Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RAMJB last won the day on February 2

RAMJB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,345 Excellent



  • Rank
    Admiralty Correspondent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,254 profile views
  1. You don't need them to be green. One green, two on yellow usually will cause a boarding. Those icons actually represent more the ability of the given ship to hook up the target ship with boarding hooks and drag it closer for a boarding action than anything else. All green means they're going to have a field day dragging it close. As long as nothing is red, the less green you have the slower the process will be. All yellow means it's mostly a stalemate, the boarder won't be able to force it closer, but the target won't get free of the hooking ropes. One red without at least one green, or more than one red without any green means the target ship will break the hook lines if they get deployed, and move away. Note that in either of those cases if the ships actually reach a position for a boarding (because their own issued movement orders, or else, like another ship pushing one of them into position), the boarding will happen anyway. I've had succesful boardings triggered even with two red meters because of that. At least that's how it works according to my observation.
  2. I don't like it. Rageboarding is an one-dimensional solution to a multiple layered problem that comes at quite a hefty cost. but that I don't like it doesn't mean that isn't legit and should be "fixed". You can't fix what isn't broken in the first place, wether you like or not. I have done it in the past, yes. A fair guess is that everyone has. My first playthroughs in the sea were much forced through boardings on unsoftened ships, but that's before I became accustomed to the game's controls, nuances and representation of many different things. Once I became familiar with them, I became confortable enough to use more tactically evolved solutions to the same problems (having a lot more fun in the process, needless to say). Finally those "free" ships you talk about can get equally without rageboarding. That a possible solution for the problem of fighting the enemy doesn't involve boarding it from the get go doesn't mean there won't be a boarding later on during the battle...or that the target won't surrender. Either way you'll capture it. That money you win by spending rep on taking control of trophys and selling them you can do it anyway if you use a different approach. Those "Free" ships would be yours anyway (most, at least), and you could get them "cheaper". I don't have that 6 SOL lineup you talk about, but that's not because I didn't capture them. I did but I didn't keep them, I sent them back to the admiralty or paid the admiralty point price to sell some and futher improve my existing lineup. In general I never keep more than one 3rd rate and one razee in my active lineups, the rest of the mix made out of 5th, 6th and 7th rates. More than that becomes overkill, unnecessary, and a massive burden on your upkeep costs. At any rate and once more, the large lineup of trophies doesn't compensate for the vast ammount of resources you'll spend on renewing wasted crews and officers in rageboarding, those you won't have if you look for different, more tactically refined solutions that would yield the same trophies anyway. If you win battles through skill and not force, your crews experience will be higher across the board (as you're not losing a massive ammount of it with each battle), so will be officers. Money wise you'll spend more on repairs (as battles will drag longer in average), but that's a lot less costly than replacing crews. Tactically wise you'll be able to field ships with heavier guns or more maneouverable ships (using the tonnage you don't spend in massed crews in bigger guns, or freeing it), and have a better choice of ship upgrades that make for better rounded combat capabilities (as with the rageboarding option one slot should permanently be the boarding tools, reducing the flexibility on the rest), making for a stronger, more capable, and far more flexible force. You can see "rageboarding" is not a tactic I find very attractive. But once more that's simple, and that it cancels a lot of tactical challenges other doctrines force on the player, doesn't mean it shouldn't work, as it comes with a big penalty attached to it and is far less resource efficient than winning battles with other means (which include capture - just not after a couple grape volleys to then board).
