arkhangelsk

Koop, Gerhard. Heavy Cruisers of the Admiral Hipper Class: Warships of the Kriegsmarine (p. 47). Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition. During the battle with HMS Glorious, Scharnhorst started at 1700 at 19knots. 7 minutes later, she's at 24 knots. It then took her until 1726 to reach 26 knots (but only two more minutes to work to 29), finally reaching 30 knots at 1738. At 1745, she heard and avoided a torpedo. She continued to hear more torpedoes throughout the battle.

Well, TBH I can just about roll with 12 18-inch guns, Yamatoish armor and 28 knot speed. The real Yamato is 9 18-inch and 27 knot speed for 150,000 SHP. By increasing the rated power to an Iowa-like 212000 SHP, or pushing it a bit (because I'll assume this ship is physically bigger than Yamato, let alone Iowa), I can see a plant of 240,000 SHP (on 4 shafts) pushing a suitable hull form at 28 knots. I will agree however that's about the limit of a plausible WWII plant and frankly don't understand why HP limitations have not yet been implemented - but when they do, it'll greatly (and naturally) disincentivize the use of the largest ships. Now for destroyers. In other words, the heavily-gunned destroyer is a feasible concept in the game. The game does simulate the stability reduction associated with topweight, so the ship is getting penalized. However, the unfortunate fact (for your argument) is that the nine-gunned destroyer may well be a more feasible design than you imagine in real life - in which case all the game is doing is reflecting reality. While some sources have indeed said the Somers-class destroyer is top-heavy, you have to remember the older Porter has the same basic armament (in fact, the Somers put even more armament on the deck). We can only infer that while Porter was top heavy, it was not to the point of being unacceptably unstable on the trials, and thus no one rushed to remove armament from the other Porters or the Somers. I'll also point out that when they were regunned in the war, they went from 8 guns to 6 guns ... except the DP mounts are about 10 tons heavier. The old configuration was about 136.532 tons, the new configuration 130.227 tons - a mere six ton difference. If the stability problem with the old configuration was serious, they'd have to bring it down to 5 guns or less to hope for significant improvement but that did not seem necessary. The other factor is that Somers is only a 1850 ton standard displacement destroyer. The biggest factor for the reduction of weight in the succeeding class is most likely because the succeeding class was simply smaller ... another 1500 to 1600 tonner.As for the Mogador-class destroyer, with its eight 138.6mm (=5.5 inch) guns and ~4000 ton FL displacement (2880 ton standard). For the above reasons, I cannot agree with your assessment that a 9-gun destroyer with triple turrets is manifestly unreasonable.

