madham82

No the problem is every other component on a ship has to be manually upgraded, but guns are automatic. Simple fix is to stop the automatic upgrade in keeping with how other components are not upgraded automatically. Then someone can decide if they want to manually upgrade the guns to the new version by removing/replacing. Ever noticed how if some tech becomes obsolete, you can still complete a refit with it if you didn't change that component? (ex. propellant). This applies to torpedo tubes as well, but they don't seem to scale with higher marks. Refit realism is a whole other subject which could use many fixes.

That one has been around for awhile and should have been a simple fix.

I know I suggested over a year ago that "disengagement zones" should be part of the battle net for this purpose. If the AI or player ships reach it, they are withdrawn from the map. But that would require a major redesign to add to the existing battle interface. My current suggestion is that how encounters work needs to change. If whatever check the AI does to decide that it will run (in the battle interface) is met, then you do not get an encounter. This should (if it isn't already) take into account the speed of both fleets. If the speeds are roughly equal, no AI run behavior should be triggered to simulate the commander realizing escape is impossible and they have to fight. I believe this would be much simpler to implement and make battles far more enjoyable. As opposed to the boring "sea chase" encounters we have now.

Good points. I know I have seen this magnet issue at long and medium ranges. With the low accuracy of initial salvos, the shell dispersion should be short and long. But it ends up being clustered like 50+% accuracy salvos.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make it a raw production number instead of per capita? Is there some "availability" metric that translate to whether you have enough supply to support your fleets that would be more useful to the player to display?

Yea it certainly isn't "balanced" in terms of economy. Apparently they also increased maintenance costs in the latest fix too.

Yep I saw that, so they at least acknowledge it is a problem. Maybe they took some notes my post in the main thread. I know we aren't the only ones who have complained either.

I have not seen it work like. In fact, I have seen 75% or better of the shells in a salvo hit a ship within about 2km of the target ship. You don't get that kind of dispersion and hit rate if there is no ship around the target. That implies something else is wrong. Not sure if it actually related, but seems to be worse when the non-target ship is not visible.

Good point and that would lead into a conversation about metallurgy which would probably see some armor types more prone than others. It wouldn't necessarily be tied to increasing armor tech like the game is doing. So keeping it simple might have been best here.

I think a 50% boost to the surface detectability of every hull would go a long way to improving it. Then go from there to see if Tower spotting needs to be tweaked. I think the underlining mechanics work, just way to low to produce real world spotting distances.

Would actually be in reverse one would think. Stronger armor by weight should be more durable and need less maintenance, but I don't think IRL it mattered to begin with. Just another simplistic in game calculation.

Don't quote me, but it seems to be a factor of getting regular hits. Once you go X minutes without a hit, the firing solution starts degrading.

One area that needs work at "some" point is Spotting (I think there are bigger issues to fix right now based on the thread). Spotting is a broken mechanic that is likely down to one out of balance factor, target signature. Here's why: Tower Spotting seems to work fine. The values seem to make sense (BBs having the best towers because they are highest). Surface Detectability seems to work fine. DDs and TBs having the smallest value because they are the shortest in terms of height. Target signature is the one I am scratching my head on. It basically inflates the Surface Detectability from what I gathered. The problem is shouldn't be a separate value, but part of Surface Detectability. Why? Because placing objects on a hull doesn't impact the ability to detect a ship at sea, at least in terms of the stuff we can place on ships. The exception to this is obviously the towers and perhaps the funnels. They are the tallest parts of the ship, so if they are physically higher than another component, they should increase the Surface Detectability. Historically, ships as small as DDs were confused for other much larger ships (Taffy 3 or Battle of the Denmark Straights for example). Turrets, casemates, and torpedo tubes did not impact this, because they can't even be discerned at the distances someone would spot a ship on the horizon. This shows how crazy the mechanic is right now. You will spot a BB 10+KM away in almost any weather condition. But frequently a DD can be down to 4 or 5KMs in the same conditions. All because a heavily armed BB with the latest towers and funnels balloons it's Surface Detectability so much in comparison to the DD. It's not a question that BB shouldn't have this large detectability, it's that DD's detectability is way too small. In my latest campaign year, 1925 and engagements are still occurring at the ranges from the 1890s despite the huge tech advances in the game by that era. It basically makes the idea of big guns laughable, because engagements are rarely beyond 10-12KM. Why mount 5" secondaries on a BB, when 2 or 3" have all the range needed? Why use anything with a bonus to Long Range Accuracy, when no engagement happens at those ranges. Another example of how Target Signature is throwing things out of balance is the detectability of transports. Routinely my DDs with the latest towers can only spot them at 3-4KM in less than perfect weather. So that means they have a Surface Detectability around that of a DD which makes zero sense. A DD of less than 2K tons is easier to spot than a transport of 10K, doesn't seem right at all. Transports should be detected at the ranges a cruiser would be considering they are similar in size. So how to fix: Remove Target Signature from weapons (I believe this might explain instances where more modern or heavily armed ships can't detect obsolete/weak ones, but the obsolete/weak can.) Increase Surface Detectability values for all hulls (transports should have values similar to cruisers). I am thinking a 50% boost will sort most the range problems and make maneuvering and fleet setup far more useful Fleet spawn distances may need adjustment so as to not start an immediate free for all. Basically only BBs should be in firing range with their main armament. Ideally you should be able to see the enemy but have to maneuver to engage.