  3. Historically it was far more likely for a defeated ship to be captured than sunk - both because of boardings and because straight up surrendering. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with you rageboarding everyone at your heart's content if that's your "tactic". You're compromising in other areas if you go for that route (insanely expensive in the long run because of officers, crew and equipment replacements, possibly boarding equipment instead of other combat oriented ones, crews filled to the max meaning less weight for bigger guns, and a forced compromise in the ship's top speed and maneouverability, long term crew experience going off the drain after losing 60% of it's numbers in each rageboarding action, etc). Is that optimal?. No. Does that work?. Yes. It's a doctrine that demands a lot of tactical thinking in order to get going?. No. Does any of that mean it should not be allowed?. Hell no. Wether you perceive it or not you're paying a cost in other areas for being strong in a particular one - that one being boarding. That doing so allows you to mindlessly board everyone without even taking your time to softening them up first doesn't come for free, as even if you don't notice it, you'll be paying a price for it (and a hefty one at that). Which means, it's working as it should. Is it a "cheap" tactic?. Well that depends: you know, in military terms, human wave mass attacks were a thing too. Were they "cheap tactics"?. Well not in terms of actual human life costs - but hell they could be really effective (ask the wehrmacht in the Eastern Front). It's not a subtle way of waging war, has the same finesse as a wood chopping axe and is as elaborate as a wooden shoe. Even nowadays there's a lot of disdain for commanders that indulged in the old tactic of "sending more men to the front that bullets had the enemy". While the tactical criticism is right one can hardly discuss it's effectivity - as long as you have a lot more men to throw to the grinder than the enemy you don't necessarily need to be subtle when doing it in order to win. You can discuss the methodology and it's morale, but you can't discuss the results. Same here. The "rageboarding" doctrine is what most people do because they have a tremendously limited knowledge of actual viable tactics of the age of sail- and this one is the "path of less resistance" so to speak.You only need to learn to point your ships to the nearest one with less crews, and board. No need to pull fancy maneouvers, evolved tactics or advanced thinking. It's only natural that people who don't know better go that route. That doesn't mean it should be somehow "penalized". Because that same route, while being the "simplest" in tactical terms, It's also the "path with extraordinary costs" as you're going to be spending fortunes to replace crews and officers after each battle when you could just be using solid tactics to force surrenders instead of going for boardings against fully crewed ships with topped off morale. Not to mention that again, you're compromising your ship's loadouts and maneouverability by filling them to the brim with crewmen for those boarding. Al of which means it should be possible to go that route. As long as if it means you're paying the according price. And the game is perfectly correct in allowing it because it forces you to pay that price. TL:DR: rageboarding is "easy" but far from optimal. Brute force in military history has been used a lot of times to great effect. I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed here at all, as going that route forces you to compromise in many other areas - as it should be the case.
  4. The advice you've been given is either strategic management of the battlerating system (To spawn easier ships) or brute force approach (rageboarding) which is both incredibly expensive (massive crew losses guaranteed, possibly including several expensive officers) and risky (if you don't time the boarding PERFECTLY right you'll end up with the enemy capturing a couple of your ships). It's advice, and valuable, but I wouldn't call that tactical per se. Against big ships you can fight, and you can win, and you can prevail even with much smaller ships, if you have the numbers. Of course you're going to need a respectable degree of firepower on your side, but a couple 5th rates could, and should, bring a 3rd rate to it's knees. Not without a hefty cost in damage and crew losses, but can be done. three 5th rates or a couple 5th rates and a 6th, or something like that, it should be a guaranteed capture - and without involving "rageboarding" (meaning, just going for an all out boarding from the get go). See- Big ships have two things going for them - tremendous planking (only the heaviest guns will go through the broadside even at close range) and spectacular firepower. If you settle for a board to board fight you're going to lose - and in spectacular fashion. They lack in two aspects. General turning ability, and specially so, really clumsy when close hauled (wind coming from either or it's front quarters, let alone directly from the front). It's easy to outmaneouver them if you know what you're doing. And finally they have the same issue every ship of the era had - a very vulnerable ass which no gun has problems going through, mixed with the carnage raking from the rear causes on all ships. Not joking here, round shot volleys from a 6th rate with 9pdr long guns from the rear end of a SOL can easily kill a couple dozen sailors while causing structural damage, floodings, and gun loss. All this translates in maneouvering your ships so at least one is constantly at the rear of the enemy unleashing at his rear nonstop, the others going for the foremast (if you manage to bring that sucker down and manage to force the enemy against the wind, he'll be stuck there for a LONG while making your rear-ending a much easier effort), and then focus firing grape from all angles posible. Ideally you want your toughest ships to be the ones attracting the fire from the enemy. They're going to get chewed up and take a hell of a beating, but that's part of the deal: you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs after all. As long as you have someone on his rear unleashing volley after volley, that as stated can (and will) kill far more than a dozen guys per go, the enemy's crew losses will begin to mount up in no time, and there's a really high chance once they're low enough, and specially so if they have no nearby support, that they just strike colors outright (surrendering the ship for you to take it with a boarding party). If they don't surrender, once they're low enough, time to go and step on board and take by the sword what they won't give up by surrendering. some advices on firing from the rear: 1- keep some distance, you don't want to be board-to-butt (but if you're forced there, its still a better place than out of his rear arc) 2- account for his turning specially when the enemy is moving towards the wind. The closer hauled he comes, the more time he'll take to turn, the more time you have to unleash 3- account for the wind, as when you're going upwind you won't be able to move forward to keep position at his rear. Plan your moves accordingly, bid your time until the time to tack is right, and regain position behind him. 4- USE HOLD FIRE. I can't stress that enough. Ideal rake is 90º off the enemy stern, from maybe half a ship's lenght distance, and opening up as the enemy's rear is alligned with the firing ships' center. That'll give you the most guns that will send shot right across the enemy's lenght (a pure rake), as the guns in the extreme bow and rear will come at angle and cause less damage (one of the reasons why keeping some distance is needed - to reduce those angles). Literally the difference from a demolishing round shot raking volley at the stern of a ship causing 35 crew losses, several guns being knocked down and a supressed ship (crew shock), from a mostly mild botched one that maybe kills half a dozen men an does little else, is holding fire for an extra 5-10 seconds until the geometry is right. 5- Fire round shot. Specially so if the guns involved have limited range or are light. Grape at max distance from the rear (and if you're in the correct raking position you'll be near that max range) doesnt' do a lot because it's a lot more innacurate. If you're REALLY close to the enemy (closer than needed and advised) it can be a good option though, as I've seen truly terrifying grape rakes from the rear in the game - they're a lot harder to achieve though. Also change to grape raking if you notice the enemy structure is going down fast and you don't want to sink it; it can happen if the enemy is stubborn enough to not surrender before that you can actually go through all it's structure firing from the rear - yes, rakes are THAT powerful. Now go out there and grab some SOLs...they're not easy, you won't grab them for free (repair costs are going to be high, specially because those heavy guns of theirs tend to crush some masts in the process), but it's doable with a little bit of skill and know-how.
  5. Not talking about battles, but about missions. The grey icons where you put ships from turn to turn. Those have hard limits and in most of them 100 points is the max you can assign. Which is a perfect fit for a 6th and a 7th rate. In battle I don't give much thought to BRs or anything like that. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to use 3rd rates, right? ;). I'm not overly focused on maxing out on big ships however. For instance I sold my Ardent as soon as I got the Bellona. One 3rd rate is far more than enough to do the heavylifting for the whole of the campaign (besides, I also already had a Razee, which is an absolute monster of a ship, almost as good as a 3rd rate because what it loses in firepower it wins in maneouverability), so there was no point in having two of them as it'd been overkill.
  6. well, that's what you do, because if you do it well it works. The same it'd work if you kept round shot and used tactical advantageous movement and positions to establish firepower superiority, focus when possible, maybe demast an enemy guy or two and effectively erase them from the fight while you fight off the rest, cause surrenders, etc. and once you end the battle you won't have to pay thousands in crew replacements (not to mention the hit in your armory) to make up for the disproportionate crew losses a mass-boarding battle mean. Boarding is an "easier" problem-solving, you don't have to think that much. Grape the crap out of everyone, board when possible and winnable. Problem is - it's easier...it's also a HECK of a lot more expensive. Which translates into being a lot less desirable unless absolutely necessary (for instance, if the enemy has a 3rd rate and you only have frigates your best chance to win is to grape it into oblivion and then jump it with a double-board boarding...and even there blasting her ass with round shot whenever possible is a REALLY good idea) What do I think about the last US mission?. I had no problem with it. I had four 6th rates by the time I reached that battle so I just picked three of them and went on to win the scenario. I had kept them with me all along the campaign. Alongside three 7th rates too. So when I had to face a "size limitation" battle I didn't bat an eye. Why did I keep them? because most "missions" you have a point limit you can use to see if you accomplish them. The combo of a 40 point 7th rate and a 60 point 6th rate is 100 points, which is the max of many of those missions, and that combo gives you the max possible chances to get a positive result in those, so my 6ths were useful for that. They also were armed with 9pdr long guns, which made them really effective mid-long range supporters for my main ships in scenarios where I could add them. My main battle force was a 74 gun SOL I had captured after it surrendered because I had raked it into oblivion after T_boning it from the front, a razée I had captured by boarding in the last stages of another battle, and a couple Hermiones that I had captured in similar circunstances. When that mission came up, and I could use none of my heavy hitters I had plenty of ships to use without having to go to the market. So I'm OK with that mission, basically ;).
