[>>>v1.1+ Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.2.9R)]

2 hours ago, Dave P. said:

Dunno if anybody else has mentioned this, but since the devs added caliber adjustments to the guns, I've noticed a weird thing with damage reporting on AI ships.

As you can see with the attached screenshot, the sunken AI ship reports hits from 2.3" and 3.3" guns, but my ships were equipped with 2.0" and 3.0" guns. It seems to be pulling the description from the ships own data instead - the sunken AI ship has 2.3" and 3.3" guns. (But it didn't shoot itself!)

Since ships can't have multiple sizes of guns within a class (no mounting 3.0" and 3.9" guns on the same hull, for instance) I'm guessing all hits from, say, 3.0-3.9" guns are recorded to one counter and then labelled with the ships own matching size?

I honestly think this is pretty minor, and I suspect it would be a lot of effort for minimal benefit to start recording every separate diameter of shell individually. But IMHO this could be labelled differently so it looks less wrong. 🙂

Loving the game. Suck it, haters.

Just use the INT (Integer) function. 12.0 to 12.9 are all 12, as far as the damage indicator is concerned.

[>>>v1.1+ Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.2.9R)]

Nick, I really want my rudder back. If the AI loses control of the formation, I'd take it. Plus, more people playing with the rudder will surely send more data on the bugs for analysis.

And am I the only one who sometimes has to break up a formation b/c that's the only way to get the ships to speed up to a decent speed?

[>>>v1.1+ Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.2.9R)]

I've just started playing again after a long hiatus, did anyone ask why you are not allowed to just build your Refit ship model? I started out with Kawachi. Then I invented Guncotton, so I refitted Kawachi into Kawachi-2. Then I realized I can't actually new-build Kawachi-2, so I copied it to create an identical Kawachi-B, except I can build it from scratch.

That plugs the problem until another small bit of new tech I'd like to incorporate is developed. But the game probably won't realize it's the same, so I'd have to make a Kawachi-3 and a Kawachi-B-2 which are the same except i'd have do the same work twice.

[Dodging a torpedo]

Acceleration is indeed too fast in this game (though not nearly as bad as say World of Warships), but at least it is fair. The primary reason the AI can dodge torps and you can't is

a) human players are inattentive. They keep getting bored, turn up the time compression, lose time to respond and come on this board to blame their dereliction of duty on the computer.

b) because they can't envisage the consequences of their turn as well as the computer. The game does give you a line so you can imagine your own turn, but it doesn't help you envisage where the enemy torpedo would be at each stage of your turn.

c) human players build a 100k ton ship, which have a lot of inertia which makes it even harder to predict the interaction, even if you have hydrophones that see them far out.

Let the AI be good at something is what I say.

[Too many undecided battles]

I believe you are explicitly told not to Leave Battle - if you do, all consequences are your own. Wait until the End Battle button shows up.

Leaving battle is you, the Admiral, deciding to jump ship because you can't be bothered to do your duty. You can't expect the same results as properly ending the battle.

[Admiral Dreadfuls snooze fest (feedback)]

On 12/22/2021 at 9:35 AM, ThatZenoGuy said:

The battles in this game can get...Tiring even at 5x speed. 

We're talking about 1% hit chances so statistically some battles can't even actually be won as the amount of damage won't sink a ship.

If you are seeing 1% hit chance, get closer. Part of Naval Academy is to teach you how to find the balance between killing efficiency and not getting killed.

[Long list of issues (Please read)]

11 hours ago, Littorio said:

If that's how they are going to code it, then just have a condition: Do you have all the TRs needed? If yes, no economic penalties. If no, a penalty is applied. But bothering to have a percentage there that doesn't scale the penalty in correlation is just absurd and depressing. It's why it took me so long to figure out what that whole  bar actually meant in the first place, because the flat rate threw me off.

My suggestion to this is that they just let us Design and Build our own transports. If we are building battleships, cruisers and destroyers, it is just one more click to build our own transports.

Then let us control said transports. Even if none of my warships are actually around, give me the Battle Screen anyway. Give me a chance to save my transport.

[so... what now?]

