akd
-
Posts
2,801 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by akd
-
-
Has nothing to do with difficulty, and I see nothing about the discussed changes that makes the game easier or harder, just deviating more from the actual relationship between technology and tactics, and devaluing the important changes that occurred across the big time span of the game. If we start with WW1+ long-range gunnery, where do we go with tech changes? Will technological and tactical development have any meaningful impact in game?
-
Over the last few builds, accuracy across the board has been pushed far too high and now is very out of line with historical reality and with the technological revolutions that led to huge advances in fire control. Played a series of 1890 custom battles starting at 10000m and consistently saw target locked immediately on spotting and firing on target a single time at 10-8km distance, sometimes even when firing just one gun. Such precise and immediate range-finding should be impossible in this era.
At the same time, the relative accuracy between small ships and large ships remains very imbalanced, if slightly improved by the changes. Playing an 1890 custom battle, I have small ships with 2-inch guns firing with 100% accuracy on a battleship that can only return fire at 5% accuracy with 6-inch guns. These are not the right changes.
Baseline accuracy is too high. Maluses and bonuses are not being applied in a balanced manner. Long-range firing needs to be treated differently than point-blank firing.-
2
-
-
Straight from Wikipedia:
QuoteA disadvantage of the Type 93 was that it was far more likely to detonate due to shock than a compressed-air torpedo. The explosion from one Type 93, with its heavy warhead, was usually enough to sink the destroyer, or heavily damage the cruiser, carrying it. As American air strikes against IJN ships became more common, captains of destroyers and cruisers under air attack had to decide whether or not to jettison torpedoes to prevent them from being detonated during the attack. In one instance, the heavy cruiser Chikuma jettisoned her Type 93s just before being hit by bombs from several USN dive bombers at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. During the Battle off Samar (in the eastern Philippines) a five-inch (127 mm) shell from escort carrier USS White Plains[6] struck the heavy cruiser Chōkai which detonated the cruiser's Type 93 torpedoes, disabling her rudder and engines; she was scuttled the next day (while in most circumstances a five-inch shell would not penetrate a cruiser's armored deck nor cause serious damage). The same Samar engagement saw heavy cruiser Suzuya sunk by the detonation of her own Type 93 torpedoes: a bomb near miss starboard amidships set off the torpedoes in the starboard tube mounts; the resultant fires propagated to other torpedoes nearby and beyond; the subsequent explosions damaged one of the boilers and the starboard engine rooms and eventually reached the main magazines.
-
This is not what is needed. What is needed is more nuanced win / loss conditions.
-
You are correct that is how it works in game, but the explanation is incorrect. Ranging shots were more effective if conducted with more than two barrels because a better ladder could be formed.
-
Some more questions on ammo detonations:
1. Can they only occur following penetration, e.g. can a torpedo launcher be hit directly and cause an ammo detonation? I’ve seen torpedo launchers knocked out many, many times, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen this directly associated with an ammo detonation. This should be a huge risk of covering ships in large numbers of external torpedoes.
2. I think I’ve seen a number of capital ships (BBs, CAs) succumb to catastrophic ammo detonations from penetrations that should be outside of the protected citadel (belt / deck extensions), even directly from the side (where the only chance of magazine penetration would be from secondary shrapnel that should be stopped by transverse armor protection or a protected deck. Does the chance of ammo detonation associated with penetration not care where the penetration occurs? (That said, with the new protection diagram shown on targets, I see that the AI quite frequently builds ships with main turrets outside of the citadel.)
-
There are definitely a number of ongoing issues with gun “accuracy” currently, but I don’t think they are specific to secondary batteries, nor would simply boosting the accuracy of smaller calibers across the board be a solution.
-
3
-
-
Barbette armor / protection was supposed to be addressed also, I think. Either it needs an adjustable value, or should inherit from turret face value or something.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, disc said:
The next alpha build will have some changes to torpedo damage. We will have to see.