  7. Disagreed. While I can be on the same boat that boarding can be very effective, it doesn't mean it's the way to go, or that standard round shot is "obsolete" On ships of the same class (variance depending on the opponents is too big to sum it up in a brief summary); 1- Grape can and will reduce your crew. Round will massacre ships sides, cause possibly massive firepower decrease through cannons being destroyed, cause a lot more crew shocks, induce floodings, cause rigging shocks (demasting) and artillery shocks. 2- Grape can and will make a boarding easier. Round (particularily so from the rear) can let you skip boarding altogether (ships surrendering when subjected to a constant hailstorm of roundshot, specially when it involves a rake or two, isn't rare at all) 3-Grape only affects crew. A good volley or two of well aimed shot at a mast's base will cripple it's rigging for good (depending on your gunnery poundage, foremast or mizzen are much more vulnerable, and the fore being destroyed seriously impairs a ship's ability to maneouver, particularily so against the wind), leaving it open to be raked into oblivion and then some. Bowsprits are very vulnerable aswell, and viable ways to cut an enemy's maneouverability significantly with low poundage guns (9 pounders or so). 4-Rear rakes are, without exception, FAR more damaging than grape ones. 5-plain obvious but important nonetheless: round shot vastly outranges grape, which means against an enemy decided to board you as long as you can keep it at arm's lenght it means a constant unchallenged rain of fire on him. 6-The heavier the broadside, the far less optimal graping is. Shooting grape with a 3rd rate is pretty much a waste of massive guns (unless you're planning to jump on board of that tasty enemy lineship to capture it, of course). 7-Grape's reliance on being on top of the enemy (at max range grape's effectivity reduces significantly) means that an enemy with double shot can absolutely SMASH your face (and your broadsides) in the second you come too close. And heavens help you if he wins your rear because in that case you're D.O.N.E. 8- Grape is grape. It does what it does, and it does it good, and none of it is related with "how much "armor" the enemy has left". Grape works and works best when aimed at the decks (the expresion "sweeping the decks" comes from there), but when aimed at a hull it can, and it will, inflict some casualties and depending on how intense the volley, many, coming from the shrapnel that goes through the gunports and directly into the ship. Armor in this game is a very abstract way to represent the structural integrity of a side and it's ability to keep heavy round shot from penetrating the planking, meaning, that your "armor" is gone doesn't mean your whole side is open to the enemy like a big window allowing for the shrapnel to go in unimpeded. A ship with no "armor" still has a wooden barrier between the guns and the crew, the same one it'll exist if the "armor" was maxed out. Making grape damage depending on "armor left" is absolutely unrealistic and completely unintuitive. 9- Grape backs up one strategy, and one strategy only: boarding. Roundshot allows you for total flexibility in what you are aiming to do. Including a thorough preparation for boarding but extending to sinking the enemy, immobilizing it, forcing it to outright surrender, reduce it's firepower, etc. 10- Boarding-only ship loads means decreased maneouverability and speed due to sheer crew weight. Flexible loads lets you dance around an enemy while tearing new holes in their rear end while they can do mostly nothing to keep you at bay (not to mention open up heavier cannon poundage if you wish it so). As good as grape can be against crews, nothing beats repeated rakes with roundshot. Grape has it's place. It's also open to abuse. Up to the player to be tremendously wasteful with his resources and paying for new crews over and over and over againg for indulging in rageboarding... It can be viable, yes, but hurtful in the long term. Now again that's 1v1 similar ship classes. Variance due to the campaign, foe sizes, own ship sizes ,etc, exists. I'm not going to say rage-boarding with grape only is not viable because it is (and it should be, if you've tailored your fleet to be unstoppable in boarding actions I see absolutely no reason whatsoever for the game to penalize you for it, it was a standard doctrine in the day, it should be here too). But it is very cost-inefficient. Sure, in some scenarios where you're vastly outnumbered an early capture can help you turn tables on the enemy for the remainder of the battle - smart boarding is rewarding. But going "boarding only"...it's not. See, through boarding you can get a lot of captures but that'll translate in admiralty points for the most part while your crew losses will be abominable (officer losses too). Eventually you'll be using those admiralty points to purchase the ships you captured to directly SELL Them because you're out of money because your crew losses are unsustainable. Can you play that way?. Sure. Does it mean it's the ONLY way you can play?. Nope, not at all, which is good because it means that you have multiple choices in the way you shape up your forces, you tailor your doctrinal use of them on the battlefield, in order to be effective in the sea. In my opinion nothing needs to change as I find that grape is exactly where it should be. A circunstancial ammunition to use in the final stages before a boarding action, or when by the end of the battle you have absolute superiority and you can take your time decreasing enemy crew numbers for an easy, cheap and low cost boarding...other than that, roundshot is plenty useful. I don't think anything needs to change in that particular relationship between grape and round...other than player perception ;). Now anti-sail shot...that one I almost never use. If I go for the rigging of a ship I'm not going to punch holes in his sails, I'm going to blast away at his masts. Then again it's useful for light ships to help out against bigger ones because 6 pounders usually don't do a lot against masts, so, there's that too :).