Sometimes, speakers have to take into account what people hear. They have take into account how the combination of two (or more) of their stated positions will result in what they claim they do not want. Not only do I have a philosophical objection to binding up the AI more than the player, as I said even if we are going to do that, a critical problem will be HOW MUCH discretion the AI will still have after that shackle. Which depends on how much creativity people like Henry is willing to tolerate. Their other statements tell me that their tolerance for creativity is low to the point they cannot tolerate even one more gun than an already executed maximum (and it was executed at HALF the weight limit of a UA:D destroyer). May I be allowed to add one plus one together? First, let's not give up too fast. Second, one problem with the argumentation of Henry and Co, at least in my view, is that they confound two problems. The first is the AI making ships that aren't tactically effective in-game. The second is when they make something that's tactically effective in-game, but that somehow offends their sense of realism, aesthetics or otherwise. If anything, given their constant complaints about being "forced to" make something, their emphasis is on the latter, not the former. Obviously, I agree that we need to somehow fix the first problem. But I am much more ambivalent regarding the second. In its end state, I want this game to be "fair" to unconventional designs. That is, I want it to have realistic rules, but then to be accepting of the results that bring. If that means ships with no secondaries is the winner. If that means putting large secondaries on the centerline rather than the conventional solution of smaller secondaries on the sides. If it turns out destroyers should be more heavily armed. I don't want this game to start with the preconception that majority designs are automatically the best designs and to warp all the rules accordingly. Of course, choices like the above have disadvantages, and they should be reflected. But they also have advantages and those should be reflected as well. I don't want, for example, secondary battery hit rate to be buffed or a nerf to the main battery just to substantiate the conventional solution of retaining secondaries. I don't want a mysterious and increasing penalty as soon as I go above five 5-inch guns on a destroyer class vessel and by the time I get to the ninth gun my DD will roll over for nothing, just to prove the conventional 5-gun armament as the optimum. I want this game to at least have the potential to prove that our naval designers hadn't gone down the optimal routes after all, and the AI can also have its hand in investigating this possibility. I definitely would not have been able to conceive of the possible solution of putting large secondaries on the centerline, and I don't think Henry et al can, either. I end this discussion by asking you to bring your mind back to a 1907 mentality, and consider the below "meme ship" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(1907) What do you mean they designed this stupid, overgunned thing with paper thin armor? It's clearly waiting to be blown up - a poor concept and execution. And let's talk about the ridiculous gun layout - the guns are allowed to fire across the deck! Surely that would cause heavy damage to the decks just firing the guns. We need to limit the enemy ship designer. He must use this nice, safe, hexagonal layout: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Nassau And really, I don't want to be building cruisers that are nearly 20000 tons just to fight this thing. We need to make the Brits use templates... Actually, those thirteen destroyers were built with double barrel SP guns of limited elevation. One of the problems, which seems to be US-unique, is the ridiculous weight of dual-barrel 5"/38 turrets. You would think if nothing else they would be less than the weight of 2 single-barrel turrets, but for some reason this is not true. Both have power, both have hoists ... etc. So they had to make a SP turret (less elevation) to save weight and keep the dual turret to less than twice the weight. I think it is easy to see how the disproportionate weight had a deterrent effect ...

I'm very sorry, ColonelHenry, but I have to say that your actual position is dangerously close to the complete deletion of AI. The basic problem is the remaining flexibility and discretion the AI will have after your "design bank", and if you are not going to allow even a destroyer with 3x3 = 9 5-inch guns, you are implying the AI under your scheme would have so little discretion it might as well not be there.

I'm sure. But you know what? They'll almost always end up choosing to build a bigger, more expensive, more heavily gunned ship in the end. Right up until there's literally no money or the ships are starting to die in storms. Because no one wants to be the guy who made SMS Blucher when his opponent made HMS Invincible. No one wants to be the one who made USS Michigan just because they want to skimp on tonnage only to realize the world is moving to a 21 knot battle speed! By the way, give the names of the books you borrow text from. Brown, Warrior to Dreadnought. Isn't it? I don't think the game has freeboard per se, but it does have stability (=accuracy) reductions as you add more topweight (turrets) and of course the more you put on the ship the more expensive it gets. I don't think Rule the Waves has that stability reduction (and lots of people have complained about the AI made ships there too), nor does Warship Commander. Right now, there's no nation and no cost limit (at least in Custom Battles). There's no real weather, either. What is the criteria of "badly designed ships"?

Actually, not quite http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-006.php So first, in real life, the longest hits are at about 25km, and neither of them probably had the equivalent of the very best technology (one's a modernized but still old battleship and the other is an 11-inch ship).

Oh, this is an old design, but I actually find it interesting - not that I think a real navy will end up choosing this one, but it does have its merits. Little guns that almost don't weigh anything aside, its batteries are centerline 20" and 8" guns. A conventional design will put the secondaries to both sides, but then half of them would be unusable in the Main Combat Mode of a battleship (broadside firing). Centerline placement allows a heavier secondary battery to be deployed against enemies while in combat. The only shame here is that it is two twin 8-inch turrets - if they can buff it to two triple 8-inch guns, the number of 8-inch guns will increase to six which would be much better in terms of fire control. The superfiring value is reduced due to the 8-inch B-turret, but it is not completely gone. If C turret is on the deck, it would be completely unable to fire over the 8" turret. In its current form, it's conceivable that at maximum superelevation it would just be able to do so. I don't think I want to be in B turret when that happens due to blast but at least C-turret won't shoot through B-turret. So the emphasis is on Broadside firing. If forced to chase a target this design can engage it with 6 20 inch and 4 8-inch guns by using only slight weave. In a desperate pinch where the target must be slowed no matter what and has gone beyond the maximum range of the 8 inch, the forward 20-inch batteries can be employed without completely destroying the 8-inch turret. And 長鯨 or 超鯨 (long whale or super whale) aren't the most hopeless names ever made.