On 12/7/2021 at 10:47 AM, Littorio said:

One movement they are near Gotland, and next turn in the Bay of Biscay, the same ships?

Please remember that a month passes with each turn. In that time, a ship can go to New York and return.

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

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

- Aiming of guns fine tuning.

Was the @1000m jacked up? It is now much more difficult to get the torpedo off when they have firing ranges of only 900m and sometimes refuse to fire even when they should.

 

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

2 hours ago, DougToss said:

I know @arkhangelsk is familiar with them, he might be able to help.

Well, I ran through Warrior and copied out information concerning hit rates:

Warrior to Dreadnought Gunnery Images.docx

Click to read.

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

10 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@akd @TAKTCOM @arkhangelsk

Not that I disagree with you guys, but we have been talking about torpedo, secondary, accuracy and armour for over a year... We have the campaign now, we should focus on that as that's what they are working on atm. There is plenty of issue to address, plenty of suggestion that need to be made in order to have a viable and fun campaign.

As far as the campaign is concerned, I actually like what I see. The fact that damaging ships now have meaning means I am now making different choices from when I'm playing Naval Academy.

Maybe I'll comment on the tech-tree. I understand that some technological components are WIP, but that means we are spending a lot of time for nothing. Maybe WIP items in the tech tree should be taken out for the time being, or reweighted such that they are completed in almost no time at all, allowing players to get to the "good stuff".

Another thing I notice is that it's implied I must research all the gun calibers. That seems somewhat un-necessary. I think many people would prefer to get to Mark II guns faster rather than be forced to open all the calibers in sequence.

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

11 hours ago, DougToss said:

I can't agree with @arkhangelsk enough (which is pretty funny considering we went 12 rounds over this, eh?). Secondary armaments weren't effective against torpedo boats. I'd really rather not see gunnery completely discounted from reality to match unrealistic expectations. I would really, really like to opt for realism in fire control, gunnery and damage. That's harder to put into specific feedback - sorry @Nick Thomadis - because I can't say if guns "5% stronger" will be more in line with historical results. 

I won't make any definitive comments on the realism, but I think that the current balance is at least bearable from a gameplay perspective. Last night, I played a mission where I had about 7 torpedo boats flung against 2 battleships (I think they also had two torpedo boats that were supposed to escort them but I barely noticed them). The enemy's defense was such that I could get into the 900m ring, but about there the hits start to pile and I felt like I was only just able to turn around and get that torpedo off and then scurry off with a damaged ship. The AI, of course, is attentive unlike the human player and dodged all but about two torpedoes which sank one battleship.

That seems broadly "fair" without being manifestly unrealistic, but what do you think.

Quote

The first solution, as I said, is to just work on time acceleration so players can experience battles faster rather than the gameplay dictating the battles are simulated faster. Ships in 1890 were expected to slug it out at point blank range, and weren't going to sink quickly considering the medium calibre guns of the time. With time acceleration, engagements with slow-firing, inaccurate guns can still be played through quickly. Better to do that than "fix" the inaccurate 6 inch guns of 1890, firing bagged charges through screw breaches to act like players may expect. 

One problem with time acceleration is that it doesn't deal with the torpedo problem - by the time the human player on high time acceleration notices the torp and is able to react, the torpedo already got something like 15 seconds of free run time when the reaction time is indeed a bit short. If we increase time acceleration more, they will be hit by the torpedoes before they can even click.

Personally, I'm content to just progress the game at 1x speed when I'm in in-fighting range, or even just a six hour Grand Battle second by second, but darn it I need a SAVE button. How many people do they think can just sit a game for 6 hours in a stretch?

Quote

 

I think this applies to most aspects of realism or historical accuracy - It's better to train players on what to expect and how to develop tactics around that in a Naval Academy mission introducing the state of the art in 1890, how battles in the Spanish-American and Russo-Japanese Wars unfolded.  If they know that things aren't "broken" when ships take dozens of hits (out of hundreds fired at single digit accuracy) in a 6in "hail of fire", but don't sink quickly, and they can turn up time acceleration to experience it at the pace they like, I think that's a good compromise. 

