Lobokai

I thought they said 1930+ was the cut and that planes and subs would be abstract. Is there a newer dev post I missed?

I could see all of those working. But really would like to see smaller craft damage worked out. The domino effect could be strong

There's carriers and then there's carriers... people aren't asking for scout craft tenders, they want Enterprise and Avengers

Unless you have some way of stopping ahistorical use of a devastating weapon when it worked, the game will suffer Of course the devs did figure out a way already Subs should not show up in any active battle. Especially 1940 and before, but really not ever. At best they’d have some turn based effect on spotting, shipping, and hunt down crippled ships. Maybe with the right tech, raid harbors

Let me put it this way. If your recreated all your example scenarios in this game’s mission format, would DDs and torps end up under performing or out performing the historical impact DDs did? I’m supremely confident UA:D torp warfare is more lethal than the historical and any reasonable player here would have to agree when looking at the numbers involved. If that’s so, why would/should torpedoes impact on the game be increased?

the entire package, ships, radar, night fighting training, academy techniques, etc cannot be separated out one from the other... a 1944 IJN destroyer or cruiser attacking a US ship is a sum of its 1944 parts (both in manpower/doctrine and in hardware/manufacturing/materiale) who's point are you arguing with this example? So many close in runs that cannot sink a BC, in a very WW2 style night fight, where torps still failed to be decisive (none believed to have damaged Hei from a USN DD) because that's not a thing. Gunnery from San Fran and gunnery from Laffey (who fought like a boss) and the other vessels are what took out Hiei's steering. Again, no DD torp wins here and its aircraft that sink Hiei... all from a fight that is anathema to a game with UA:D's focus A massive line of battleships puts sustained fire on Yamashiro for 18 minutes... pretty sure that's what did the work here... then she took 6 torp hits to the stern quarter while moving in a straight line at 15 knots. This was after she survived a massive set of torp runs (from your map, see its there?) again proving pretty decisively the INEFFECTIVENESS of torp work in combat against a BB not the other way around. 1 hit after all of that?! All the other came from after a half dozen battle ships crossed Yamashiro's T. Your examples keep proving my point. Fuso was ravaged by the same battle line before they fired at Yamashiro and the work of 67 (DDs and TBs)... which is what you know I meant, don't be pedantic... it weathers most of this, and is then hit by aircraft... only after its flooding and gutted does a US destroyer put in the ultimate kill shots. Clearly Surigao Strait shows the mass FAILURE of ship fired torpedoes in taking down large ships, 67 torpedo craft make runs that fire shots and its only after they finish their runs and the Pearl BBs have a perfect "penny in slot" kill zone barrage with heavy air attacks that destroyers come in and finish them off. So EVEN when leaving the realm of UA:D your best example shows how underwhelming "IRL" torps were. Only?! and they still failed... have you switched positions and I missed it? Apologies if so Yes, and just lol. 2-3 mile launches make my point not yours, I'm not going through this yet again As far as sources... navypedia? it's got super simplified basic data. Reloads are not even in the scope of half of that data, of course it doesn't mention it, why would it. I'd be a moron to claim reloads when they don't exist on a www forum with plenty of naval warfare fans/fellow professionals on it. Every ship I stated as having reloads did. Sometime when I want to spend forever digging out books I will but feel free to check out lowly wikipedia which actually lists the relevant Conways (they're by years, so whichever one is the relevant years) as a source. Both the RN and USN designs used trolleys while at sea to reload, I'm sorry random navypedia doesn't have pictures of a trolley and the equipment cranes in use, but then again it has almost nothing, so why would it? I'm confident the devs already know these things as will fellow posters here and feel no need to cite it all for you. Maybe some kind soul will find you the Admiralty House work ups on the logistic issues with reloads and what not, but I'm not spending that time now. Jutland?!?!?! Seriously? The RN empties the racks on half of its DDs and puts a ridiculous amount of fish in the water to finish off a damaged BB and possibly get credit for 1... with 78 DDs!! and almost traditional longer range shots, not the crazy point blank ones you were advocating and those same RN DDs took the worst losses of all classes on either side for their uninspired performance. never said this, talked about it not being the case, not sure what you're reading... you can read your USN cruiser accounts as well as anyone else. Not only are they not relevant but there are considerably more than ship fired torps in those cases. Houston makes the case that Japanese night fighting was awesome early WW2... not relevant to UA:D, but whatever... but yes, in all the wars and all the attacks here's the 1 time the thing youre thinking should be common and reliable happened. North Hampton escapes under her own steam and 3 hours later is abandoned... but again, we're down to cruisers because you have no real BB examples. Quincy takes sustained fire from 4 CRs, has its bridge knocked out during a night action and is then torped. Vincennes is a wretched, torn, flaming mess with no bridge or command that has its engine room trying to make blind turns when destroyer hit it. None of these really make your point at all. Stop using WW2 nonsense that doesn't help you anyway to make arguments about a 1890-1940 game

Let's not drop 1941+ Pacific War top tier carrier ops into a game more centered on Falkland or Jutland. A historically accurate carrier war game is basically nothing like a dreadnaught centered one.