  8. Taking shots from the stern is murderous already at the moment. Raking a ship from behind with a properly timed broadside does truly terrifying damage. Blasts crew, structure, guns, and (importantly) morale like there's no tomorrow. One of the best ways to deal with a bigger ship currently for me is to double team it, one going for a board-to-board fight and the other on hot chase to it's rear, to open up his guns when appropiate and deliver a properly delivered rake. In my experience standard shot being the best option even if you're looking for a boarding as it already kills enough crew while it ensures the best accuracy, and on the top of it disables guns and causes major havoc. On the minus side, the AI knows that very well and will do whatever it can to avoid getting pounded from the rear...while looking actively for yours. In my latest playthrough I had a 5th rate with 18 pounder brass cannons park behind a 74 gun 3rd rate I had t-boned and couldn't properly swivel his ass out of my arcs of fire. Three volleys later from his rear end (helped by focus fire by everyone around him), and the bugger dropped the flag. He still had 500-ish dudes aboard. That saved me pretty a penny in crew replacement costs because I could just drop a prize crew on him without having even had to board...not to mention that I got a nice 74 gunner to boot. Hell I've had ships surrendering , several times, just as I was about to deliver a brutal rake, just before opening fire...so yeah the AI knows what's up with it. They'll even freakin' surrender if pushed hard enough, before taking a pounding like that. Front rakes is a different story. In game, but it also was in history. For starters wooden thicknesses at the bow are almost equal to those on the broadsides (they are pathetically low from the rear, you can cause carnage from behind even with 4 pounders on most enemies, that's for sure not true from the front), and the bow rounded countours means a rather high chance of ricochets and bouncing round shot. In fact whenever I'm raking from the front I don't bother aiming for the hull, I'll aim for the deck trying to get guys on the deck. Accordingly my favored shot from the front is usually canister (at least as long as the bowsprit is out of the way). But that means that internal damge and structural damage is much lower, and that you're not knocking out a lot of guns. The end result is that front rakes are leagues away from being anywhere near as terrifying as rear rakes. Which is, btw, perfectly realistic as this was the case aswell in historical engagements. Getting raked was never good, but getting raked from the front was FAR FAR FAR less bad than getting pounded from the ass. Being raked from the front is not highly desirable but there are multiple circunstances when I would rather take my chances with an enemy shooting me from the front than from the broadside. Theres absolutely NO situation whatsoever, however, that I can imagine where I would take a shot from the rear rather than from any other angle. At all. At any rate the mechanics you mention are already in the game, deliver proper results (if adequately done), and are highly effective.
  9. Oh, there's nothing wrong with it, just that it's a presentation that kind of "equalizes" the hits. Or at least induces the reader to analize them as equal. Which they weren't. You see the number on the tables, but the ones on the air dropped list can't be judged on the same value than the ones of the sub/surface tabs. Which can lead to somewhat of a confusion because while "1" means something in two of the lists, it means a different thing on the third. All in all something I'm not particularily fond of. It's just a matter of me being a bit anal about how information is presented, nothing else :). Other than that, as I mentioned, it's a splendid gathering of data.