 

I think the Naval Academy does do some of that, but perhaps not enough. Because it always gives you the option to Boost Fire Control and Gun Technology. So people almost never experience how sucky the guns really are in the 1890 Campaign. Campaign has already convinced me of the need to stick torpedo tubes on my battleships, and I'm even a little more generous on the secondary guns because I'm so desperate for some kind of hit!

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

13 hours ago, StoneofTriumph said:

The problem is that people are arguing strenuously in favor of realistic gun performance while arguing just as vigorously in favor of unrealistic torpedo performance.

Well, I didn't say for free, did I? I just argue that considering realistic player psychology, it would be better to "amortize" the duds by reducing the torpedo damage. 100% reliable torpedoes with only 50% their damage is mathematically equivalent to 50% reliable torpedoes with full damage over the long run. And in broad terms, currently the game does that (at least if you weren't stupid enough to go with "Minimum Bulkheads" on your battleships. By using a good number of bulkheads, even a 1890 battleship can survive multiple hits, which averages out to be equivalent to the same number of "full power" torpedoes hitting but only 1-2 of them actually exploding).

That's different from people just in effect saying "I don't care. I want to get that torpedo boat."

13 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

In Grest Naval Battles, which was amazing naval simulation for a time, you felt great satisfaction if your salvo managed to hit target and in fact detonated.

I played Great Naval Battles myself. I still remember that "sheaf" knob that refuses to change to WIDE or NARROW, and really the only usable options on it is HOLD and SPOT.

I've never been much of a torpedo person, but frankly the whole process of using torpedoes in GNB isn't nearly as painful as in UAD. You are not constantly trying to refine your course, trying to get the ship to expose and launch the tubes. You get to launch the tubes yourself and if they are not in arc it's instantly shown to you, so you don't get that feeling of "begging" the ship to fire the torpedoes.

I'm not asking for a net advantage. I'm only suggesting how to keep to realistic overall results while not causing players to RageQuit.

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

3 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Can't believe somebody still thinks torpedoes are not OP. In the situation where there are no duds, torpedo failures, breakdowns, failures to explode on impact and imperfect detonators. So, yes, if you look from perspective of WOWS players torpedoes are not OP. But if I remember correctly this game was advertised as historically accurate  and some of us find flawless torpedoes unacceptable and OP.

I think the "flawless torpedoes" are an acceptable compromise. Remember, you have to think of your own feelings when you are the guy struggling a lot to set up the shot (remember, you don't have a navigator so you are plotting intercept courses by feel, and the computer likes to put constant turns in to make life harder for you). Finally, you set up the shot. It hits, and it duds. Do you think you won't get such thoughts as "Ahh, the computer saved itself"?

As it is, people ignore probability theory as they complain about how the other ship hits them first even though it has a lower hit probability (which just means it's less likely they'll get in any particular hit, not that they can't hit you first).

Plus. Remember. In 1890 you don't get double hulls or Anti-Torp V. But you still get maximum bulkheads against puny 15 inch torps.

  

1 hour ago, TAKTCOM said:

How many knots?  My attempts to use TB against cruisers and battleships in 1890 ended up "all on fire" and "1-2 engine damaged" at best. In 1890, the best TB for me was CA 3,5-5к.

In 1900, the enemy CA are dodging my torpedoes 10/10. Of course, the German СA are hopeless design, so it doesn't really matter.

Maybe he just happened to get enemy cruisers with Minimum Bulkheads.

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

3 hours ago, AdmER said:

Accuracy at low range is not good at all. The secondary batteries should be a good defense again a lone TB or 2. It is absolutely not the case.

What if I ask you to prove this assertion? Not by intuitive feel, but by showing battles where secondary batteries were actually effective against torpedo boats? One reason countries had to build torpedo boat destroyers was that they really can't expect very much from the secondaries.

From a gameplay perspective, you need to balance your annoyance when you can't defend against the torpedo boat versus what you'll feel when you are the torpedo boat. When the firing range of your torpedoes is nine hundred meters, you don't want the enemy ship to suddenly become an Aegis cruiser at say under 1000m. In the time it takes you to get into range, turn to expose your torp tubes and fire, your torpedo boat might be fatally crippled and you'll never get the shot off.