Part of the problem is that right now the AI is too stupid to realize you're closing for a huge torpedo launch. It knows to try evasion when torpedoes are spotted in the water, but the approach of a whole destroyer squadron doesn't seem to ring any bells. We'll have to see if that is ever changed, too.
True. The threat of torpedo attacks is what shaped tactics and maneuvers, not the ability to spot torpedoes then react to them.
-
On 11/12/2019 at 11:12 AM, Nick Thomadis said:
- Reduced ladder aiming penalty of initial salvo shot, from -75% to -50% because it caused too low accuracy at close range.
Not sure if an across the board increase to accuracy is the correct solution, as long range accuracy, especially with upper-tier tech, is far too high already. I think the problem is there is a range at which ladder aiming (i.e. requiring a range and rate fire solution) is no longer necessary because the only fire control problem is laying the gun directly on the target, essentially a "point blank" range There is of course some fuzziness there because of human factors (range could be grossly mis-estimated one way or the other). Once firing at point blank range the fire control problem is reduced to putting the gun on the target and properly timing the shot, and for a good portion of our era guns up to 9-inch had the advantage because they could be "continuously aimed" under human power before the introduction of powered-laying and various stabilization tech.
Quote- Cordite, Tube Powder, TNT explosives rebalanced to reflect better their special characteristics. Cordite offers more explosive power but is unsafe, Tube Powder is the safest explosive and more effective in penetrating armor, TNT is very expensive but overall the best compromise.
The combination of propellants and explosives into a single tech tree is very confusing and arbitrary. My general impression is that improvements in propellants tended to be adopted across the board as they became available and so would better be handled as a "global" unlock for the tech area, rather than a per ship choice. Shell design and explosive filling involved much more choice regarding benefits and trade-offs.
Quote- Fixed issue of Radar towers, increasing too much the surface visibility of ships that carry them.
Really hope radar visibility eventually gets treated separately from visual surface range. It feels wrong and is very confusing.
Quote- Citadel armor schemes increase the armor quality, but are more expensive. Citadel is a feature not yet finalized, but this new functionality simulates better its influence in armor schemes and vitals protection.
Will have to see this is in practice, but as described it doesn't make any more sense than the current version. These named armor schemes don't seem to have much connection to their real world design benefits and trade-offs.
All the rest sounds like huge improvements.
-
25 minutes ago, Ink said:
Admirals,
Planes are a complex feature and will only be considered after base campaign is delivered to users and plays well
As it should be.
-
2
-
-
FYI, in the upper left accuracy panel, the first number in parentheses next to a given gun caliber is the total number of guns that are currently bearing on the target.
-
4 hours ago, Nereng said:
I noticed this while trying to make a Scharnhorst copy; Even with superheavy shells and white powder I was unable to give her 11inch guns a range of more than about 20km, but I knew that she had scored hits on HMS Glorious at a range of 25km. A little checking on the internet revealed the reason. Her Krupp-made 11inch guns had a muzzle velocity of 980 m/s while the guns in the game have far less. Basically, different nations made different quality guns, which had real effects. Can we hope that this will be reflected in the game?
Mark 5 guns, super heavy shell and ballistite will get you there, although not with the correct MV.
-
"Mk I" 16-inch suggest a gun from the 1890-1900 era, something more like this:
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_162-30_mk1.php
There is no direct equivalence to naming system in game to historical guns that varied nation to nation.
