arkhangelsk

I hate to break it to you, but for a ~23000 ton ship, historically you only need about 90000HP for 32 knots (ref Courageous). While the game underestimate HP requirements, battlecruiser engines were getting close to that power rating by then. Tiger had 85000HP. Including forcing, she can go over 100,000SHP. It's a little early, but not maddeningly so. And while speed might not be armour, it is also willing to drop all the way to 9-inch guns for some more armor. In general terms, this is a plausible design. The game does favor speed. On the other hand, but history does suggest that once you get above a certain speed in the 25-30 knot range, ships do get a lot harder to hit. Also, actually look at the hit rates for each gun. 9" and 12" are favored calibers. 13" is not. That is actually not very realistic, but so many people complained the destroyers are unkillable (they WERE killable!) with little guns the devs must have given in...

I can tell you are one of those people who need auto-targeting. Your ego aside, your computer knows your weapons better than you. #2 might be what you were taught at school, but the blunt truth is that DDs and CLs are not that much faster than a BB or BC. And while the secondaries only take nibbles out of destroyers, the mains annihilate them so if you are serious about taking out the destroyers you need to put your mains into the action. In fact, it is quite possible to work with a battleship with only mains, which also has hidden advantages like reducing Roll and Pitch, thus your more stable platform shoots better. Think of it this way. Your captains just have initiative. And if you put your ego down for a moment, you might find that more often than not, they are shifting fire to the destroyers at about the right time, before you might consider doing so.

I don't think it should be modeled because let's face it, the effect is insignificant. For one thing, in terms of the total amount of particles, you are still putting them up even if you increase the airflow. If the opacity is reduced very slightly, no one will notice the difference and it will be the amount that kills you more than the exact opacity.

To which I'll add how Prinz Eugen was able to hear the screws of approaching British battleships, and as far as anyone can tell, she did not stop to hear them. Against ships and torps, it seems the sonars do work even when the ships are at speed. Also, we might add that any time a T-V homes in on an escort ... torpedo is moving at over 20 knots, the sensor is utterly puny. But it finds something to home on. In any case, the game's position right now is that hydrophones are useful in detecting torpedoes. And considering all the screaming about overly effective destroyers, I suspect that will not go away. Anyway, since that is the position of the game, should not the AI be taught to use them so they are less of a sitting duck?

Well, I'm here to report some of a different type. These two pictures should suffice to make the point: I have 3 port and 3 starboard quintuple launchers, 15 torpedoes per side, 30 torpedoes in the tubes. When the ship launches, it launches THIRTY torpedoes and immediately loses FIFTEEN of them because they are not in the right direction.

Please refer to this thread.

Yeah, I know. 12" is yet another favored caliber, but if you look at the stat box, the 9" actually received more inexplicable buff at long ranges, and everything from about 3 inches to 8 inches are scale down off that, getting some of the advantage from this artificiality. This also makes 10" and 13" particularly UNfavored calibers because that's when the devs jack the hit rate back down. Try hitting the BBs, hurting them some, and accepting the AI's choice when to switch to the destroyers. That has worked well for me so far. They don't have TEN salvoes. Usually it is about four salvoes. In the long run though yes they have to get it down to maybe 2. 1 for Reduced, 3 for Increased. And yes, I agree the Screen AI can use refinements. Still, I think the main point is to let them be a sonar - because the devs won't let us install hydrophones onto battleships. They can be a real life-saver and we don't have them! Personally my torpedo evasion technique, unless I know exactly what I want to do, is let the AI handle it. I turn the automatic evasion on. More times than not, if you let them see the torpedoes far enough out, it will solve the problem for you. Just remember to turn it off when the threat is gone. That is a problem with you being inattentive. I think it is our duty as players to be attentive to the warning messages scrolling up the report screen and not to bitch too hard if we lost concentration or jacked the time compression up too hard. For one thing, most of them don't have oxygen torpedoes. Second, real captains are very attentive to the torpedo threat and will do preemptive evasions like zigzags to ruin the intercept solution - a concept that is not well understood by either the AI or many human players who don't want to ruin their accuracy. Now, we have to get three and four, and here I blame whiney players. Torpedoes were not nearly this powerful in the previous Alphas, so it took a LOT of hits to sink a battleship. However, in terms of the number of destroyers you have to use to get results, it is realistic. But all people can see is the battleship taking 100 hits and not sinking, and they forget two things. a) Our torpedoes are perfectly reliable. Which I don't think is that big a deal. Besides, eventually I expect to be able to Save/Load during battle and I think players will Save-scum every time their torpedo duds at a critical moment. b) The calculation of enemy speed and course at the moment of firing is perfect, while real torpedo solutions are prone to error in these two aspects and thus the correct lead angle. The mistake, of course, gets more relevant as range increases. On the other hand, a computer game with automated torpedo launches cannot get away with knowingly throwing the torpedoes in a bad direction. So, overall the relatively low torpedo power used to compensate for A and B. But players. They whine. The torpedo power was buffed. Still, this problem is manageable as long as the AI improves to use preventive zigzagging and optimal use of their hydrophone gear. Like in World of Warships, you can handle torpedoes if you remember to dodge.