I'd be very interested to see how torps and secondaries (common complaints) do once damage control/mitigation on small vessels and transports is toned down. I think a better balance on how close DDs and TBs can get before they die needs to be found before we start tweaking torpedoes... which probably need a bit more range and damage once DDs and TBs are dying as fast as they should... but who knows... balance one wildly tipping scale before upsetting another

Not the ones or the doctrines being asked for

Can I add that I DON'T want it to be created so that people can play it as a ww2 naval game? That's all I keep seeing. People asking for CVs, Torps, Subs, Aircraft, etc as if this entire game is set from 1938-1945... if its got to be balanced for an era of combat, I'd like it to be ww1

@Christian so you want historical damage to do ahistorical attacks? This is my problem. We keep seeing requests for idealized ww2 torps in a pre-ww1 to before ww2 game. MacDuff says it well here And you went exactly where I know people want to go... you want to use weapons in a completely ahistorical method and cherry pick 1944 tech and drop it into a 1890-1940 game. No BB was sunk by close in DD torpedo attacks... never did a DD put point blank torp shots into a battleship, but you want to create a paradigm where this would be a viable and even devastating attack. The closest thing would be Fuso, and it took 67 DDs and TBs to pull that off. If the loud minority gets their weird unicorn torpedoes then banzai DDs (which are not ever a thing) become a pretty easy norm. As far as reloads, most RN Destroyers carried a reload per tube, Rivers kept them on deck... they were the first one I checked, Admiralty class Destroyers were the same, also Acorn... so first three looked at, I'm not page by paging my way through Conways... there's even articles discussing reload trolleys and how well they did/didn't work underway Lets look at USN classes (I'm just randomly picking prolific WW1 or WW2 ships)... Fletcher, Bainbridge, and Smith classes first ones I looked up, 4 reloads (stored behind the aft rack if curious) German S138s, V1s, and V25s carried on deck reloads... French Durandal carried on deck reloads, as did Arquebuse and Branlebas classes (no data on Branlebas, but I found a photo with 2 reloads on deck) I'm stopping, 11 for 11 on the ones I checked... stop using random websites and pick up an actual naval guide Only 3 of them were sunk in combat, 1 of which was already dead in the water... so you found 2 1944 instances and even of these only 1 was not a ship already torn to shreds... I think you're providing evidence for the wrong side of the argument here... and youre using night action fights from the wrong era. So thank you, yes, clearly UA:D should not have this happening within its scope.

@sRuLe you do know that I was saying torpedoes shot relative to ships sunk, not hits to sink? It’s come up several times besides being in the OP. There’s no contention here as to the amount of damage a torpedo can do. In fact it’s in the quote you lifted from my post. If you don’t allow reloads in combat in mission, you really need to remove the timer. Since we have one, we need the other. But again, the contention isn’t about in combat reloads, it’s about the risk involved in having them aboard while taking damage. USN mark14s took about 1/2 hour to reload and were not reloaded in combat. But without a timer, against a slower target, you could pull off and a hour later reengage, racked and ready. We do, however, have a timer

So you want 1-3% accuracy, with no reloads, but historical damage? Really!? You can't cherry pick what parts of the "IRL" torps you want... real damage but your real accuracy would be unplayable. Luckily it's not as bad as you think, while not having the best torpedoes, the US has the best metrics on these things... Mark 10 torps had a 24% reliability when launched on target and Avengers used Mark 13 22' torps (so yeah, basically exactly what you thought you weren't talking about)... I don't even need to research those numbers, they're pretty well known, but feel free to look them up, you'll find em. Also, the vast majority of US Pacific DDs did carry reloads when they were available... mark 14 issues and production is the only reason IJN DDs had reloads and USN DDs didn't at points... but you can go research that too. Mediterranean DDs on patrols sometimes did not have reloads, but that is an entirely different logistical situation... one can't just blindly say "reloads" weren't thing, there's quite a bit of context involved. You also should know, that torps were doctrinally often fired in blind spreads into ship formation, the enemy just sighting torps and a few lucky hits could throw a line into disarray, occasionally even causing collisions (in fact some imagined torps did that too)

Your perception of IRL is simply wrong. What your asking for is ahistorical. No torpedo reloads?! Why? A typical destroyer would carry a reload for each x2 or x3 rack. Those things were even carried open on deck in many cases. Why would you ask for something that simply is wrong to the simulation? 15-22 on target launches sinks a ship in combat is probably about correct. It took well over 50 launched torps to take down Yamato in conjunction with nearly 100 bombs. The number of torps you need to fire is nearly spot on. If somehow the consensus is that magical movie torps that always detonate, never run under a target, never turn in circles, never sink like a rock, and (good lord) don’t need reloads or the risk of that ammunition on deck... should all strike at the more extreme levels of damage that the few properly functioning historical torps did, then whomever is forming that consensus has no clue what real torp warfare was like. Do not cite lonely uboats hitting unaware and often unmoving targets as thresholds for what engaged DD torps should do either. That’s some serious intellectual dishonesty. People need to keep other arcade like computer game experiences and movies out of a historical war game. If it’s taking the same amount of shots to sink a ship, I’m happy. Just think for a bit how stupid this game would be if a DD could alpha strike with your magical unicorn torps and not have the jeopardy of hauling reloads around. Might as well add cruise missiles and F-14s with Maverick flying one at that point.