-
6 hours ago, Mooncatt said:
I decided to do a test for this scenario due to the fact im finding it impossible (almost as bad as TB vs BB) it is of course you vs what looks like a modern (ish) BB
Every different build ive tried has failed thus far. the enemy battleship is landing shells consistently over huge distances 30km on avg. this takes me down to an unwinnable situation before I can even get close, im kitted out with the most accurate guns I can along with the best towers, im also using ridiculous amounts of deck armour and belt armour i.e 18" belt 16" deck and hes still tearing through me like im made of paper, even with armour angle. ive come to the conclusion that there must be some kind of "cap" on armour amounts that you get diminishing returns of effectiveness.
so, I decided to test the theory of "the enemy has the same RNG as you do" to prove this as false. I used the debug menu to unlock the same hull as the enemy BB. I kitted it out with 18" triples and some nice side guns. of course, this being the modern BB hull there is only one tower and rear tower to choose from. I tried using both the top range finder that gives 35% long range accuracy and in the second test I tried the next one down that gives "X" base range (cant remember the %) I also think I used the second option of each of the following....
Heavy shells
barbette II
citadel II
bulkheads II
flooding I
white powder in 1st test (cant remember the rest of what I used)
so, the battle starts and enemy is already in range......30km iirc ive already reduced my speed to a good cruise speed. we both fire and ive got " one eyed willy" aiming my 18s and they aren't even close to landing a hit. his first salvo lands setting me on fire and im now 98% bare in mind im 45 degrees to him and hes almost side on.
second salvo fire and again "one eyed willy" lets me down again and not even getting close. his salvo lands again with 3 shells destroying my barbette, tower and causing flooding in the aft compartment. (this, bare in mind is nearly 30km out!!!! )
third salvo fires and I land a weak hit, partial pen of 18 dmg (using TNT HE shells) and a mild fire. his shells hit me causing severe fire in 2 compartments. im down to like 80% integrity now while he is still 99% I decide to re-evaluate my build and go back. I sacrifice my rather large side guns for a smaller calibre so ive got more room for extra armour. I up the armour an extra inch or so on the main areas, belt and deck. I also manage to increase the extended belt and deck a little.
battle 2.
exactly the same outcome, I cant hit him with the same spec ship but hes landing consistent hits over very long distance causing the same level of dmg as before. ive tried this mission 4-5 times now and its the same everytime. he can hit me at ridiculously long ranges and I cant get anywhere near. by the time I do get anywhere close my ship is almost crippled.
Im not saying that the enemy doesn't have the same RNG but what im trying to prove here is that there must be some kind of minimum rng that enemy has, lets say the enemy will always have a 20% chance of hitting regardless and it will never be any less (mission dependant would be my guess)
if anyone has any theories id be glad to hear them, but for me, if the enemy does indeed have a biased rng that this will be a sad day for me. devs say that they don't, but from what ive seen after speccin my ship to be equal to the enemy and having seen the results over 4-5 tests im very very dubious.
No, it doesn't work that way. The enemy may have a different tech level, however, which might mean access to radar that you don't have if you take the extra funds option.
-
2
-
-
“Salvaging” crew from abandoned / sunk ships would be an excellent ancillary role for destroyers.
-
1
-
-
I elaborated above. “Superimposed turret” would be better written as “turret with superimposed gun arrangement.”
QuoteThe superposed turrets ultimately proved to be very problematic; the arrangement had been conceived initially to save weight and allow the much faster firing 8 in guns to shoot during the long reload time necessary for large caliber guns. By the time the Virginias entered service, smokeless propellant and rapid firing, large caliber guns had reduced the time between shots from 180 seconds to 20. The 8 in guns could no longer fire at their maximum rate without interfering with the 12 in guns, since the concussion and hot gasses would disrupt the crew below. In addition, the British HMS Dreadnought—the first "all-big-gun" battleship to enter service—commissioned in late 1906 shortly after the Virginias and rendered them obsolescent at a single stroke.[2]
-
That was not a turret on a turret on Virginia. It is essentially a two-tiered, two-caliber quad turret.
Open AA / anti-torpedo guns on top of turrets could not be used while main guns were active, so presents a big problem.
-
2
-
-
It’s a fixed housing on top of the turret, not a separate turret. The idea was that the faster firing 8in could engage the target while the slow reload process for the main guns was underway. With tech that improved main gun reload rates, the whole idea became pointless.
-
3
-
-
I think the sounds are pretty good. Lack of modeling speed of sound decrees immersion and might contribute to them feeling off to some degree.
-
There is a bug that can cause a battery never to achieve locked status and switch to salvo fire. The only way to get rid of this stuck cycle is to switch targets, but you can’t do that in this mission since it is 1v1.
-
I agree with the AI having no inherent advantage. I think there are a couple of design issues that make this feel like a problem when it is not inherent to AI abilities:
-
Spotting is not relative and many scenarios pit you in a small number of ships against a more numerous enemy. If even a single enemy ship of any type spots you, every enemy ship in range instantly opens fire. This can lead to you accumulating hits much faster than you can deal with your current single target, which in turn degrades your accuracy. Devs have mentioned that ships that don’t see the target themselves will in the future have an accuracy malus, bu this doesn’t adequately address the problem for a number of reasons:
-
This is mostly nonsense. Ships were not sent forward to act as remote gunnery directors for other ships. The only examples I can think of this occurring are with shore bombardments, which is a much simpler gunnery problem. Ships in this era should need to see their target to engage with a few exceptions:
- Second Generation Fire Control Radar (early radar was search only)
- Very advanced fire control computers and complex fire control rooms could allow for a ship within a division sailing together to control fire for other ships in the division, and / or incorporate their data in its own solution. This is mostly predicated on ships within a division knowing their exact relative distances and bearings to each other.
- dedicated aerial spotters with radios, probably only able to correct fire for a single ship at a time
- Even with an accuracy malus, it will still feel off when a mostly unseen fleet is all firing on your ship unseen.
-
IMO, spotting should be relative and should take cues from the Combat Mission series:
- When a ship is selected, you see only enemy ships it can see itself (with exceptions above). When no ship is selected, you see all enemies that any ship in your fleet can currently see.
-
This is mostly nonsense. Ships were not sent forward to act as remote gunnery directors for other ships. The only examples I can think of this occurring are with shore bombardments, which is a much simpler gunnery problem. Ships in this era should need to see their target to engage with a few exceptions:
- Differences in towers between ships of a broad class can lead to significant differences in spotting range, which gives the AI an absolute advantage if your are on the disadvantaged end rather than the marginal boost you would expect where if one ship can see and fire on another it should in very short order be able to see and fire in return, but there might be significant differences in the technology carried to deliver accurate fire. Save for radar, primary means of spotting was Mark I eyeball with the assistance of binoculars. The distance at which ships can see and target each other should be governed primarily by conditions.
-
Spotting is not relative and many scenarios pit you in a small number of ships against a more numerous enemy. If even a single enemy ship of any type spots you, every enemy ship in range instantly opens fire. This can lead to you accumulating hits much faster than you can deal with your current single target, which in turn degrades your accuracy. Devs have mentioned that ships that don’t see the target themselves will in the future have an accuracy malus, bu this doesn’t adequately address the problem for a number of reasons:
-
1 hour ago, Pedroig said:
Sounds about right, Uboats with the 88mm (3-4") on the deck would take 30 or so hits to incapacitate/sink a merchie...
Damage control parties in this game are über-elite. Putting out 6+ compartment fires AND 3 compartment flooding in 2-3 minutes... 🙄
Bear in mind that the crew would likely immediately abandon ship if brought under fire by u-boat without any support nearby, so there would effectively be no damage control and it could still take a very substantial amount of time to sink a ship with gunfire.
-
1
-
-
They should still fire as a single battery, however, as should side and centerline guns of same type. Hopefully a solution can be found.
>>>Alpha-3 General Feedback [HotFix v66]<<<
in General Discussions
Posted
Interesting irony after giving the BB vs TBs mission a go in this build: the small guns on the TBs are a much bigger threat to your BB than their torpedoes. Penetration of wrought iron seems very high, and very low angle deck penetrations (even over penetration) 2-4" guns is frequent. BB here has 3.1 deck and 1.5 inch deck extension (typical designer default):