In my experience people over-rate the torpedo threat, at least in this era. Your ship simply isn't that big, so if you are careful, you won't be getting under 900m from your opponents. And if you did, unless you let them get very close, even a battleship can turn in time to avoid torpedoes. People get clobbered because they play on high time accelerations, which means let the torpedo multiple tens of seconds of "free time" before they even notice the torpedo. Then they try to set course rather than use rudder control. Then they get hit by the torpedo and they say "Torps OP, plz nerf".

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

May I suggest the Auto-Resol ver needs work (had to use it b/c I can't sit through a six hour battle, more considering how much I'll have to pause to do it right)? I had more battleships and light cruisers. OK, maybe the British ships were somewhat superior individually, but what is this loss ratio?

Though it's kind of gamey, perhaps what is needed is a display like the gunnery display, with the factors the game will consider in its Auto-Resolve on the screen and the range of likely results. That way, people can make an informed decision on whether to push the button.

 

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

Can you add a Save button for Campaign Battles? Or at least Auto-save the Battle when you Leave Battle? Not many people can sit for six hours in a stretch, and time compression isn't a solution because for one thing the compression is less in a big battle. For another thing, every time you use time compression you risk losing control and your ship drives into torpedo range. In fact, you might want to go less than (on average) 1:1 in large battles, with frequent pauses just so you can check out each ship. To do this right you need to be able to Save.

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

59 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:

I just had a game where the 2 enemy DDs that were supposed to attack my transport, ran away before even making contact, and was at least 30-40km away from the transport at that point seeing how my BC couldn't see them either, and it was 20km away from the transport. So I pressed leave game, and somehow, my BC and DD got heavy damage... from 2 DDs that were actively running away. Really need to work on enemy retreating so that it does not waste the player time. Timer went nearly 30 mins.

In this game, just because they are not visible does not mean they are 30-40km away. Spotting distances in this game has been notoriously low since forever. You literally need to build escortiing screens and rely on the "Collective Engagement Capability" if you want to use the full range of your main armament.

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

11 hours ago, Evil4Zerggin said:

Repair cost should be prorated for < 1 month worth of damage, spending 2 million to repair 0.5% damage is kind of bad.

An alternative would be to let you decide whether to repair less than 1 month worth of damage - if you are in wartime, and your ship is only slightly scratched, you probably won't dock it at all.

[Core Patch 1.0 News *The upcoming changelog*]

1 hour ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

Not much choice xD, I am starting with the kraut mostly because they didn't have much of a navy in 1890s and I like building from scratch. 

I'll go for the British until I familiarize myself with the mechanisms. When I think I've got it I'll try the German.

[Really not so great, actually really bad]

On 11/8/2021 at 12:51 PM, DougToss said:

I was not going to reply to @arkhangelsk because I must have written 15 pages on secondary armaments at this point. However, in the interest of a positive community - let me respond.

The Chief Designer of the postwar Royal Navy, D.K. Brown, wrote four books that all explain the purpose, function, successes and failures of secondary armament from 1879-1960.  We have all relayed that information to you - as well as what O’Hara and Friedman, the other leading naval authorities have to say. 

And as I've told you previously, I not only have most of the sources you use (Captain Hughes seems to be a favorite citing source of yours these days), but am even sufficiently familiar with them that even if you hadn't bothered to cite properly I can often just read the quoted portion and figure out which work it is.

I understand you are undergoing significant stress talking with Skeksis, but don't just shove the blame over here as well. I don't even post that much - just over 40 posts total since September 15 (and the post before that was in February)

If you are not having success with your opponents, try making sure your evidence even supports you.

On 10/18/2021 at 9:52 PM, DougToss said:

Also, as always, historically the point of secondary armaments was not to protect warships singlehanded - they very rarely (1-3%) hit, and when they did, did not sink small torpedo craft, but rather acted as a deterrent. 

From one of your "fifteen pages". I don't know how to interpret this other than to say you agree that the game actually broadly simulates the mechanical aspect of secondaries properly.