Stability aside, what do you mean "fire control" doesn't matter? I always go for the best available fire control, and am rewarded with smacking much more damage to my enemy than he does on me. As for how bad the weather gets, I must admit in all my time playing this - admittedly I'm a relatively light player who only does one or two missions a day, I've never seen seas that go much beyond those presented in those destroyer pictures above - that is, nearly flat. Take a picture if one day you actually see a storm, will you? 😄 And take pictures showing the relative hit chances on the enemy destroyers, so we can estimate how much they are being affected by the storm. The fact that Tomozuru incidents happen suggest that the disadvantages of over-arming the ship are not apparent in ordinary conditions, more in cases of the once-a-decade storm.

Now, you are just moving the goalposts and going for a No True Scotsman fallacy. You started off literally saying there are no ' 5" twin-turret destroyers ' and now that there are several, you should at least admit that the AI is creating something real humans might have actually made. Maybe after making it, they'll regret it, but at least it is not manifestly wrong (at least in the area). The blunt truth is that real navies have been trying to make warships as big as they can afford in sufficient numbers, and packing it with as much DPS capability as possible. Fire control improves accuracy - which means more DPS on target. Protection is there to extend the life of the ship, so it can inflict more DPS. Mobility is there so it can get into a position it can inflict DPS, or run away from another ship with superior DPS - the ultimate intention being to re-commit it another time and place ... to inflict more DPS. Why do you think the naval treaties include tonnage / ship limits, but because left to their own devices, navies will go for large ships? Do you think Britain begged people to limit themselves to 25000 ton, 12 inch ships because these are natural choices? Sure, sometimes we get a Tomozuru incident, and the navy designers get more conservative. Barring that, the pressure is always on for more DPS. Can the AI be faulted for emulating this part of human behavior? ===== Right now, the most common game mode is Custom Battles, where all ships are being asked to perform in calm weather, and cost is not a factor. It may be that once the campaign is on and funds are limited, AI ships will naturally become smaller. When weather becomes a factor, it may be that the loss of stability once believed tolerable with very heavily armed ships will start to drag down effective DPS sufficiently they won't be as much of a threat anymore - perfectly naturally. We will have to see. But right now, I suggest that we let the AI build what works. I agree that they should be "taught" that there's almost never a disadvantage (in-game) with "Maximum bulkheads" and "Best Fire Control Equipment" since the latter lesson seems to not have sunk in. I agree with the effort to curb overly fast ships, and I won't mind some kind of hard horsepower limit (which will also give the AI a real reason to favor smaller ships that their engines can push).

If you are going to claim expertise, at least check simple claims as to whether people have designed a ' 5" twin turret destroyer'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fubuki-class_destroyer Built starting 1926. Meanwhile have a look at the destroyer with perhaps the heaviest gun armament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_destroyer_Z34 Includes one twin 6". The twin turret weighs 60 tons. Which is probably more than a triple 5" turret would have weighed. The ship is rated for 36 knots. Z34 is said to have some stability problems, but you can see people have indeed built such a thing so it is not to the extent that it is a manifestly wrong choice. I'm very OK with impossibilities in reality converting to impossibilities in game. On the other side of the token, if it's possible in reality, it should be possible in-game, and we should be allowed to try paths not taken. And I don't want to accept something being impossible (thus banned) based on the submission of someone who won't even verify that indeed no one has built a ' 5" twin turret destroyer" .