Related to this: Here are the latest batch of results. https://photos.app.goo.gl/74WcFGd1Uu8xHVXZA This time, it is one Japanese destroyer facing off 4 British battleships, 1 light cruiser and 1 destroyer. First, when the battleships are normal sized rather than a 100,000 ton monster, destroyers don't spot them before being counterdetected by the battleship. Second, my attempt to escort the enemy and give them hydroacoustic support did not seem to work, with the torpedoes of the first wave (20 of them) being detected extremely late, leading to the unjustified loss of British battleship. AI either needs to learn to install hydrophones when the opportunity is present or maneuver ships out of harm's ways based on hydrophonic detections. Third, 24 inch torpedo waves are indeed lethal against battleship. Fourth, without a spotter (like a battleship), one has to keep his destroyer close to guarantee constant contact, which means it gets snuffed before it can reload and shoot.

I wasn't that lucky in my attempt, though the fact they are 100,000 tons with maximum bulkheads may have been a factor. I got hits but no sinkings and the ships often took only one torp per 15 torpedo salvo. Yes, the destroyer is basically immune if you stay at 15-16 km against 18 inch Mark 3 guns. Having said that, this was kind of the original concept behind the Long Lance, so it is hard to complain too much. The solution, first let's make it appropriately hard to make a 40 knot destroyer. In this attempt, 40 knots was 53000HP when a ship of that size historically would need more like 80000. Second, the biggest problem here is that the ships detect the torpedoes too late to do much about them. In the campaign, they'll be escorted by destroyers with sonars. The AI isn't a bad torpedo dodger if it can see them from far enough away. Third, refinements to the AI, so at least they'll shoot at the destroyers with everything they have, even if the hit chance is low. We need an algorithm that would tell at least the secondaries to go Aggressive against destroyers. This should make this tactic less effective. First, a matter of philosophy. Ultimately, I care more about the adherence of the game to realism than its "balance". If the game's mechanics are realistic, we should accept whatever is the outcome. If that means oxygen torpedoes are The Ace, we accept it. If it means secondaries are useless, well I never understood what's so fundamentally wrong with an all big-gun battleship. Of course, if secondaries are useful, fine as well. Second, your ability to hurt AI battleships when you are holding the destroyers depends at least somewhat on your player skill, and from a gameplay perspective ignoring realism there's not much problem with a player making torpedo attacks to kill AI BBs - it's actually kind of satisfying. Isn't that why players play destroyers in World of Warships? If you are really losing your battleships to AI destroyers, however, all I can say is that nobody else seems to be suffering from these problems - heck, we are not losing our BBs against 12 destroyers, and in custom scenarios and campaign we can stick sonars on destroyers. Once you can see the torpedoes far enough out, they aren't that big a deal. Having said that, I'm not adverse to realistic changes - the towers may be adjusted to see the destroyers a bit further out (though the enemy battleships seem to be at least seeing my destroyer). And devs, just let us put hydrophones on the battleships. As soon as the ships got hydrophones, they will be able to see and dodge torpedoes in good time.

Actually, research has shown that the Speed malus tops out at 37.5 knots, so at 40 knots you are getting the maximum speed malus.

For one thing, despite objections of the realism crowd, I think they already gave the smaller guns a buff (check out the 9" in particular). So don't ask for another one As for the complaints, look. Just put a torpedo detector (destroyer) along with the battleships. Make sure it has good acoustic equipment. Torpedo evasion suddenly becomes child play and they can't touch your precious battleships at all. You can spend almost all the time with them on Auto. https://photos.app.goo.gl/McXbQzEYq4Swssyw8

Well, I am on the other side for this one. Freedom of imagination, sure. But under realistic rules. Part of the problem right now is that the horsepower estimates are too low. For example, that 1400 ton destroyer I built last night needed only 33000 horsepower to hit 40 knots. Even considering the low displacement, it should need more like 50000. This underestimation of horsepower needed, which seems to be systematic, makes it ridiculously easy to build fast ships.

Your link isn't working for me. I did, however, just do it in the reverse direction. https://photos.app.goo.gl/qvvBzcx16gG8ACgVA By making 40 knot DDs, I managed to get about 4 of those battleships before all my DDs died. I will buy that if I handled them better, I can get 6. So basically, when the human builds and controls the BBs, he wins pretty easy. When he builds and controls the DDs, same. Though i definitely worked harder when fighting as the DDs, and it'll probably take longer to replace tjhe lost ones than patch up my BBs. A lot of the problem, from what I can see is that the AI doesn't start hitting the DDs before it is too late. Though the hit rates are really suppressed, they could still have done much better if they hadn't focus fired on my BB until my DDs got too close. Well, but human players really hate the AI when it actually does its best to win by building fast ships. That's why enemy ships are on average slower this round. Having said that, BB vs 12 DD mission before the latest changes shows that defeating DDs isn't that hard if you plan.

