[Confused on Gun Accuracy]

3 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

The TL;DR is that part of the calculations for a weapon's hit chance takes into account what fraction of the gun's maximum range the target is at.  To say this is rather... ahistorical is an understatement since once you start getting into effective versus maximum ranges for cannons the hit chances are far more dependent on targeting and rangefinding as opposed to any capabilities inherent to the gun.  There's a reason secondaries persisted even into the dreadnought era, after all.

totally agree with you here. I know in RtW2 it seems more realistic for accuracy against all guns, Like trying to hit a dd with a main gun is shear random luck. Yet the secondary's are killers to them (depending on size). I prefer the 5" secondary's my self, but they definitely need to rework accuracy calculations. I cant remember if big guns get a malus against small ships but your secondary's don't seem to do much against small ships.

[Well this is insulting]

I agree the graphics are secondary to me as well. I mean i play RtW 1/2 and love it. Gameplay is important, and i like the concept of this.

[One way to win]

1 hour ago, Punisher_1 said:

I don't wanna sound mean but those are trash stats. You have one decent game out of the entire bunch.

It's sort of sad you even posted them. I kill more transports in two or three turns than you did the entire campaign. Heck I've killed more Enemy ships in a couple of missions than you did in some of the campaigns. The fact you screenshotted them like some sort of trophy makes me wonder about your mental health or what you feel is a significant victory. 

and yet you cant win the game.... so seems like hes doing it better
 

[Is it intentional/realistic that gas turbines and Disel provide signifigantly less funnel capacity than boiler upgrades?]

a google search lead me to 1947, a royal navy motor gunboat who had its engine converted to a gas turbine. Maybe there confusing Gas with high pressure steam turbines?

I have know idea why they do some of the things they do. Its an intriguing game, RtW with graphics.

[Power Projection is a false idol]

if your effectively engaging BB's with CC's and making it out with out losing ships then they need to reexamine game balance. But i agree power projection is a little iffy, i also go for fewer better quality ships. Always get blockaded and always win the war

[Where are the magazines?]

1 minute ago, Littorio said:

2645 dmg from a detonation in the forward main magazine. The column of fire was tremendous. I thought for sure the ship would crack in two. Instead it just kind of wallows and floods a little with some paltry scorch marks. In reality it would look like a reverse Hood with the bow blown off. It took me another 30 mins to putt around and sink this guy:

 

 

I think flooding needs a major rework, I mean you don't see ships list and turn over like happens in real life when taking mass damage on one side. Also why does the flooding stop at the first block, if you blow the bow wide open the ship is going to dip and flood more then the lower deck. I don't understand why it works the way it is, on top of pumps being way to effective.

[Passive modifiers in campaign]

On 12/17/2021 at 10:08 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

When adding new ammunition, this action alone affects weights and can cause your ship to become overweight without your notice, if this action is auto.

In addition, changing ammunition on a ship is not as easy as it may sound. The guns are designed to work with specific ammunition, so if you change the ammunition, some modification should be needed to support it, costing money and work that is measured in time. 

the gun it self shouldn't need a rebuild, but i could see how the shell weight change could be a problem, although wouldn't they just load fewer shells.

[My Torps are blind and stupid]

The turning on ships, especially AI ships is just stupid. No ship in history can turn like these do, ive had ships bracketed on both sides by torpedoes miss them all. it was just so wrong it hurt me.

[Where are the magazines?]

Ive seen pen hits that have knocked out two wing turrets at the same time.

its hilarious to watch the turrets pop off due to flash fires like jumping beans. I also think flash fires do not do enough damage, multiple times ive seen multiple flash fires not sink a ship on either side. When in reality one magazine going off would sink a ship, Look at hood as a prime example.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

16 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Shipyard Increments, as running a campaign.

British
Starting Shipyard sizes:

• 1890 10500 tons, 2000t increments over 24 months.
• 1900 18200 tons, 3000t increments over 24 months. 
• 1910 29700 tons, 4000t increments over 24 months.
• 1920 39600 tons, 5000t increments over 24 months.
• 1930 53300 tons, 6000t increments over 24 months.

a) Lets say plus 3 increments (of 2 years) from 1930 to 1936 gives us 18000 tons, so 53300 + 18000 = 71300t max, 
British biggest hull is 'Super Battleship' 92000t, available at 1936. 
Currently it's impossible to build 'Super Battleship' hull in 1936, there's a short fall of 20700 tons or you can only start construction in 1942 at 6000t increments (plus 4 years to build). 

b) On average increments should be 3,543t per decade. (92000-10500)/(1936-1890)*2=3543.4. They are only 2317t on average.