Deliberately nerfing the AI from making designs that work in game is not my idea of "fair". And considering that big hulls and triple turrets are emblazoned on the screen as options, I don't think it is "deliberately" breaking the game to use them. They are not exactly tiny bugs hidden deep in the system. The fact is, ships that haven't been tried before in real life work in this game. There are two possible conclusions. First, this game's penalty rules are not matched with reality. Second, this game's penalty rules are reasonably consistent with reality, and it is our shipbuilders who from conservatism passed up on building those ships (or maybe all the funds went to investigating battleship triples rather than destroyer triples). If the problem is mostly the first, this problem should be corrected by changing the penalty rules so that "realistic ships" are automatically a good idea, not by forcing the AI to make ships that don't line up to the game rules just to please the human player. If the second is true, then there is no reason why either humans or AI should be barred from building such things. It is known that fast ships are too easy to build, and efforts that being made to change the penalty rules so it is harder to do so. What about the guns? Can you categorically say the penalty rules are badly mismatched, other than "no one has done it in real life". I'll also point out that other than the campaign, which would introduce the concept of cost, at present we don't have "weather" in this game. We always seem to be fighting in reasonably flat seas. And if you can always guarantee flat seas for your ships or you accept that yes OK they'll rollover in a typhoon ... you know what? All of a sudden you can arm the ships more.

My question would be Are they effective in-game? Maybe in the game, all those guns get them kills fast enough to make up for their weaker protection. As a matter of fact, I can't remember a 9-gun destroyer off-hand. But I can remember an eight-gun destroyer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akizuki-class_destroyer_(1942) The weight of those turrets are a little heavier than their 5" counterparts. And triple turrets are a way to save weight. From that perspective, it isn't out of the margin to have a Three-Triple turret five-inch gun destroyer. Of course, there's also the Tribal-class destroyer, and at 2500 tons full, she's very far from being the biggest you can make a Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts destroyer. Since you are speaking in terms of "forcing" the player to ... I'll assume those AI built "meme-ships" are tactically effective in game. If meme-ships don't work, they won't force the player to do anything. In other words, they correspond to the reality and rules of their world. And who knows, maybe they would actually even have worked in real life and our designers were just too wussy. And just as the AI does something tactically effective, they are to be hard-coded away from doing so? While the human player can build whatever he wants? How long do you think the realistic human player can "remain honorable"?

I only dabbled in it last night, but I think that indicator only refers to extraneous dead rather than people who died upon the hit. Plus you didn't even click all three (High, Medium, Low priority) notifications so some may have gotten loss. Check the enemy hull when you finish the ID - if a more or less satisfactory percentage of the crew is not present, it's working. And since when is having every gun on every ship (including "experimental" ones) considered some kind of human right? 🙂 I'll actually says that seems fair. Warships have reserve, but they don't have so much fat that you can be at "100%" after losing your first string. They might scrape up some replacements from the cooks or clerks for your torpedo crew, but you can forget about them being as swift as the originals, so you should really feel it.

Personally, I just use it as a guide - anything under 10% means hits are luck and I need to get closer or just be very patient. Over 10% I can expect hits with regularity. Over 20% and I expect to get a hit almost every salvo, and so on.

I wouldn't call its control scheme "similar" - if anything, UA:D doesn't even allow for manual firing and damage control, and this game seems to allow both. But since there aren't a million games out there in the genre, I'll say it's close enough they'll be fighting for the same basic group of people.

Just encountered same situation here. Yes, password has been reset, still this message.

Really. Because I have been getting my butt kicked in that mission (with them killing my DDs and not presenting straight courses so I can launch effective torpedo attacks...) Increasing the maximum speed malus from 90-95% may be working out.

My experience is that the computer is actually good at aiming the torpedoes, but the ships are sometimes ridiculously evasive (how do they expect me to effectively attack battleships are are in a confused circle?) More importantly, the computer's fire control clearly overestimates the valid arcs of the torpedoes compared to the estimate produced by the collision modeler or something, so I lose them as they are fired (and presumably hit the ship). I think at least for the moment, they should reprogram the system so if the mount launches, the launch is automatically a success.