On 10/22/2021 at 2:02 AM, DougToss said:

I think it’s more that neither was very accurate but the threat of either was a huge consideration. I could be misreading that though.  

[Hughes]

All of that to say, it’s *really* hard to account for Torpedoes being simultaneous incredibly dangerous *and* not often very effective.  

Your second post takes extensively from Hughes, and concerns the torpedo more than the defensive secondary gun. If you ask me, torpedoes are indeed threatening to me in game. Maybe if my evasive skills are better, but anyway I agree the risk of them hitting makes me want to take countermeasures. But it says nothing about whether I should use the secondary gun or divert rounds from main armament, does it?

On 10/29/2021 at 8:20 PM, DougToss said:

No kidding about the Iowa pumping out rounds at close range.

I see Iowa is pumping out a lot of lead (says your chart taken from Hughes again). It doesn't say much about the effectiveness of said rounds, or their hit rate.

And your succeeding posts in that thread don't really help your argument either. In fact, I can't see how it is greatly different than what I wrote - I also said that the results are often "disappointing" and you agree the hit rate is low. Your own post says their justification is for deterrence, while I said it is for a "hoped for moral effect" - what's the difference here?

I thus conclude that the player should be tested to the limit (so he won't install secondaries out of inertia) to realize what the game's position on the matter is, which you seem to agree is not even that far from reality.

To cite a bit more from Brown:

Quote

 

Hits were unlikely as one might expect from hand-worked guns, close to the waterline and hence with poor visibility. Inertia forces on the heavy and fairly long barrel of the 6in 45cal would make it difficult to train and elevate rapidly, particularly when the ship was pitching and rolling or turning. Fire was normally opened at 7500 – 8000yds. German accounts say that firing on their destroyers by British battleships was not very effective.13 One can only wonder if director control, fitted later, would have made a big difference.

Brown, D. K.. The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906-1922 . Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition. 

 

Quote

 

In conclusion, 6in (or 5.9in) secondary batteries aboard capital ships were expensive, unlikely to score hits and their exposed ammunition could endanger the ship. The correct way to protect battleships from destroyer attack was a screen of light cruisers and destroyers. A light 4in battery may well have been desirable to boost morale rather than protect the ship.

Brown, D. K.. The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906-1922 . Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition.

 

Wow, Brown is really enthusiastic about secondary guns. Why are you biting my head off for suggesting allowing the player to see if he'll need them in this game, or maybe the game can conclude they really are useless?

[Really not so great, actually really bad]

On 11/5/2021 at 3:59 PM, DougToss said:

Why would you not just emulate real battleships?

First, because like it or not, the game may not line up with reality. In that case, it's important that you learn the game's position on the matter, before you decide on doing anything else.

Second, because like it or not, the real battleship isn't necessarily right. The fact is that we have not solved for the "Ideal Battleship" as well as we have solved for the Saturn V. We have gotten rid of some clear second best ideas - like wing turrets. But after a certain point, conservatism took over on a "good enough" design.

For example, take the little problem of secondaries. Real battleships have them, so should your UA:D battleship? Even in real life, secondaries often brought in disappointing results (Graf Spee's didn't land a single hit) and it is often justified for a hoped for moral effect - obviously, the solutions are not as rigorously scientific or mathematical as those who made the Saturn V. In fact, some parts are almost ... religious ... in their justification. But no one dares to beach the secondaries.

Would you say even so you should just blindly emulate real battleships and unthinkingly stick on secondaries?

[Really not so great, actually really bad]

On 11/3/2021 at 1:39 PM, jimh said:

1st shot hit, yes multi-pal starts not just a one off  several times actually   opening shots 2x taking out my main battery   on the 1st salvo   i saw it shoot i saw it hit   that a bug or glich   i uninstalled and reinstalled it even.

In how many runs? There is a small chance of hit. If it happens a lot OK but if it only happens a few times in every hundred it's fine.

And I understand you. In Campaign, you will get to make these multi-purpose ships. The difference that I don't think you are getting is how the game tries to train you to build the best multi-purpose ships.

