Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Carl_Bar

Members2
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carl_Bar

  1. @Nick Thomadis With the disclaimer i haven't tested for a few updates. Are you saying the in game shell trails are actually acurratte to the simulated shell ballistics? Given some other things in patch notes i'd dismissed them as strictly visual fluff with the actual shell trajectories worked out behind the scenes being completely seperate. As noted a few posts back i don't think the major cause of the problem is in the ballistics as transports take hits as expected whilst warships don't. But if the shell trajectories are supposed to be acurratte it probably helps a little in explaining the difference between what people are expecting if my suspicions about them are right, (i need to do some testing to say for sure).
  2. there's just been a patch so we'l have to see how that tweaks things but the issue at the time of your writing this seems to be an overly high ratio of deck hits to side hits coupled with some weird incorrect pen value usage at various points resulting shells being able to pen the deck when they shouldn't and a difficulty hitting the sides of the ship in general.
  3. Your hull makes a huge diffrance as there's a fairly hard upper limit on the tower capability. My last campaign i had Modern Cruisers in late 1910's and as a result i had fights where my 14k ton CA's where spotting 4-5k Ton enemy CA's at ranges greater than they could see, (around 10km), without radar.
  4. Thats pretty extreme compared to what i've seen, but i am playing on normal ;). Also don't know if this helps the devs any but observed somthing just now and confirmed it in custom battle. Whatever is causing the massive numbers of deck hits does not affect transports, ratios are what you'd expect for them when engaging at short ranges. I did build a couple of opposing CL's with 0 armour everywhere to test if that was a factor but they once again took endless deck hits and few belt hits. Hope that helps finally find the cause.
  5. I can't be sure but i suspect the massive AI fleets are in large part down to it's fondness for obsolete tech. Displacement has a huge impact on cost, as do several tech options. Take a look at these 3, the first is an 1890's UK custom battle BB, the Second is a 1905 UK Custom Battle BB, and the third is a schizo tech 1917 BC from my current campaign, (it has significantly worse support techs and mostly worse guns than the 1905 custom battle one, but much better engines and base hull): If the AI is mostly using the first design it can have 4 and a bit for every one of the last design i have, so if i had 10, (i actually have 16 plus a lot of cruisers, but no BB hulls or DD's), the AI could have 45 of the first design for the same cost. You can build 1890's light cruisers that cost around a million apiece. Thats 45 CL's for one of my BC's.
  6. Something in the hit assignments is still broken as hell. I'm seeing endless deck hits at short ranges and also deck pens when my shells don't have remotely enough penetration to actually go through the enemies deck armour. Something has to be assigning shells to decks with the pen values inherited from the belt values. Not sure if the high deck hit rate is a symptom of that or if it's seperate. Would help immensely in troubleshooting this for you if the info scroll would include things like angle of impact. We could at least get some idea of whats going on. Right now all i cna tell you is somthing wrong is happening but not why it's wrong.
  7. Honestly there hardest part about critiquing the AI atm is that whilst we can see whats happening in broad terms where often missing many of the details which makes it hard to figure out why the AI is doing somthing silly. I did consider previously writing out a complete decision tree, but i suck at doing those freehand and i can't find any free no sign up tools online. Suffice to say i strongly suspect the AI isn't doing great at making decisions.
  8. You can see that adding the guns at the back is extending the citadel rearwards so the main belt is going further back which will be a factor. But also as has been noted previously the game doesn't seem to model centre of buoyancy. In the real world stability is strongly affected by centre of mass vs centre of buoyancy factors. In game only the centre of mass matters and thats going to make things very weird somtimes.
  9. My experiance of the tech tweak is that it's better in terms of keeping up with the listed dates on techs but far from perfect, some categories stay ahead some don't. Still a huge improvement. I'd have to do some really detailed note taking but i suspect the issue is that growth has slowed overall due to transports seeming to max out slower, (this is good btw), whilst i suspect the maximum budget for each slider is tied to the passing of time, not the growth in GDP. Thus the cost of the sliders can rapidly outpace your GDP growth at some points. Also as a tip, a change in GDP is the same as an change in Naval Budget but with a delayed effect. Yeah my experiance is the AI tends to spiral down badly in at least a couple of cases very early on, (played 2 campaigns so far, a short 15 year one where i was assessing the changes with no tech focuses and a longer one thats still in progress where i set focuses). I'm pretty sure the AI underprioratises the transports slider and i suspect when it gets warned about spending it gets the same penalties as the player. Those penalties are actually really bad for your ability to meet bills unless you seriously cut your spending, and even then there's a small permanent longterm negetive to them. The AI can easily get into a spiral of repeated warnings that depress their GDP growth so badly they can can never get a positive growth rate leading to ever smaller budgets leading to more warnings, repeat until collapse. If i'm right about them getting the same penalties one of the best things that could be done for the AI is to remove the event penalties from the AI for this event. Would make it significantly harder for the AI to spiral like that.
