Lobokai

Wow. This thread... most “first world problem/millennial” gamer complaint I’ve heard in a long time. Seriously? Convert in your head, if you can’t... well here’s a skill you need in your mental toolbox if you live in a mixed imperial/metric world anyway. Reminds me of people who can’t tell time if it’s not digital.

Secondaries can work. My theory right now is that the AI gunners on your ship will prioritize the best working weapon available. In the run through below my 9” got knocked out, so only my x2 8s could work. And they stayed at 30%+ accuracy for the rest the mission after that... given the 2 BCs I was running were bristling with x2 8’s, they were deadly to the point of OP (and at good tech, but not close to max). They sank a half dozen TRs, 2 BBS, a CR, and more in an approach, loop, and pass... taking no real damage other than front turrets. Pics below to prove it.

I’d love to see a super simple battle editor/custom mission. Give me a half dozen AI ships to choose from and then 3 hull types to build x of. I could play that for a long time, and it’d be pretty fun and pretty good testing

I'd like to see something similar to Rebel Galaxy (the big ship one, not the Outlaw) where you tell certain mounts what to target. So in UA:D, you'd be able to set 5" to fire at DDs and lower, 8" CR and lower, all other guns at your chosen target only (or something like that). Truthfully, just a UI choice of 3 secondary settings would be nice (like we have for formations or gunnery now)

If your speed is high enough, any damaged DD or TB (pretty sure I won with DDs, don't remember) will drop out with even moderate damage (then click on that one, if its a DD, and have just it pop smoke, because at this time it will be your lead ship and can screen the rest)... put torps on "safe" until you are in a perfect spot to send in close range perpendiculars (now watch your alpha strike go), then have all remaining DD's slow down, smoke and do a tight loop where you're turning in towards the BB, change torps to "normal"... this makes you really hard to hit and will give you better torp launches... if your alpha didn't do the trick, and it often will, then this should do it too... don't manually detach any vessels, they'll do their best to station keep and when you dropped your speed to loop, they'll automatically try to rejoin your formation, typically giving them excellent shots too. if TBs, do all the things, just with TB's

Enemy BBs are ridiculously strong in armor right now. So again, I’m thinking torps might be fine. I’d like to see “AI” ships and the damage models get reworked before torps. Seems right now, like they could be working well for a balance in gameplay and realism.

They’re pretty random, that’s for sure. But on the Pred-Dreadnaught conflict mission I had the 3 TB sink the CA ally and my BB “mixed tech” with their first run... reran it as firepower armored cruisers to win. Id like to see the damage model honed first

anything that can go 30+ knots and launch attacks from 150 miles away will make the game just CV v CV... I have that game already, I have several. Now a good Dreadnaught game? I don't have that. If they do have CVs, they really shouldn't show up on the real-time combat screen. Their attack choices happen outside the visible battlefield, so why bother animating AA vs bombers? Just auto-resolve AA vs Squadrons and generate the result.

Okay, I teach Jutland, so all of this is in my head, when I find the time I'll cite something from somewhere... but Pommern was hit by smaller fire and a 12" during the night engagement that did enough to her to slow her down and forced her to divert from the battle line (can't tell you exactly what it did, I'll look up sometime) and in the middle of the night she got torpedoed (I want to say 2am?) while alone, so 4-6 hours after it was in combat... so kinda hard to say that's an engagement kill.. and she's one of the antiquated pre-dreads that was obsolete before she was wet (why they were called 5 minute ships)... edit: see all I said earlier on why sub kills are so different to "in combat" destroyer torp attacks... many of those things apply to the Pommern

All true... but, once smaller guns have better accuracy (secondaries and cruiser/destroyer mounts) we'll be able to get our Laffey's back. Also, once we get worse accuracy on the big guns vs DDs and better secondaries overall, big ships will be better equipped to hold off the smaller ones... so yeah "meta" shifts incoming I'm sure

If kitted out correctly and optimizing for them, the bigger secondaries are actually quite lethal

I like this idea, but only if we don't increase damage... you can give me a x2 damage torp platform with manual launch after 4 5" guns really worry any DD as they should... for those who play tank games, a 5" gun is roughly a 125mm tank round screaming at you... it needs to have a bit more teeth than it does now.

Yes. Zeppelins. Now.

Meh. How I spend time when I have 5 minutes here and there to burn. To me, forums are buffets... if a thread doesn’t look appetizing, don’t put it on your plate agreed on your balance and atmosphere points.

Once this happens, I'm out. Already have a dozen games to scratch my carrier itch... And you know seaplane raids are a whole lot different than this (nor do seaplanes require carriers)

Once carriers hit normal production levels this game goes from one thing to something radically different... it becomes Pacific War 1942 instead of Age of Dreadnaughts... combat is over the horizon and in the air. I'd love to do the Pacific War sans CVs, now that's a fun game "what if" for sure... but WW2 carrier wars? That's been done/will be done a hundred times... night now UA:D has the potential to be something different than the rest of the crowd (as long as the fans don't drive it to the sheep herd)