As far as I can see, you are arguing that Naval Academy should limit itself to missions that you can beat by building general purpose ships, on grounds that this is what you should be building in campaign. The problem is that any mission that can be beat by a general purpose ship can also be beat by a special ship, or by badly built special ships, or by a general purpose ship that's not built as well as it could be. To ensure the mission can be beaten by a general purpose ship inevitably means an Easy mission. Is it possible for you to understand this?

2 hours ago, monbvol said:

I tend to agree with the navy man here.

In a campaign where you don't always get to dictate what scenarios your ship finds itself in and you have to suffer the consequences of your design choices over a span of years it would be much better to be taught not to overspecialize.  Finding a solid middle ground is key.

Also running away is often a very valid tactical AND strategic choice.  You may not learn as much as if you had stayed and duked it out but when the consequences of victory can still result in your ships being shot up and in serious need of dock time or the losses you sustain coming back to haunt you, never under estimate the value of declining the fight or running away after it has been joined.

Let me put it this way. How are you going to find the Middle Ground if you don't even know where the ends are? I mean the real end, not just assuming is emulating a real battleship.

[Really not so great, actually really bad]

On 10/31/2021 at 5:36 PM, jimh said:

before launch a short breif or allow to see the screenset up your desired  formations   stations  keeping  set up up your divisions before shell are dropping then sail into battle

Oh, I definitely agree with this one!

Quote

start at longer distance dont spam at 18km   you can speed up time if that is an issue,  allow to maneuver    into battle  don't  juts drop into one with shells flying   what were the lookouts and radar op asleep?

In many of the scenarios, you are already starting at a distance where you can't even see the enemy - you can't maneuver against an enemy you cannot see. You can practice this stuff in Customs Battles.

Quote

better ai station keeping and engagement 

I agree.

Quote

1st shots are ranging and bracketing before full batteries fire  or you waste ammo   no one hits 2-3 on a 1st shot at long range,  

It doesn't happen that often - and indeed the game is explicit about its ranging. Are you sure you didn't just fail to notice the initial ranging salvo which is forced to be a two-gun squirt?

Quote

build real type ships if aI cannot or pull ai from a libary of classes... no clown ships

Question: Are you winning against said "clown" ships? I have a bottom line - you can't call anything you can't beat a clown ship.

Quote

if in an overwhelmed mission  1 v 3many when ur out gunned and ot classed escape and evasion  and survive is winning 

You can choose to do that in the campaign. In Naval Academy, go attack them and see how far you can get. You don't learn anything from running.

Quote

ships are generalists what u tailor is the force composition to the intell  one of these 2 of thoses  etc... to make a force for the task at hand. (this maybe more campain  mode.

Yes, because Battleship A is exactly the same as Battleship B ...

I'm not sure if you are getting me. Here's the basic dilemma: Any scenario that can be beaten by a General Purpose ship can be beaten by a specialized ship set up for that one scenario. Thus you cannot learn which is better and why from that kind of scenario. So you up the challenge until it can only be beaten by a specialized ship. Then you might learn something.

I am fundamentally against textbook ships winning on principle. The game should model reality as best as possible, of course, but it should not be tuned to favor textbook ships. What fun is a game that says "You can build any ship you want, but forget it, the game is actually tuned so that your way to win is to build textbook ships?"

[Really not so great, actually really bad]

On 10/31/2021 at 4:07 PM, Tousansons said:

Later naval academy teaches the bad habit of designing very specific ships for very specific encounters.

That's kind of the point. Rome wasn't made in a single day. First, you learn how to make very specific solutions to very specific problems because Naval Academy is hard enough trying to bull through with a "general purpose ship" often doesn't hack it. Once you've mastered that, if you like you run off to Custom Battles, where you can set up any scenario you want and see how much you need to "lob off" from your specialized ships to round them out (made easier now designs can be saved), or even make a general ship from scratch based on what you learnt in Naval Academy. It's even possible you'll decide the specialized ship is fine.

Then when Campaign comes out, you take everything you learnt and apply it to a scenario where there's limited tech, limited money and you are no longer volunteering to live with what you've built, but forced to. Eventually you figure out how to "round off" your ships even more, but you can only do so well because you've taken the time to learn the fundamentals in Naval Academy.