  10. That the inner citadel armour affected things like causing partial pens wasn't clear before this. The way it was described previously, i understood it to mean that it would cause pen damage to be reduced, not that it would convert full pens to partial pens. Some more detailed info in the damage log on if we went through one layer of armour and then bounced off another would be very much appreciated. It makes figuring out whats happening so we can provide good feedback much better.
  11. As i noted myself previously this isn't restricted to guns tech. 6" of deck armour on a light cruiser is a LOT. It's no suprise your CA's are having issues. But thats seriously heavy even in game to do. Um no it's not just big gun techs that are slow. Since my last post on the subject i did a campaign run as UK where i maxed the tech slider but didn't set any focuses, every single tech branch was consistently behind by significant amounts.
  12. Except this isn't true. 12" Mk II guns with a resonable shell type can go through such armour at a steep angle starting at 10,000m. Armour is inflated compared to IRL, but so is penetration. The Penetration of that 12" MkII gun horizontally is pretty much identical to the IRL values of the end of WW2 US 16" 50/Cal guns firing Super Heavy APCBC shells.
  13. I think you misunderstood what he was saying. At best under ideal conditions you might see a Light cruiser stop anything with 24" of pen or less on the belt. The guns he's using have 26" of pen at 10,000m which is far greater than the range he's engaging at. there's simply no way for the belt to actually stop the shells. That said whilst this is all from what i saw in the previous beta, (going to start a new campaign soon on the latest update), my experiance from turning on low priority events is that very little is actually striking the belt in the first place. It's all hitting the deck and bouncing from there, (which often makes sense given the amount of deck armour in play vs the deck penetration). I've also noticed the excessive deck hits isn't completely consistent. Sometimes after sinking an enemy or switching targets under AI control it will revert to a more expected mostly belt hits. but it's not somthing i can make happen on demand.
  14. Ok, that is behaviour i've never seen before. Nice video example :).
  15. If your turning fast enough your turrets will be rotating slower than the ship is turning and thus seem not to track when they in fact are but can't track fast enough.
  16. I can confirm i've seen this, i've also noticed hits seem to be disproportionately assigned to the rear and bow ares and not the main belt/deck area's. I've also seen shots from astern consistently hit the bow and vice versa.
  17. I don't have a detailed breakdown for many ships but as a useful example i know HMS Hoods conning tower massed some 500 tons. Most of that was coning tower armour ofc, but it provides some context, 2500 tons still sounds extreme. Regarding engine weight. It depends greatly on the hull form and how well designed it is. All hulls have a natural speed, upto that value it takes very little power to achieve the desired speed, after that it gets exponentially harder. As an example. The Evergiven, (the ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal the other year), masses 270,000 tons, has 59,600KW of installed engine capacity and a top speed of 22.5 knots. The WW1 vintage Queen Elisabeth class of the Royal Navy had a displacemen of 33,000 tons, an installed power of 59,000KW, and a top speed of 24 knots. As you can see despite very similar top speeds and installed engine power there's a huge difference in displacement. Something similar applies if you compare the Queen Elizabeth class to the Nelsons, despite a significant increase in displacement and a significant drop in engine power the speed only dropped by 1 knot.
  18. Some of the technical is going over my head but yeah right now it's very obvious the centre of buoyancy isn't being represented at all. You can have the centre of mass severely biased towards one end of the hull and still have good balance. Your free to correct me but i'm pretty sure most of the hulls in game would have their centre of buoyancy on or very near the halfway point of their length. Yeah but we don't have a lot of control over the height factor. That said the point of the Nelsons shorter citadel was to let them get the same capabilities in a shorter and thus lighter hull. The citadel length as a percentage of the hull length wasn't excessively small, but because it was shorter in absolute terms it let them make the whole design shorter.
  19. I noticed in my one battle in this patch that where still seeing a really high rate of deck hits leading to limited damage unless you have really high pen guns.
  20. This started as soon as the 1.06 beta dropped, penetrating hits started dealing way more damage, (that this would do so was even a patch note), whats changed is partly the degree to which this happens, but also a while back they added a rule that if a section was red any further damage to it would propagate to nearby sections. This was to stop end on torpedo boats being nearly indestructible. But it means any lightly armoured parts of your ship can result in them destroying your ship without ever penetrating your thickest armour. I really had high hopes that the citadel detailing would include end armour and they'd do away with the damage propagation and instead properly model longitudinal penetrations as able to penetrate down the length of a ship (depending on available penetration, fuse timing and enemy ends armour). But that isn't what happened. And it lead to nonsense like what your seeing. Sure it could be a lookup table, but it's still assigning the horizontal penetration to the vertical axis somehow, thats the only way to produce this result.
  21. It's not that, i've got a screenshot of a BB taking a deck pen that setoff ammo from a 4.9" gun, The only way that would be possibble is if some part of the deck is being modelled as vertical as the horizontla pen wasn't enough to pen the belt and the vertical pen wasn't enough t pen the deck, but the the horizontal pen was sufficient to pen the deck.