Germany is much worst. 
1890 starting Shipyard size is 9000 tons.
Biggest hull is 'Super Battleship II' 130000 tons, available at 1929 (but we'll use 1936).

b) On average increments should be 5261t per decade. (130000-9000)/(1936-1890)*2=5260.8. They are only 1756.5t on average. 

Ok current campaign is just a WIP but these increments will have to be adjusted to ensure that the Shipyard Size is big enough at 1936 to accommodate the largest hull sizes for each nation. This will change decade starting Shipyard sizes, maybe messing things alittle.

Also to note, if the player misses a single month in Shipyard expansion they will fall behind in shipyard sizes to meet 1936 full hull capacity, so maybe some redundancy needs to be built in or add in some way of catching up. - actually scratch that, in stead leave it up to the player on how they want to manage their shipyard and campaign, like skip continuous shipyard increases and fall short of max tonnage or pay the price to meet max yard size.  

I really like this idea, although i think some break up for historically available yard space should be made maybe. I know in  the '20's and 30's when naval rearmament started the only ones who made absurdly huge ships was the Japanese, Yamamoto class. Even the American fast BB's in the interwar did not go above 35000 tons. I can understand the want to build huge ships, but very few people did it as it stuck all your horses in one basket. But before they work on that they should really fix weight calculations on ships.

but definitely like the idea of increasing tonnage. I never understood why the Germans dock was 2000 tons under Britain that makes no sense historically. You can even build historical German predreadnaughts at the start of the game.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

32 minutes ago, Littorio said:

I didn't see, apologies. I was just trying to include the people I remembered. I look forward to waiting for the weather updates.

i concur

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

Advocating for realistic spotting actually helps you develop better tactics, if engagement ranges are artificially shortened then the tactics you have become less as you have less room to maneuver. Longer realistic sight lines would help a lot in being able to maneuver for advantage, its to late if I'm 3km off to try to develop a plan then it becomes a shoot out.

and the reasons the Guadalcanal campaign was fought at night was because during the day the Americans owned the airspace. This was eventually won by the Americans for employing Radar in night engagements.

So yes technology should play a part, but during the day with no clouds and calm seas, you should be able to see everything within 20km of you, most likely it would be further, due to mast height. with that further range of sight you would be freed up to develop your plan of action and maneuver your forces the way you want, which I would argue help tactical situations not hinder them.

Also the AI seemingly knows where you are already as they always run straight away from you when they run, even before you make visual contact, if possible restrict the AI so they would have to close the range to know what they are fighting. Maybe that will help with the whole they run away all the time.

[Player Suggestions - December]

1. As others have pointed out Spotting. right now its so wonky...

2. Flat weight penalties for Radio's, Radar, Fire Control.

3. Definitely more freedom with ship designer especially when placing secondary's

4. Rework of modern CA and LC hulls, as they cant carry the historical secondary armament 

5. weather effects.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

This is about the best tower there is in the game:


With a +10600 tower (no radar) you can spot large ships at 27 km:

If all towers spotting range would get to be raised to say +6000 to up to +10000. Player would end up seeing up to that range, provided target signature size, time of day and weather allow it.

Edit:
Talking about target signature size. In that battle I spotted the CA at 21km and the DD at 15km. All other thing been equal, that give you a idea how target size influence spotting range.

There is unintended consequence with this however. Atm, game goes to 5x time speed as soon as you get in sight. That mean that player would have to wait quite a while before getting his pre-dreadnought within firing distance. Considering battle are already unacceptably long, faster game speed would be needed to do this.

That's all well and good, but that's not how spotting works irl. as 27 km is over the horizon it makes sense but the minimum range to site the destroyer shouldn't be under 20km and in fact would be a little more. As the higher your tower the farther you can see. That it takes you an extra 12 km before you can make out destroyer is asinine and not realistic in the least. As has been pointed out before by many people that's not how sight works, we just want it to work like it should not be obscured and hampered by some artificial construct.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

5 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

I could concede that, but form a gameplay perspective, not realism. If you look at night battles like Guadalcanal it really show that it doesn't work that way. Or at the very least you can see roughly where they are but you can't fire at them, but isn't that already the case? you see where the shell are coming from.

this is in no way close to reality the at Salvo Island when the Japanese navy opened up the Americans tried to return fire, they were just at a disadvantage for multiple reasons. American Cruisers had a very real problem with catching fire amidships uncontrollably due to the presence of the sea plan hangers. Also the commander didn't trust radar and had turned it off. It was a failure on the American Side and a crushing win for the Japanese Navy. But if you follow the campaign the Americans come back with a vengeance see Battle of Cape Esperanza. So yes Historically you opening fire led to the others shooting back at you.  

