in any war. - Just my thoughts. Keep up the good work! Cuz, Picking apart somebody else's hard work, is sooo much more fun than critiquing my own.

Fair point(s). I keep forgetting that we are dealing with WWI or earlier tech at the moment. Loving this game. My comments are mostly so the developers can get more info on how we players are experiencing the game, in all its alpha glory.

LOL! Kudos, I'm glad you can relax a bit now. I know the feeling. I finally managed to win the engagement but, I used the opposite approach(I hadn't read your reply yet.). IIRC, I used the smallest caliber, single barrel main gun emplacements, for quicker reload times, and skipped ANY other small caliber/or casement guns, and that saved me weight/money for speed and protection. It does limit your ammo a bit...having more space. ??? In the end though, it may have just boiled down to a lot of luck. The AI does do a remarkable job most of the time, although I seem to remember it trying to run me strait into a torpedo barrage. I have been reluctant to use the AI's help since. *Also, your meme about letting the AI do the job, is another reason I try to avoid using it. My biggest concern at the moment is; the most protected parts of my ship, seem to be exactly where I take the most damage. For example: If I increase the armor on my conning tower, it it usually the first thing to go. Not to mention the burning, barely floating, wrecks, that are still pounding me with 18" shells, with the accuracy of a WWII Russian sniper. I'm guessing that a lot is still being developed. I've yet to see any point to using AP shells. Also, its no good having a BB/Dreadnought with guns that can and SHOULD be using plunging fire to destroy targets at (really)long range, when the scenario starts you less than 5 miles apart.(???) Visual range,(from the main deck) - that is the horizon, is 15 MILES on a clear day. Stacks and/or smoke can be seen slightly farther. At night, small lights, such as from a drag off a cigarette, can tell you there is a ship OVER the horizon, sometimes MILES over the horizon. I really, really, hope that this game goes all the way through the age of big ships, minus any aircraft carriers. Dreadnoughts were cool, but most of their designs were terribly flawed, from the start, because they were usually out-classed, or completely obsolete, by the time they were combat ready.

Yes. It is.

First let me say, "THANK YOU!" to all those involved in creating this game. It has me drooling from...well, lack of sleep for one, but also in anticipation of the completed master-piece. TL/DR: But, if nobody has suggested this, (and, you may already be working on it.), a "Follow" button that will keep the camera with the currently selected ship until the player clicks on something else. Just my thoughts. [fixed] This might have something to do with the learning curve, as it took me a few tries to kill a non-moving metal-block. Thanks again.