Due to repeated calls and then PMs for sources on reloads, though that is very tertiary to my point here... even using the vaunted navypedia 🙄, which when there was multiple refits of a large class (tribals, fletchers, etc) does not list reloads, because they were all over the place for the variants so in the small list of subtypes simply skips reloads (which I get)... and those commissioned in the inter-war years typically didn't carry reloads (often didn't fill their racks) but would during wartime, so those are not listed at war armaments but initial instead... fine, but simplistic... but here's just a few that do have reloads listed... I got tired of cutting and pasting after awhile... But I get what happened, the poster most calling for sources apparently likes/thinks mainly/only of ww2, so they checked only ww2 DDs and maybe interwar, which due to so many refits or being under-armed (especially the inter-war ones that were hastily updated '41 ish and then later updated with new war tech and then late war don't carry reloads any more, because who would you be firing them at?) don't have their reloads listed... understood, innocent mistake, no worries Now that I dug through navypedia, I see the potential for the misunderstanding... and I'm not saying all not listed did carry reloads (though many did) So here are some "not IJN" destroyer classes that carried deck top reloads (most more than a single torp, btw) for mounts above the water line and actually had navypedia list this data. List was even longer than I thought, ran out of time to keep listing them all... sigh http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_bainbridge.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_paul_jones.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_stewart.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_truxtun.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_hopkins.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_lawrence.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_porter.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_sims.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_benson.htm even a nice mention here of reload delays due to gov messes... like I said.. and this could/should be repeated across several USN classes http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_havock.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_daring95.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_ardent95.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_janus.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_banshee.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_handy.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_rocket.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_haughty.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_salmon.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_opossum.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_sturgeon.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_swordfish.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_desperate.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_quail.htm at this point its basically every RN class, getting silly... skipping ahead a few years and a dozen classes, just for variety's sake http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_star.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_brazen.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_erne.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_thorn.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_g_basilisk.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_acasta.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_j_k_n.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_o_p.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_pierre_durand.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_buino.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_chastang.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_rageot_de_la_touche.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_amiral_senes.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_desaix.htm okay, this is getting long... just looking at a few Italian and Germans at this point and I'm done http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_g108.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_s125.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_s113.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_g119.htm you can see the numbers I'm skipping here http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_v116.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_s178.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_1942.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_1936.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_1934.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_1934a.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_ardimentoso.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_prytkiy.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_prochnyy.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/turkey/tu_dd_muaveneti_milliye.htm http://www.navypedia.org/ships/turkey/tu_dd_samsun.htm

Yep, that's the one (Nice!). I was just thinking that even within the pre-dreadnought classes there were some open deck options that give that era of ships more a lot more variety than many would think. Thank you for all you do. Very excited to watch and play more of this game as I've never encountered a truly well done game in the age of Dreadnoughts. Big fan, admire the work done by game-labs so far!

Often submarines and DDs used the same torps, so they typically are just as strong... though as a delivery vehicle, submarines are much more focused and efficient in torpedo warfare than DDs Not really discussing damage, we're discussing effectiveness, and its migrated to specifically DD torp effectiveness (as subs are abstracted anyway, so not really relevant)... in fact my OP references a U-boat attack right off the bat, not to show how many hits it took to sink a ship (I think we all agree that one well placed one can do it) but to show how many shots it takes to get that well placed hit. Both Surigao Strait and Jutland effectively illustrate the massive amount of destroyer torps fired in real combat engagements to generate even a few effective hits, as even the ones that do strike home are often less than ideally placed and more readily controlled than would otherwise be true (and at Jutland, came at horrible cost to the firing ships). A ship, at stations, under power, in combat, is far more effective at damage control/mitigation, than one suddenly hit midship by an unexpected attack. Historically U-Boats and submarines were far more successful per torp hit for many reasons (more precise depth settings, both a less dynamic launch platform and target, time to attempt a better placed shot and angle, more singular focus in training and at the moment of attack etc) but at moments in history were still hobbled by the unreliable nature of torpedoes. That's why I'm so dismissive of U-Boat sunk ships, they're simply such a different moment as to not be applicable to destroyer warfare (which was quickly the focus of this thread, though not my initial thought). I'm just against the calls for ideal conditions perceived damage from the most well placed torpedo shots, often from the peak platforms and weapons in torp warfare via a submarine ambush being applied to an ww1 destroyer making a crazy and chaotic run in the middle of combat. That's as ignorant as using the damage and accuracy of a well placed 7.62 round fired from an experienced snipers rifle and applying it to all AK-47 7.62 rounds fired by general infantry in long bursts.

If we just got a flush (though probably still raised) mid-deck for the pre-dread era (maybe as an alternative tech to research), I think that could really open design space edit: out of curiosity, can we build a Lord Nelson class currently? Not at my gaming PC, but I don't know if we can pull that off right now

Was hit by a 2 Squadron bombing run and naval gunnery and was limping without steering when struck Yes, an outdated/hated “5 minute ship” after repeated gunnery hits and disengaging was struck at 3 in the morning. Not in combat Sub kills, not what anyone is talking about, not in combat Same as above Another night action, this time against a ship not under way A uboat and a night attack? We’re discussing engagement use of DD torps

@DarkTerren yes I have the game. But a 1940 start could be a zero research, all things go start. 1940s tech could easily just be showing all the plans disrupted in 1922 taken to completion... because they have pointedly said that playing out the what-if of no treaty was part of their plans. These plans are famous and a big part of endless discussions in naval history academic circles. So I don’t know, but I see 1922 on as more alternate history than history.

Oh very much so. If they capped this game @1922 or such I’d be thrilled.

But very nice and often easy to do. Great idea

If we get Argus and some swordfish, sure. But I thought it was already said aircraft would be abstract, and as a game billed from the beginning as Age of Dreadnaughts with be ability to do “no Washington treaty” what if’s as the higher tech. If not for WT allowing experimental platforms, carriers would have been longer coming.