I often see people asking torpedoes to be made more dangerous, they site big battleships going down from a few hits. Royal Oak sinking from only 3 or 4 is often referenced. But what isn’t realized is 9 (possibly 12) were fired and all the rest had problems. This is at an inert target from an experienced Uboat crew. This is typical, if not actually a better case than the norm. When compared with historical data it’s taking us about the same amount of torps fired to bring down targets... in fact, UA:D torps are slightly more lethal than they should be in “safe” mode. Torpedoes, even the best, were notoriously unreliable: duds, running too deep, poor pathing, premature detonations, incorrect release angles, surface shear, etc. And this doesn’t even factor in notorious bureaucratic/new tech messes like the US mk.14. So instead of all of these frustrating failures randomly happening, I prefer the abstraction of all torps work and just do (a little) less damage.

I’m hoping... like what I see so far

Ninja’d. But I agree with damage model concerns on TRs and TBs... needs some tweaking. Just trying to illustrate that the secondaries are fine in hits and damage when looking at the 8”s edit: I’ll test smaller secondary mounts (and yes, more historical ones) next

I’ve done a total of 4 runs now. 1 went similar to the one you described, other 3 were close approximations of the one I posted. It’s basically when and who finally “rolls a crit”. Annoying as all get out in these small academy engagements, but in larger fights (like a posted somewhere else... threads are running together now) it won’t be so bad and is appropriate to the setting. If you’re up for doing it, try a few more runs? In my experience, tacking a little as you approach a foe in these BCs lets you put a ton of shots down range, but I only do it after a BB main gun volley... you want to be head on when those come at you. Other than that, a lazy loop does the trick

What shells, what explosives, what turrets, what reloading techs are you using? I’ve noticed radical differences with changes in those.

Well here’s my 25 minute run where everything died horribly and I was able to kill all in a slash, loop, and single pass. Am I running the wrong version? Are you? If anything I feel like secondaries are OP right now

Yes I realize all those things... wrong era

First of all HMS Nelson never fired on Bismarck so any sourcing discussing that get questionable and Bismarck wasn’t sunk by shells anyway and second, while bigger is better, when looking at WW1 ships (far more relevant to this game) and staying away the World of Warship top tier/you should barely see them in this game and balancing around them would be a mistake type ships, rate of fire, crew skill, unified ammunition etc become much more important than just size of gun. Please stop trying to tech this game for its what if end game ships and look at its heart.

btw, here's those 2 BC 8"s taking a devil's due on all those escorts in the armored convoy mission... 2 BB, 2 CL, 1 CA, and 6 TRs... basically unharmed when over. Only serious damage was both my 9"x2 guns were destroyed (1 very early), so it really was the secondaries doing all the work. Secondaries are fine Third time playing this through... I've mentioned other runs before... but this time pics CA and BB sunk on approach, then I turned a lazy loop port after crossing through the line After finishing the loop, all escorts already gone One pass and 35 minutes left, everything gone

@Mycophobia I agree with you on the "hunting the right hit box" frustrations... but as far as 8" BCs... I made 2 for the Armored Convoy scenario... put as many super firing 8"s and secondaries as I could (used 9s for my minimum mains) , then at 22 knots, in one pass, I was able to sink every ship except the 2 BBs and 1 TR that I intentionally left to keep the mission going. I then looped around and put all fire into 1 BB and was able to structure it on a single 20 knot pass and severely hurt the other, which I turned to cross its stern T and then gunned down it... last TR bit it... end of mission... Here's my build

Lai Yuan is an orange and we're talking apples. Many smaller vessels did suffer from fires, that's why I'm careful to say "cruiser or larger" every time this comes up. It was a teak wood decked gunboat that was covered in lacquer to improve waterproofing (not even 3k displacement, with 2 8" and 2 6" guns... its considerably smaller than a Fletcher). It was maintained in sub par facilities after it was laid down a half century before UA:D even begins in a navy only featured as a "what if it became a naval power". The poor thing was a floating tender box... and yet, even then, it did not go down due to the fire and still operated under her own power, was repaired and able to sail 150 miles to port. Lai Yuan is a worse case scenario, outside the scope of what we are looking at, and even it makes a stronger statement for why fires DON'T need to be any more crippling than they are than for.