RedParadize

Its funny you said that. I actually PMed something along those lines to someone.I was not referring to the technical part. To clarify myself, they are intertwined in term of balance. This is far from being the last accuracy patch we get. As for the rest of you text, I did not read it yet, but I will.

@Erebus I just redid it to make sure my old strategy still hold. It does, but with a twist. What you have now is a single BB. That is just 4 good guns you have there. I would suggest going for cheaper ship, lesser everything exept guns and tower. You can easily double up firepower and almost guarantee that the opening of the battle will favor you. There is a extra reason to do this, since last patch armor combat value is not quite what it was, guns are more accurate and have much more penetrative power. Do not expect to be able to make effective armor for now.

I want to make it clear that I did not ask for a admin intervention nor complained about RamJB. I did not want to address this openly here but I feel I now have to. Do I think RamJB is knowledgeable when it come to naval warfare? Yes I do. Having said that, it was indeed pretty unpleasant to voice opinion here, backed by source or not. Some may say that he was provoked, I would reply to that I do not like to have one of sentence nip picked, quoted out of context and twisted into something I did not say. Only to be presented with wall of text that do not address the argument I made in the first place. I do no think Admin were harsher than himself have been. They just told him to tone it down. Is it that harsh?

Well, my testing seem to suggest otherwise. I would be curious to see how much exactly trough. Btw, it was in 1940s era that I easily sunk CA with DDs. I am fairly certain you can do it in earlier era too. I almost soloed a BC yesterday, but could not reproduce it, call it a lucky event. Here is the one of the ship I used to do it (the most successful was smaller that that. +-24TS): You have to make it as quick as possible stay at range where enemy get very low hit chance. Gonna try in earier era, should be fun. Edit: its actually easier in1914. You can keep the enemy under 0.6% hit chance while have yours at around 70%. Time to try again against BC! Edit2: Yep, you can do it against BC: I did manage to do this vs a BB of the same era too. But you have to roll a battle were armor is at least under 12". I did run out of ammo trough.

Humm. isn't 42" penetration a bit high for a 14" mk 4 at 10km?

I should have asked this long time ago then. I the way it currently works disproportionally favor bigger ship with fewer gun of larger caliber and no secondary. Some example where it looks particularly out of balance: - 2 3x18" add 88 signature. 3 3x14" add 94 and 4 3x11" add 88. - Iowa front+back tower add 50 signature, Full dress secondary will add 47 to this. Its biggest funnel only 13. - Hull do and hull size do not add any signature. Here is demonstrative example of how much disparity it can create: A moderately dressed BB, 29000t and 187 target signature: A low signature Super BB, 56000t, 151ts: Now, AI generated ship are much worst than the 29000t ship I posted, often dashing at 250-300 target signature. This make me realize how much I was gaming the system compare to AI. If you add to this high speed, the superior armor, very low roll/pitch and no smoke penalty, it is easy to win a 1 vs 3 against AI. As a comparative, here is a not so badly designed AI BB: I have seen much worst than this. I do not know how much malus Target signature give. But just the difference in roll, pitch, smoke give a +25% base accuracy bonus to the stripped down and balanced design I posted above. AI generated ship deserve a post on its own, so I wont elaborate on that here. Could we get a bar in stats that combine all base accuracy bonus and malus? it would be great for clarity and testing purpose.

@Nick Thomadis Does target signature contribute to hit probability?

Hi dev. I have been thinking allot about how to make armor mechanics, but probably not as much as you guys. I am certain that you already have plan for armor. Yet, maybe I came up with something that would help you. I made allot assumption on how the game works while doing this, some may be wrong but I do not think they discard the concept. Anyways, here it is: Mechanics as I believe they are: Here is the armor layout as far as I am aware of, excluding some details. Basically, 3 mid section are always the main belt, the two on stern and bow are always external belt. Top column I believe is the same as the deck. One of my main contention about this is that its the same regardless of ship layout. I am uncertain how hit mechanics works, but it seem that a shell or torpedo damage can cross a section to another if strong enough, angle of penetration seems to matter. Its a nice addition. Is it new to Alpha 3? it would explain the much more frequent critical we get. -First suggestion: The citadel should be reworked. At the moment, citadel only buff external armor. Its inadequate, because of this there is no way to do the all or nothing armor scheme. Also, now that shell can now pen from one section to another engines, ammo and water line are easily damaged as nothing stand in the way. The solution I propose is instead of citadel offering a selection of buff, player would be offered a selection of armor layout such as all or nothing and narrow belt. Some of these layout would include a citadel. The citadel would works as a extra layer of armor between the 5 bottom center compartment and the others. To get a engine critical, external armor, compartment on the path and the citadel need to be penetrated. About how to display that information I would suggest a outline for the citadel, alternatively two more color would do. This suggestion probably require adding two more slider to the armor menu. One for the citadel top, one for citadel sides. Alternatively there could be a unified slider for citadel and another for Barbette. (more on that later). -Second suggestion: Turret and funnel position should matter. As you can see on the image, the position of critical have changed to match deck layout. Ammo is always under the guns and engine always under funnel (averaged) position. Spreading turret all over the place would increase the chance of ammunition being hit. I also suggest adding internal Barbette. this would make top compartment less empty and meaningless. They would work a bit like what I suggested for citadel. When a compartment where a Barbette go trough is penetrated or destroyed there is a chance that Barbette is hit. Hit chance could be purely RNG, but ideally with chance proportional to Barbette size. If hit, then penetration calculation take over and Barbette damaged/destroyed, possibly leading to catastrophic ammunition explosion. This could require a extra slider for barbette armor. -Third suggestion: Variable belt, deck and citadel size. Ideally this would require variable compartment/hit box size, if not possible. I think it would be possible to add variability to main belt/deck and citadel size. Engine HP and type would set the engine size. Low HP would translate into smaller engine, harder to crit but potentially destroying all of it in a single shot. Turret position and ammo count would set the size of the magazine. The combined length of engine and magazine would dictate the size of main belt. Compartment partially covered by main belt would have their hit chance calculation done in a similar fashion to what described for barbette. Final note: I made these suggestion without knowing how the game work or what is planned. I do not know if these are feasible or if something else is planned. I just wish tha ship designing was dynamic. Regardless of how its done, I would like if stuff we place on deck had deeper impact, beyond ship balance, fire arc and cosmetics. That's it