  10. Another case of gross overkill. US Airmen kept on pounding her until she was no more - again from both sides (preventing a fast capsize) and even past the point when she was a loss anyway. That Musashi (or Yamato) took that many torpedoes only proves the kind of overwhelming air power they were sailing under. Same deal with, say, Oklahoma or WV. Those ships took a lot of torpedoes when they went down - doesn't mean they wouldn't have gone down with less torpedoes (as USS California proved - being a ship with very similar TDS as the other two, with "only" two impacts, she foundered on the port). Disagree. Most of the ships on that list were "old" ones. Only "Modern" ones were PoW, the Yamatos, Bismarck, and Littorio. All of them proved that one or two couple torpedo hits wouldn't either sink or cripple them (unless the hit happened at a critical place such as propulsion/Steering). WT, and specially, Post-WT battleships were VERY large ships. Whereas a representative WWI-vintage battleship would be in the 25-30k ton ballpark, WWII ones went from 35k-70k tons. Big ships have a lot of extra reserve buoyancy vs smaller ships. That fact alone (and generally better TDS technology) meant they were a lot more resilient to torpedo hits. a battleship of the WW2 era was expected to be perfectly able to keep on going and fighting after taking a couple torpedo hits, as long as they didn't hit where they did on PoW or Bismarck. Also remember that capsizing mechanics aren't in game at the moment, and capsizing was, by far, the largest reason why torpedoed battleships went down. It's hard to extrapolate real life numbers into the game when the mechanic through which most of those went down isn't represented here yet... Meaning, torpedo/flooding sinking mechanics should wait to be finalized after the moment where listing/capsizing is represented in game, or we'll be seeing some really absurd sinkings (as absurd it is battleships taking 20 torpedoes at the moment).
  11. The only problem with that list is that it doesn't differentiate between air-dropped torpedoes vs submarine/destroyer dropped ones. And there was quite a big difference, as air-dropped ones weren't anywhere close as hard-hitting as the bigger torpedoes dropped by submarines and destroyers :). Other than that, it's a great summary ;).
  12. Gotta love the forum's filter. Makes your obnoxious posts really a hoot to read, I'm actually having a good laugh at your hello kittys XDDDDDDD. In the meantime...well, yeah. By this stage is clear that you do not care about historical facts but about your own one-of-a-kind ultimate "knowledge". You are right and no matter how all the available historical information says otherwise, you are STILL right. And woe anyone who dares tell you otherwise, or you'll hello kitty him to kingdom come XDDD Also, what's all that reddit hate all of a sudden?. New-era insult to be freely lobbed in the internetz?. Not that I care a lot as my only involvement with it has been putting links to videos in my channel in the relevant subreddits, but still... I find it hillarious too xD.
  13. Argue it all you want and from whichever angle you want, won't change the fact that the TDS was significantly flawed. You can try and argue from the standpoint that "she didn't sink until she took X torpedoes", X being a ridiculously overkill number. The fact is that those torpedoes were 18in air-dropped ones, not the 21in torpedoes (MUCH more powerful) that submarines and destroyers carried. On top of that, the americans didn't take chances on her, they kept on bombing and torpedoing her until she sank. From both sides too (Which delayed a capsizing). It's certain that a good number of those aerial torpedo hits happened when Yamato was already doomed anyway, which means that the TOTAL number of hits she took is irrrelevant - what matters is how many of them were enough to doom her, which doesn't include those that were achieved when the ship was already going down, which, in turn, means that the total torpedo hits Yamato took in her last battle is irrelevant at the time of discussing her TDS. All of it is academical anyway: Yamato was designed to stay and prevail in a naval fight against superior naval enemy forces. Her TDS was designed to hold the kind of torpedoes she may take on a surface action, meaning 21in torpedoes. Yet a single 21in torpedo got her flooded with more than 3000 tons of water due to a fatal flaw in the TDS, even while that torpedo was running far too shallow, meaning it did less damage that would be expected out of hits like those. With a proper deep running torpedo the damage would've been that much catastrophic. That's an atrocious performance from whatever standpoint want to use to look at it. Let's put it in perspective: Yamato was the biggest battleship ever designed, the Japanese designed it with a TDS to take whatever torpedo it would hit her. They failed, and in quite the spectacular fashion. It's clear that by 1945 torpedoes were in general more powerful than what they were when the system was designed. It's no less clear that the TDS was flawed and that had it not been, it'd been able to take hits like the one she took from USS Skate with far less flooding. Which is the point of the TDS: keep the torpedo explosion effects away from the internal bulkheads to limit flooding into the vital spaces as much as possible. Instead Yamato had a system that made her terribly vulnerable to exactly the kind of shear forces inflicted by underwater detonations. That system is not "good". It's not even "mediocre". It's a flawed system, and a tremendous achilles heel for a warship that size. And the japanese knew it, as it's proven by the multitude of proposals to rebuild her to alleviate or somehow mitigate the critical flaw of the system. The most radical one would've added 5000 tons of displacement. It was THAT bad. None of them were done, as it was unfeasible to drydock them for months if not years for the needed rebuild in the middle of a full scale war that was entering it's most critical stage. But that the Japanese actually entertained the notion of doing it proves up to which point the TDS flaw was a critical vulnerability, and how worried the japanese were about it once it was exposed by Skate's torpedo.