If you refer to the listed penetrations, they are for iron, not steel. Look at the mulitpliers.

Your understanding is much appreciated, @Steeltrap As far as this issue is concerned, I've given it a little bit more thought. Maybe what is needed is a little bit of advance warning. Now, I don't think the "request permission" is a good idea because: 1) While it might be plausible on the flagship, if any ship other than the ship you are on shifts target, realistically you won't be notified. 2) If such a warning is implemented on the little report screen on the bottom left, the next thing that would happen would be the torpedo warning as in "I did not see it". Since the AI presumably uses an evaluative function (kind of like AI chess) to determine whether to shift targets or not, it can display calculated values between the "desirability" of the current target and the first alternate target. As a destroyer gets closer, we will be able to see the evaluation for the destroyer go up. When it exceeds the value for the battleship we are hitting, the target will switch. For where we can put it, I notice there is still the lower right side of the screen that's left unused. The bit of space just below the enemy ship icons is another good location. There might even be a popup that shows more details of the factors that went into the evaluation (what's the point of being shy about factors when a torrent of them fills our left-side screen). This way, we can be gently reminded about the possibility of attacking other things and perhaps select them ourselves before the evaluative function does, thus making us feel like we are in control. If we don't want such a thing to happen, we can manually insert "bias" into the algorithm by pre-emptively clicking on the battleship again. By quintuple clicking it, you can bias the equation so much you will be locked, but at least you can still monitor the work of the algorithm. We might even be able to write useful feedback like "Nick, this is my situation last night, and I really think the computer overestimated the threat from the destroyers because of X and Y." Second, we can reduce the annoyance by slightly changing the mechanization so the player gets an chance to Undo - as long as he reselects his original target within a certain time, he doesn't lose the Lock. That should make this significantly less painful. Do you think these ideas would be hard to implement?

Here. Have a 1912 HMS Barfleur. https://photos.app.goo.gl/WxqqPycqbKzyowj27 It really is no effort to put the thing together, complete with 16 9 inch guns, 32.5 knot speed and plenty of armor. The computer estimates about 85000 SHP to get to the required speed. Based on historical precedent, while it is not blatantly impossible, it is a very favorable ratio and IMO shouldn't be granted to a Dreadnought hull (this is Dreadnought I, maxing out at 27000 tons), but a battlecruiser hull. In any case, since it is perfectly feasible for a human to throw the hull together, it is not a case of cheating by the AI.

I'm one of those people who click on the battleship out of instinct and let the guns attack that, so the first time this issue pops up for me is when I notice the computer auto-shifted onto a CL or DD and I have to decide whether to reverse its decision. The first thing I do is check the battleship - probably it already took a few hits and its firing efficiency (thus dangerousness) is down. Second, yes I will check the torpedoes, but usually the computer shifts onto something with torpedoes (perhaps it is because most of its designs have torpedoes, but anyway...), so that box usually gets checked. Bulkheads and smoke are actually things I don't check. First, the defensive power of the smoke isn't that great compared to Speed Malus. Second, against a fast ship I expect to wait a few main battery salvoes before the hit comes and in that time any smoke will probably disperse. As for bulkheads, with these fast little ships, generally the first hit is the main part of the pain and once you get the first hit, the "pile on" starts. Yes, they make a difference, but the bulkheads are not nearly as annoying for me as they seem to be for Steeltrap. About at this point, I choose to let the decision stand. We need to nurture initiative, not neuter it. After a while I develop a habit where instead of rushing to "reverse error" I let the AI's decision run and see where it takes me. I am not often disappointed. As for this, I've said similarly things in that other thread, but I don't think it is so much them having more important things to do, than what the development process needs. The AI algorithm needs to be refined, and for that to happen it has to be used. P.S. I just went out to take a few photos https://photos.app.goo.gl/PXkYiqqBEYMqLane8 This is me with max bulkheads (and also every other survivability feature), 40 knot light cruiser vs random enemy battleship. As can be seen, the smokescreen helps, but not nearly enough. Note also how useful the bulkheads are at the end against large caliber shells