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

6 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

It isn't stealth, its weather and time of day. Its already in the game, it just isn't displayed. You can argue that view range is too short across the board and cite example that support this, I will gladly concede that it is true. But there is also instance where ships had to get right next to each other.  All thing considered, what we got isn't that far from reality.

I find the realism argument mildly annoying at this point. Because when it come to what is actually wanted, this is the kind of answer I get:

The dev could redo spotting mechanic, make it calculate mast high, structural stability, heat wave from funnels, number of windows and so on... Or they could take a exel sheet and re-balance the spotting value of every tower... Effectively, its the same thing! Except one detail: The first option could take weeks and that the later could be pulled off in a single day.

But you know what? Either way it doesn't matter. At the end of the day it would still fell like arbitrary values. Because spotting distance rationals can't be easily explained to the player. We would end up exactly in the same situation as we are in now.

I have been around since 2017. Back then noone was really complaining about spotting distance. Why? there was 10 towers, all more or less balanced against each other. But over the course of the last 4 years they added dozens of them across era that were not covered before. It ain't a surprise that it need some readjusting. Considering what is left to do, that part of the game is more than fine.

I am well aware that weather is in the game. But if the enemy can see you, you can see the enemy. This insanity of ships shooting from concealment is beyond comprehension. Especially when they shoot. Yes its harder to see at night and during weather. I understand that, but weather and night conditions do not give ships the ability to not be seen especially when they are shooting at you. RtW does this a lot better imho. So you finding the argument mildly annoying is hilarious, as for historical references, look to Jutland the battle of Saragaso straight, Leyte Gulf, Iron bottom sound, Battle of cape Esperanza... the list goes on and on. what they have right now is a half backed poorly implemented gimmick so you can have "tactics" which is not close to the realm of realistic.  Look at the evolution of naval warfare, for the most part its form a battle line and slug it out, well trying to gain the advantage by crossing the T. This game does not do well at any of these points, sight ranges are to low and the AI just loves to flee.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

6 hours ago, Skeksis said:

We're using fog-of-war as a description of engagements from beyond visible range.

As described in this passage from the official site:

"Realistic Visibility

Depending on battle conditions, fleets may start an engagement from beyond visible range. Spotting the enemy in Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts will be a realistic procedure that succeeds in accordance with ship technology and tactical maneuvering. Screening with light ships ahead of battleships will ensure the enemy does not surprise you with a torpedo attack."

I.e. it is directly and purposely built into the game. 

This made me laugh. It is no where near reality, look through history and you will se how this isn't even in the realm of close to true.

Give us a real sighting system that makes sense, again this half backed stealth mechanic is insanity and doesn't make it fun in the least, even WoWS lets you spot ships that fire at you. this game is like nope, so dont tell me this is going for realistic naval sim.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

2 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@DougToss you want to have no fog of war at all?

and yes there should be no fog of war, just simple realistic spotting mechanics.

i should say they shouldn't give you a break down of what you are fighting. Make it more like RTW, CA encounter, Fleet Encounter, meeting engagement. I don't want to know what I'm going into battle against before i spot them.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

3 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Literally yes, that is what we want!! Lol

 

What you’re missing is the chance to disengage and not fight to the end - which we also want!

 

There are lots of ways to break contact - but they require tactics. Manoeuvre, use of screens and smoke, speed. 
 

I want fleets to try to disengage, break contact with an enemy that can see them as far as the horizon, and head for home, without fighting to the last ship.

 

Because that’s what happened! That’s what doctrine, ships and tactics were designed around. 
 

As @Steeltrap said fog of war is only “needed” because of harebrained Borg spotting and insane hit rates.

I agree RTW's did this well, and when you were to engage it didn't show you what you were going against, but because you could see them from far away you could determine if you wanted to engage.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

8 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Have you ever played WOWS ‘ocean map’? There’s no cover for anyone, essentially it’s a dogged fight to the end, players mill around until one makes a mistake or just one guy sinks first, at that point one fleet outnumbers the other and then it’s a numbers game to the end (not always but mostly).

With full horizonal view, at exactly the point of the first sinking, the battle could be as good as over. No mystery! Just a dogged fight to the end.

While the fog-of-war system is challenging, it still might be the best system developed for our game.

This isnt a arcade game, this is a naval simulator. The players expect some form of reality, what they have now is not.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

12 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

I reckon Dev’s would have tested horizon visibility and probably decided (obviously) that dogged fights was too problematic and offer no mystery. Dogged fights to the end would be the result if all is visible.

Approaching stealth fleets (using unity’s fog-of-war engine)  starts tactical gameplay right off the bat, the player has ‘mystery’ when beginning the battle. I think that has got to count for something when offering a ‘gameplay package’ to the player.

A lot of people think the current system is bad, and hurts playability. Give us a real world system, and the losing fleet always has the chance to disengage, as is currently happening with the poor AI. And tactics because of some broken concept of spotting is just stupid and doesn't lead to tactics. 

First they need to actually fix pathfinding, as it is now all i do is form battle lines and put my large ships as the farthest away then the cruisers and then the LC's and DD's. As if i try to let the AI take care of everything except the battle line then they crash into each other. 

So yes i want a really world sighting system not this half backed thing they have now, i want to be able to set up orders or waypoints like in RTW and i want to not have to micro every ship and line so they don't slam into each other. And I can always tell were the enemy is going to be because it'll be on the opposite were my screens start the battle. So then i have the whole problem of getting my screens on the right side of the formation which is a pain. Especially when I need to get well inside engagement range before i can see the enemy.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

9 minutes ago, o Barão said:

It seems you missed this part "with lenses that absorb up to 980 times more light than the human eye, offering a view of objects up to 20 miles away." Or maybe you still don't understand the big advantage this gives in battle.

Anyway that is not point. You said and i quote: "Human eyes and binoculars did not "upgrade" and battleship ship spotters were able to observe roughly the same distances in 1890 and 1930."

This is clear a mistake. I only used one example to show there is improvements related to lenses. I could use many others , tank scope, or rifle scopes.The lenses tech from the 1930 is way different and superior to what was being produced in XIX century.

I think the point is, That you can still see to the horizon. As has been pointed out, ships do not have cloaking devices, even at Jutland in 1916 they were engaging at 9-10K meters. The enemy knew when the lighter ships made torpedo runs and could adjust course, this was because they could see them. The system currently in place is just ridiculous, it makes no sense and is not fun. 

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

3 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Thank you.

The horizon is as far away as it’s always been. Better optics than binoculars helped see more clearly, and helped identify ships better, estimate range and so on, but even in the days of Nelson, the enemy could be seen to the horizon.

technically beyond as the masts stuck up over the horizon  but they really need to make a realistic spotting sense not the thing there using now which makes no sense.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

4 hours ago, Skeksis said:

A nation must expect losses. 

Take the most unfortunate lost of HMS Vanguard (1909), sunk by internal explosion at Scapa Flow. I'm not saying this should happen in game but DDs appearing at point blank range can be a way the AI/game could make campaigns challenging and simulate unfortunate losses. 

Maybe the player should endure unfortunate losses? like lets make it a very interesting UAD campaign to play? And then the player endures the struggle to right himself. 

I wouldn't like it myself and I don't play hard-mode either, not yet, but just because I wouldn't like it (or any one else) doesn't mean hard-mode events shouldn't happen, well at least rarely.
 

Yes what happened to Scapa Flow can happen. Accidents do happen after all. And the only way i could see the DD's getting to with a Kilometer is if its night time. But i doubt they'd be able to do that in the 1900's As you would have spotted them long before you could close. Mainly do to funnel smoke on the horizon. No commander wants to engage at a disadvantage, the devs really need to overhaul the spotting mechanic and make it realistic as it stands it is beyond the suspension of disbelief. I've seen several places were people want it to be more transparent and go into the realm of RTW's spotting mechanics I think this would help a lot of people.

 

Make it sensible, as it is it just appears stupid and annoying to players. Ships do not have cloaking devices. If its light out for the most part you can see the enemy out to at least the horizon, even at night you should still be able to see them from fairly far off, unless your the Americans at Savo Island apparently.

[>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<]

3 minutes ago, akd said:

The idea that spotting distances were lower in the pre-dreadnought era vs. later is bonkers and the real problem.  Human eyes and binoculars did not "upgrade" and battleship ship spotters were able to observe roughly the same distances in 1890 and 1930.  Only radar changed things significantly (and radar is not visual observation).

Ya tell me about spotting is broken... badly.