Look, I just ran that experiment. The destroyers were really easy to kill and I basically just let the computer do all the work. https://photos.app.goo.gl/nWJsvc7zB9sXJBnS8 Sure, one of my battleships got clipped pretty good by torpedoes and one other got nicked by one at the end, but basically neither was in any danger. I really don't think we have to worry about AI destroyers being the end of us

I meant the night attack by a bunch of British destroyers before KGV and Rodney moved onto the scene. Not a single destroyer was killed. Historically, secondaries just weren't that effective (you might go dredge up the Alpha 2 thread, when destroyers were even harder to kill). One percent hit rates really were quite realistic.

I must say that this is NOT my experience with destroyers. If anything, in practical terms, they are a little too easy to hit. Let me make a suggestion, though. Use the main guns. Then all you will have to do is get one hit (which you can usually get if you wait long enough) and destroyer should be obliterated. There are a few missions in the Naval Academy that focus on anti-torpedo defense. Did you beat those? And please, no artificial buffs to the guns. The main reason secondaries are useful is that they fire more shells, so the chance of getting at least one hit increases. Not because they have better base stats or mysterious buffs. And yes, when you detect the torpedoes it is often too late to evade if you are in a battleship. Remember that the AI is always attentive to the torpedoes - you may never hit it with your torps. As far as realism is concerned, there are so many examples when little destroyers got close to a large ship and let loose effective torpedo salvoes or just could never be hit. Some of the ships making runs at Bismarck got all the way down to 4000m and they all survived.

Fine. Change the mechanization of the loop. Make the loop for each ship instead of each category. If you want 3 ships of the same type, just load the same design 3 times. We can have SoL improvements like automating the application of one design to a class later.

You don't need a "fleet tab". Here is the present flow after selecting how many battleships, cruisers ... etc you want for each side, the year, and the starting distance: 1) Load design screen. 2) User either uses auto-design or designs his ship. 3) User ends design phase, saving his design for the battle. 4) Computer pushes auto-design, end design itself without your intervention for all the other categories. 5) At the end of the battle, the computer throws his design away. Here's the new flow: 1) Load design screen 2) User either uses auto-design or designs his ship. 3) User ends design phase, saving the design. 4) Computer loops back to 1 until all categories are done. There is no step 5, because we don't want to lose the designs. We actually have fewer steps in the new flow. How much work can it possibly take...

It has 8 times the base damage, but because of its larger damage the ability of the ship to absorb it is less, so the 18 inch shells get a fair advantage. Why do you think people cram the biggest guns on the ship they can. Besides, how did you get the exact same battleship to shoot at both times?

I have a record of being a wet blanket when it comes to "new feature proposals" in proportion to my perception of how time consuming that "small, necessary" proposal is, because I agree the campaign is priority. However, in this case, it seems that no new components have to be made, more just hooking a few existing components up and removing some blockages. It just doesn't seem like that much of a diversion. Of course, I could be wrong.

That's you. For the rest of us I can see several reasons. First, if you "max out" your design against an opponent of equal tech, your ship will almost certainly be better than the AI ship, so making it yourself can be a greater challenge. That's recognized and that's a reason why so many Naval Academy scenarios give the AI a substantial tech advantage. Second, if you play to win, AI ships restrict your choices. Sometimes you want to build a smaller ship say to practise being economical. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't read the air and builds a 100,000 ton super battleship, and you don't even know about it until you play. So you are forced to make the biggest ship you can just in case (and money is no object, either). Now of course the enemy just so happens to build a small ship and you kill it extremely easily... Third, from a realism standpoint, it is not that often that people design their ships with so little information (none beyond tech year) as to what their opponent is building. Usually you'll have an inkling of what's on the enemy plate even if you don't know the details. Fourth is of course historical battles. We can at least try to get close in terms of capabilities if perhaps not the listed displacement.

They should just let us edit all the ships in Custom Battle and be done with it. I must admit I cannot see what the difficulty is. And let us save designs. As for the problem of equipment availability by year, here's my proposed solution - Let Us. If we want 1 or 2 1940 ships in what is otherwise a 1925 battle, we should just be allowed to do so. Let us be responsible for such things.

Me too, though I wonder what the obstacle is, since back when the cheat menu was available, people were able to design transports without a hitch!

Maybe the game should at least be honest and let us know when a torpedo was ejected from its tube but failed to actually start moving for any reason? But you have to admit, this game is very realistic. It may be the first time that a report of "#N Torpedoes running hot, straight and normal" is useful in game.

I never used them. Maybe the campaign will give me a reason to, but basically unless you want to handicap yourself in these scenarios ... nope.