The computer won't let me append this, so a new post. I meant to give an honest appraisal of his ability (albeit, based on the little bit he demonstrated when writing the post), rather than ad hominem. His reasoning was based on abstract generalities, rather than the concrete circumstances of his case. On the other points, I can get the initial frustration when your target selection is overriden. On the other hand, before just reversing it in frustration and whining about how you have to re-establish the lock, I see it as a good chance for a rethink. Maybe it is really time to quickly go after some of the closing destroyers rather than continuing to fire away into the battleship's red compartments. I keep remembering that time when I overrode the decision to shift to destroyers. About five minutes later, seeing little additional decrease to the battleship's health. I ... clicked on the destroyers... And as I've said above, if you are really to make a useful complaint, you need to give a little more detail. For example, once I had a complaint (back in Alpha 2) when my battleship alternated constantly between two cruisers. I notated that there wasn't much to choose from between the two cruisers - they were the same class, at about the same range with about the same hit probability. This kind of detail helps the devs fix the problem - the target selection is clearly oversensitive to little continuous changes, so the algorithm was tuned and I don't see this problem again.

True, but its title is Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts, not Ultimate Captain: Dreadnought. You can drive an individual ship (and a large percentage of the training missions make you do that), true, but the center of the intent is for you to drive at least a few ships at once. And ultimately, once you are NOT on the ship, what the ship targets is the choice of that ship's officers, not you. Second, initiative is a good thing, because the officers on the flagship are not always right. And given the communications bandwidth common to most of that period, they are not going to check in with you. Remember when Hood and PoW started off targeting Prinz Eugen? According to you, everyone should just continue targeting Prinz Eugen even after they figured out which one was Bismarck, because Hood never figured it out until she was beautifully blown up. As far as I know, the computer respects your choice of ammo should you give it, so that's not the issue today. To answer your other points here, would I like separate selections for Mains and Secondaries? Yes. Here's the thing. We are here to help debug the system, including of course the AI. A button to disable the automatic target shift system is an easy program module. It can be directly put in the commercial release. But right now, the AI's functioning has to be tested and its algorithms refined. We can't do that if everyone just clicks on "Disable Auto-Shift" out of instinctive hatred of being overridden, and that's why I get hostile to efforts to have it excised at this stage. Second, taking your current complaint as an example, it is completely unhelpful to anyone trying to adjudicate the case, be it me or the devs. You didn't provide any information on say the positions of the other ships, so I don't have a clue as to why the computer might have made the choice. Nor do I have your reasoning as to why you want to keep guns on ... heck, I don't even know for sure if the "target" you want to keep the guns on is a BB! Maybe it is a CA or DD! Maybe you are right. Maybe you have a point and so does the computer. Maybe it is all your ego. But I can't tell any of that because your complaint has no details! Of course, the auto-shift is not perfect. But it doesn't have to be, nor can it realistically be. All it has to be is to give an "OK" decision more often than it doesn't. In my experience, it actually does that and I also know the instinctive frustration when your target selection was shifted regardless of the merits of the shift. So I tend to give it more benefit of the doubt than the human complainer, at least when he provides no real details of his unfortunate encounter. Or gives extremely primitive reasoning such as "Mains are for shooting at BBs thus I don't want the shooting at DDs." because more often than not by the time the computer auto-shifts to the DDs, the BB has already taken a few good hits reducing its efficiency and it is time to really think about the destroyers if you don't want to be torpedoed.

Yeah, but they are still little. The 17" may well be conning tower or turret. The elevated hit chance is why the 9" is the "hero gun" of the game - it is right at an apex before the hit rates drop again, said apex put in because of some people's impatience with the secondaries. The game AI is just exploiting a mechanic put in response to the whines of human players. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Heligoland_Bight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Courageous_(50) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glorious Doesn't look very affected by the enemy gunfire to me. Oh, and before you get to 30 knots, the reduction is not that severe in game.