@arkhangelsk Screening DDs vs DDs only worked in Alpha 2 because target priority is pretty rudimentary at his point. Ship movement seem to be only dictated by target position and torpedo treat. Note that on player side a single DDs was enough to stop many AI DDs for that reason. DDs were so ineffective at fighting each other that single DD was able to effectively hold a full squadron on its own, diverting torpedo away form target sensitive to them. I called that a exploit and still think it was. Now, with last patch, there is still no target priority, but that lonely DD would get hammered that is a plus in my book, but it doesn't remove the need for better AI. On the flip side, have you try to play a DD vs a modern CA? Or a CA vs a BC? Its pretty funny but totally ridiculous. A DD can now own a CA just with its gun, just because the CA have such a hard time hitting it. A CA can own a BC because AI place way less armor than player do on the CA. So yeah, there is still plenty to work on besides accuracy. Even if I think the patch over corrected a bit, I am of the opinion that Accuracy should be left as is for now and attention should be applied to armor. Simply put, trying to nail it in the current state of the game would be a waste of time. As Accuracy/Damage/Armor are all intertwine I expect multiple pass on this before nailing the balance.

@RAMJBMy reasoning behind it in the very post you quoted. I fail to see how it could be clearer than what I said in all my previous post. It's time to move on. We are far far away of topic here.

@RAMJB You are misinterpreting my message and intent. No I do not want UA:D to look like WOWS. I did not play that game in a long time, but just like WOT, WOWS just FPS but with ship/tanks at the place of character. It has no tactical level and/or the tactic do not looks like their real life equivalent at all. Note one thing, WOT and WOWS tactical side was not ruined because of lack of technical accuracy, but because WG went for technical over tactical accuracy. As I stated before if I have to chose between technical and tactical accuracy I will go for tactical all the way. Back to UA:D, I will try to make myself as clear as possible. Prior to this patch, Guns under 8" were not hitting anything unless within ridiculously close range. It was rendering secondary, CL, CA and DD screening completely useless. Now, what I want some incitative to add secondary to Pre-dreadnough warship, I want that incitative to decline as torpedo range increase. I want screening, CA and CL to be the best TD/DD counter past early WW1. Not because their guns are miraculously better at it, but because they are more expandable than Battleship. I want this because its a good approximation of what was naval warfare. Edit: There is one annoy me allot about the way you answer to my post. Not only you edit out key part but you act as I didn't said them at all. You do that often and honnestly it fell borderline dishonest. Please stop doing that.

Thank you. Above all other consideration I would prefer if that conclusion is also true in UA:D. Before the last patch it was not, now it kind of is, but not quite. We are getting away from the subject again, my fault too sorry. As far as Alpha 3 Patch goes. I think accuracy buff, while not being perfect, is a step in the good direction. Having said that, I agree with the conclusion that many shared, ship get pen and crit surprisingly often now. I am unsure if its due to the fine tuning of the damage model or if its just the gained accuracy made that made this more obvious. But it does highlight issue with the Armor/Damage model. I am of the opinion that Armor/Damage model should take priority over accuracy balance. Accuracy still can be tweaked later on, and most likely will need to be as changing damage model will make it necessary.