  14. I know some people are going to disagree but hear me out here. I think it's a matter of knowing where we stand. WE're not sitting on a finished game, nor anywhere near. This is very much a game in need of many changes and modifications in order to make it immersive and representative of naval combat of the big gun era. In doing things like this when you do something that means a drastic change, like this change to the way damage works, you're bound to "break" things that seemingly were working before. I want to emphasize the word "seemingly", btw. At this point ,where you're about to introduce such a change you can do it in two ways: a) change what you want to drastically change, and proactivelly drastically change the rest of things that dynamically interact with that particular part of the game, in hopes of landing somewhere close...but risking landing terribly far. And there are A LOT of such things, so there's a risk of some of them being more or less OK, others being completely off-the-mark, etc. Then you have to adjust them all at the same time, which is a heck of a headbreaking effort and can end up being a straight up nightmare. or b) change what you want to drastically change, leave the rest as it is, and reactivelly change the other parts of the game that interact with that one, to bring everything in line in due time, not by changing them all at a time, but by adressing a couple of them at a time. Far simpler, far less problematic, the drawback being that after the initial change the whole game will be out of whack, and that this way is a longer process to bring everything in line. This change is meaningful. VERY meaningful. I think the change here was based on just one parameter: hull resistance factor now is REALLY important at the time of calculating the real structural damage sustained by a ship from a penetrating hit. Which is EXACTLY how it should be. A 50.000 ton warship will take a 16'' shell much better than a smaller ship built with way less sturdiness, as a cruiser or a destroyer. this in turn, however, has brought a lot of things out of line, specially those which were/are linked to structural and compartment damage. Flooding mechanics seem to be strongly affected aswell, so are destroying individual components: both related with compartment damage which is also now lower than before, which compounds the problem because now weakening an enemy is a much harder proposition. The results are incredibly hard to sink battleships - but it's a temporary thing. Now that the structural damage taken by big ships is at what I'd say a very good place, it's time to work out the rest of things that are NOT in a good place anymore and bring them up to standard once again. Meaning, that right now our task isn't to report battleships are too hard to sink. That's a no brainer. What we need is to report how, and give ideas on how to adjust other areas of the game to adapt to that new reality, which is a GOOD reality even if it has messed up things for the time being. Some extra ideas of how the mechanics could be adapted for a better representation of how things actually were can be great too. The foundation is laid, time to build on top of it. I'd rather have it this way that the devs having introduced this change alongside a sweeping list of changes on everything else that would make it EXTREMELY HARD for us to note all the parts that need adjusting, and for them to bring them in line. That's my take on it at least. I also don't think that this was based on players feedback alone. From what I've seen thus far the devs indeed listen to the playerbase but they have a pretty clear idea of what they want to do on their own. This (making big ships very hard to sink through structural destruction alone) was a VERY prominent weakness of the game, which needed to be adressed. It has been changed, and of course that has produced problems. Not surprisingly. Now it's time to help them changing the other areas of the game that have been affected in order to make the battle system as immersive and believable as possible in what regards to the damage model.
  • Create New...