  22. Whilst thats true the current tech system somtimes produces the opposite issues where it feels like time and money don't produce meaningful results. Which leads in nicely to my own detailed writeup of what i consider the biggest issues with research and a bit of touching on the economy in general and how it feeds into these issues. First things first. In my latest campaign i set the research slider to max right at the start. My focuses were Boilers, Armour Quality, and Towers. I quickly and easily got well ahead in armour quality, from which i then switched to Turret systems with that focus, after getting well ahead there, (i was after the various double turret techs), i swapped to cruiser hulls where it's been for about 5 in game years. Despite a maxed research slider and this application of focuses the only techs i'm ahead of the timeline curve on, (using the on tooltip dates to judge, i haven't checked every single branch as it's hard to keep track of that much), is Armour Quality, and Turret Mechanisms. I'm slightly ahead on control towers and i'm behind to varying degrees on all gun techs, (Big and Small) engine techs, boilers techs, and all hull techs. Having to have a maxed research slider to not quite keep up with the natural progression is on it's own a noticeable issue, at the same time, whilst maxing out the research slider should be nowhere near required to follow a historical timeline, it's also true that maxing out the slider should be a lot harder than it is now. This actually goes for the rest of the slider IMO. There's a few interconnected issues at work here. 1. It's too easy to max out the sliders ATM but also feels kind of necessary. 2. Some tech folders have very few items to research and as a result it's fairly easy to get significantly ahead of the curve there. 3. Some tech folders are absolutely clogged with masses of entries that have to be gone through. This brings me to my thoughts on how to fix things. A ) The recent economic reworks have been behind the ease of maxing the sliders. but at the same time those reworks where needed, maintaining a fleet is rather expensive as is the necessary refitting and new builds. The issue is a combination o too low a cap on the sliders, and also the baseline effects having gotten tuned down too far because where so readily maxing sliders. At the same time i think it would be wise if the sliders where adjusted to move their current maxed costs and effects to around the 50% mark, (transports aside). But also to make the costs follow a logarithmic scale rather than a linear one. This would make large shifts in the slider position have much larger effects on your overall economics, making going extremly high or low on the sliders a deliberate choice with significant positives and negatives. B ) there needs in some cases, (Engines, Armour Quality and Rangfinders being the most notable), to be some redistribution of tech items from elsewhere. As things are whilst you could rebalance these in simple time taken terms, it would rapidly lead to many of these branches going an unreasonably long time between upgrades. A redistribution of a few techs or additions of some new ones would solve the issues whilst still leaving a feel of actual progress occurring. A few obvious moves would be to moves the various fire control type accuracy buffs from control towers to rangfinders, and move the fuel type techs and various weight reductions from boilers to engines. Armour quality i'm less sure on how to fix. Maybe combined that with the armour weight folder and move Internals Protection and Hull Protection into the same row and rename the row Survivability? I'd also look at some of the overstuffed tech branches and see if you can't either combine some researches, (for example small guns could combine 2", 3", & 4" nto a single item for each Mk numbers and ditto for 5" & 6", with 7" and 8" remaining discrete), or split them out into extra folders, (Light Cruisers vs Heavy Cruisers would be a good choice here).
  23. Main battery was somtimes touched, but it varied wildly from case to case what was and was not touched. Currently it's fairly unclear what determines refit time and cost. Pulling out and changing the existing main caliber guns is a pretty big deal, and if your change the number of guns or caliber it gets significantly more intensive. Yes and no on the RoF, thats certainly true for more modern systems, but the game covers a pretty long chunk of time where actual practical limits on loading speed where the primary issue, not the cooling rate. Once truly fully automatic systems came in that changed, but for a long time the barrels could stand a higher RoF without excessive wear than the crews could actually achieve. From a pure realism standpoint somthing similar applies with the accuracy. A few particularly inaccurate mountings/guns aside the majority of the time the fire control was a bigger limitation that the guns, parallax error was a particular problem until digital fire control came in way later on. Of course i don't think the devs are trying to be hyper realistic anyway and as i've reiterated before i'm not necessarily sure that would be the right tack to take from a enjoyable game-play perspective, though the current system severely disfavours smaller gun calibers.
  24. Yeah looks the same as what i aw with the CL hull, just on the opposite end. I've also done some tests where i removed all armour and otherwise trimmed the citadel down as much as i could weight wise and i'm still seeing the effect on my end even though now the extra weight amounts to around 30 tons total: As is obvious move the gun aft and adding extra citadel weight to the rear reduces the aft weight offset.
  25. That isn't it. Look carefully, the aft weight offset goes down as the citedel moves aft, it should go up instead unless the balance point of the ship is right at the stern of the ship. The only way i can make sense of this is if the citadel is allways assumed to have it's centre of mass line up with the centre of the ship in the calculations. That would mean as the citadel gains more mass, you'd in turn need more mass aft of the centerline to get the same aft weight offset resulting in moving a gun aft causing a drop in aft weight offset. But that is itself complete nonsense as the citadel's centre of mass is dependent on the length and weight distribution which should change when it's lengthened.
×
×
  • Create New...