Please @RAMJB , go look at Texel Action, Here, on that one Wikipedia will do just fine. DDs equipped with 4" and under can quickly and reliably kill 400t DDs. And if they can kill a 400t, they can also kill a 1000t. There is no meaningful armor on DDs. Now, I am not gonna ask where you got the DD vs DD zero "kill" on the battle of Jutland. Considering the complexity of the DD engagement I have some reserve on the matter. I find it difficult to believe that reliable "who hit who" account even exist on that. If you do have data on hand about this I would be curious to see it. If you do not that is fine, I will take it as you referring on the general opinion of the specialist on the subject. Regardless, for me it does not make much difference, if DDs equipped with 4" and under would have posed no credible treat to other DDs then everyone involved would have acted very differently. Edit: @arkhangelsk My bad, I miss read the 25pnd thing. it was indeed 12pnd on the article you provided. About that gun, to be more specific the QF 12 pdr 12 cwt Mark I. Was a dated gun with relatively poor performance for its caliber and size. That's what I was expecting to see on the next page.

Hey, I specifically mentioned the Texel action for that reason. But even if we stick to Jutland, the fact that DDs of each sides did deter torpedo run is a proof in itself. Who say deterrence say credible treat.

@llib Most AP shell of the covered era included a method or another to delay explosion yes. Some did not perform as expected trough. As for pre impact explosion it appeared in ww2, but not for that use.

@RAMJB I mentioned Jutland because in that battle DDs of both sides mostly succeeded at screening their formation. Isn't it a proof that their armament were deterrent enough? I also mentioned the Texel action. A battle were the involved DDs were not bound to screening duty or torpedoing large ship. In that battle DDs did destroy other DDs. @arkhangelsk Ah, its sad that they did not explicitly said why it was surprising that the 25pnd guns was used. Its weird, I trough these were actually QF 12-pounder 18 cwt. Anyway, what is your point? Because as I said 3 times already I do not discard the trend toward larger caliber on DDs.

Can I get the next page? I have a intuition on what its leading to. Also, as I said I am not discarding the trend toward higher caliber on DDs. @RAMJB You missed the point I tried to make.

The two reference provided (and the previous mention to the Iron Duke) are talking about 3" and 4" mounted as secondary on large ship inadequacy against DDs. Neither @Tousansons nor myself contested that. The claim you made was: That is DDs vs DDs. What I contest is that caliber bellow 4" could not do anything in that type of engagement. There is a big difference in requirement between big ship secondaries and DDs armament. If I may refer to your quote of John Robert's "Battlecruisers": "...However in 1906 firing trials against the old destroyer Skate with 3pdr, 12pdr, and 4in guns led to a reversal of this decision as the latter calibre was shown to be the only one of the three tried that stood a good chance a stopping a destroyer before she got close enough to deliver a torpedo attack" This is not a requirement in DDs vs DDs engagement. Thus not much of a argument in the current discussion. As far as I am aware of all of WW1 DDs were equipped with caliber under 4". I hope I do not need to provide you reference for this, but DDs of the battle of Jutland and Texel action, among many other battle, proved to be capable of providing a effective deterrence when performing their screening duty and also capable of sinking enemy DDs. To make myself clear, I am not discarding the trend toward larger caliber on DDs, range is as useful for them as it is for larger ship. But claiming that they could not do anything to another DDs is historically accurate is over the top by a long shot.

I really need to point out something about historical accuracy. A game may be perfectly accurate on the technical side and still completely fail to depict reality on the global scale. What is more important? Source please. Edit: About ship sinking too quickly. Note that its always AI ship that die too quickly, never yours. Auto generate ship a couple of times and you will quickly notice that it rarely add much deck armor. In any case, never enough to stop a 15 inch shell at 20km. Now any penetration on main deck ( I think extended too) may result in catastrophic damage. That is not historically unheard of. I am of the opinion that deck pen is too high. Simply because no real ship ever had as much deck armor as mine.

@TeckelmasterBasically what you want is to impose the "Z" flag on the enemy.

It has been reworked in last version and now it make more sense. Before that it was a situation that could go on forever.

@arkhangelsk Dang, I wanted to post this before anyone had the chance to say what you said! I was referring to engineering as well, but @Skeksis example is still a pertinent one. Battlecruiser were suppose to outrun Battleship, but necessity made them go against them regardless.

@Skeksis It is a nice example, can fell the "but Battlecruiser were not made to engage Battleship" comment coming in. There was flawed concept, that's for sure. However I would put more emphasis on the sheer amount of innovations applied all across each of these ship. Each new ship class incorporating system that were massively different on the previous one. Each innovations that on their own were great, until you place them next to each other. There was so much change being made that two ship of the same class could have hundreds of tons of difference, without anyone being able to explain all the reasons.

@RAMJB You are making my case for me here. Most warship pre-40s used brand new concept and technology well before they reached maturity. Technology advanced so fast that some ship became obsolete before being launched. Allot of it ended up never being combat tested at all simply because there was not much sea combat some period. As you said yourself. As you said all this happened before modern engineering. There was allot of things that looked good on paper but had to be changed on the fly during construction. Given that game is from 1890 to 1940. I would argue that design and construction flaw was very common, not exception.

@akd I would agree on that. But we could also add to this minor hit causing a chains of event leading up to catastrophic ending. History is full of unforeseen consequence. @RAMJB History show us that system do not always live up to their expectation. Real life RNG is pretty nasty. Here is few example of DDs bullet dodge ability: