Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

akd

Naval Action Tester
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,801

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

 Content Type 

Posts posted by akd

    Ammo Detonation on BBs deal minimal / no damage

    in Game Technical Issues

    Posted

    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.)

    How Powerful Should Torpedoes Be?

    in Shipyard Discussions - Ship designer, Warships and their components

    Posted

    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.

    Upcoming Alpha-3 News! (OLD)

    in General Discussions

    Posted · Edited by akd

    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.

    Different qualities of guns.

    in Shipyard Discussions - Ship designer, Warships and their components

    Posted

    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.

    Number dont matter (Test...of sorts)

    in General Discussions

    Posted · Edited by akd

    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.

    • Like 2

    Superimposed turrets

    in Shipyard Discussions - Ship designer, Warships and their components

    Posted · Edited by akd

    I elaborated above.  “Superimposed turret” would be better written as “turret with superimposed gun arrangement.”

    Quote

    The 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]

     

    Uncanny Enemy Accuracy

    in General Discussions

    Posted · Edited by akd

    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.
    • 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.

    Tanky Transports

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    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.

    • Like 1

    >>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<

    in Shipyard Discussions - Ship designer, Warships and their components

    Posted · Edited by akd

    1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

    Maybe you haven't keep-up with the forum, the "status-quo" still has secondary's (all weapons) firing but only on one target and not the opposite side.

    Dev's have already stated no independent firing for each single turret, most likely too hard on the CPU for lower end rigs.

    Dev's have already stated they're considering starboard and port side targets.

    Common feedback is for secondary's to have there own target.

    To change from the status-quo, adding directors is a solution, in-between the current constraints and incorporating almost everything!

     

    Everything you wrote before last indicates a change from status quo, and none of it is tied to directors.

    Guns / turrets of same type are grouped batteries, then director technology adds bonuses to accuracy that are consistent with fire control through a director.  So early on you get "centralized firing" but without the benefits of the actual technology installed.

    Searchlight for Night Actions

    in General Discussions

    Posted · Edited by akd

    I think you are assuming that they are meant to be side by side, but the turrets and searchlights on the German ship are facing aft of the beam.  Could very well be 3-4 ship lengths.  But again, artwork almost always compresses space in scenes like this to some degree, but this scene clearly accurately captures the nature of the engagement.

    Here is another take on the same action by a different artist:

    23-AAA-Destruction-of-the-British-Armour

×
×
  • Create New...