Suggestion for next update: Give task forces (including submarines) an order that functions like In Being but for movement during peacetime. This should keep fleet power minimum and prevent from creating tension (which leads to the endless war cycles). Right now Sea Control can make a single DD generate the tension a full battle fleet would generate if passing through a region.

I think one key thing that needs a nerf to stop the endless wars is fleet tension. Moving ships through a region generates way too much tension IMO. Right now moving a single DD can generate as much tension as a fleet of BBs, depending on the relative fleet powers. Could give a task force order that functions like In Being, which keeps fleet power minimum and thereby tension too. Tension should probably go through stages to slow the pace. Could be something like Ally>Friendly>Neutral>Antagonist>Hostile. Then have the same 100 points for each stage. Only when you get to Hostile should war be possible. Then peace should reset tension to Neutral.

Funny enough there is a tech tree item that increases armor strength due to slope. So they are treating the sloped armor as something that is applied to every new ship/refit (once you get the tech).

All great ideas to me. The wrap around map especially.

I think it reflects a broader problem with how encounters work, but I agree with you on Ambush behavior. Because the sighting system is out of balance, a ship with even a 1 or 2 kt advantage will never sight the enemy if the AI immediately turns and runs. This is because without RDF or Radar, you are only given a vague direction update every few minutes (i.e. Smoke spotted X). This means the longer it takes (in game time) the greater the area of uncertainty for those directions. You literally have to have a large speed advantage and be a bit lucky in guessing their direction (the AI will always turn to put their stern on you as you get closer). As soon as you get RDF, this no longer really becomes an issue. RDF gives a precise enough bearing (via the arrow) to be able to adjust course when the AI does. I have also watched the Smoke Spotted directions be almost 45 degrees off in some cases compared to RDF. This is exactly why you won't find a fleeing AI even when you have a speed advantage without Radar/RDF. Smoke Spotted messages make sense on paper, but the way sighting and AI behavior is currently, they are almost useless. Probably the easiest fix is to make the directions an actual bearing from the flagship, or a marker arrow like Radar/RDF. There are other ways too, but that is simplest to implement IMO. Now back to Ambush. To me, if you/AI can get an Ambush mission then it should start with at least one opposing ship spotted. After all, we know what ships are involved before battle. How do we revert to less information in battle? Also no mission should get generated (not just Ambush) if instigating side physically can't run down the other. If there is going to be a mission, then AI should commit to battle not commit to running. It could be a simple check like speed or maybe even the recon value. Since recon is supposed to be function of speed/range. If the defender has a better recon value then the attacker, how can the attacker initiate battle or vice versa?

#3 +100. This one bothers me to know end. You are penalized because you sink the escorts quickly. Thankfully many times the AI is guilty of cowardice, and has run off in the opposite direction of my fleet leaving the transports undefended. AI needs a change here to try and draw the player off the transports.

Has it been reported that ships transiting the edge of the map suddenly use all their fuel? I can't remember the exact island (one in the Marshall or Caroline Islands) then to Kwajalein is like only a couple thousand KMs. But no matter what my ships fuel state or range is, they always arrive "Low".

This should be part of the Shells and some propellant already modify penetration values. So to add to your idea, the shells/propellant themselves should negate the resistance rather than the gun. That would make more sense historically at least.

Yea that's why I think the hull resistance should be a tech thing. Then only newly constructed hulls would benefit for one (idea being your builders have learned to make stronger welds and etc...). Then balance according to size like you mentioned. I know right now refits would apply this to an old hull, but think that is something that could be changed down the line. A lot of tech benefits that shouldn't apply to refits currently do.

And enough heat can be generated by compression from an explosive shockwave. USS North Carolina was hit by a torpedo which didn't penetrate the bulge, but produced flash inside adjacent compartments. If I remember, one might have been a lower shell handling room. If the flash measures had not been in place, a detonation may have occurred according to the report.

Resistance values for hulls are a stat in search of a reason to exist. I can follow armor schemes adding it, but the idea that a hull is more resistant to damage than another is fantasy. The construction of said hull is what would make sense, so really should be tied to techs like ones that reduce ship flaws. But like your example, resistance needs balance more importantly. It should probably only impact the values "after" armor penetration. That way if you have no armor that the shell in hit in that section, no buff is applied.

I almost think the base spotting and weather rules are good, but target signature is causing out of balance issues. The transports so far have been the best example of this. BBs shouldn't detect DDs as far out as they would spot another BB obviously, but these cases of ships appearing at 4KMs or less in decent weather is a real problem. I'm in the 1920s in the campaign and still detecting ships at ranges like it was 1890. What is the purpose of long range guns and aiming systems when a ship can literally appear and you immediately get a 70%+ solution and hit on the 2nd salvo (or sometimes 1st).