RAMJB

Statistic-based gunnery model has been a staple of naval warfare games for a very long time. And has always given good results. Goes without saying that I'm in the "immersion/realism as a top priority" camp here, but even there calling for such a complex of "Buff-debuff" variables is not warranted when the baseline we have present already throws good results. Now what I'm not that fond of is about some of the current gunnery modifiers as implemented. Some things don't scale with range as they should (ship size and speed can be a quite big issue for long range gunnery, it's not for point blank, for instance). Others don't seem present at all (even while firing to effect the longer you held a gunnery solution the better it got to be. Gunnery correction doesn't seem implemented thus far, at least not in the % modifiers). That kind of thing. The gunnery model needs a good look on the way modifiers work, but not a revamp nor a drastic change. The baseline is more than good enough as is, and what's there only needs proper adjustment to better represent realistic gunnery - but there's no need for a complete overhaul and changeover of the system when what's there isn't broken at all, nor need to introduce a mind-boggling ammount of buff/debuff to replicate something that's easily achievable by simpler means. And now I'm at it, no you couldn't "dogde" battleship shells. I know about the famous "chase the shot" story, but that was desperation at best and would only be tried in a scenario where an enemy would be firing at an individual ship. When you don't know who's shooting you and who's shooting someone else you can't "chase the shot". Not to mention what something like that would do to formation sailing. And I don't know where you get the idea that it would work on main guns but not on secondary guns "because their higher muzzle velocity", because it could be the case sometimes, it wouldn't on some others, and besides, smaller shells didn't hold speed well with distance while big main battery ones would reach much farther because of their much bigger inertia (they'd retain a higher speed up to much longer ranges), so effectively their time-on-target (or shell fight) time at secondary gun long ranges could very well (and usually was) noticeably larger than what the "slower" main caliber shells' would have.

Gunpower is an attractive choice. If gunpower is what you're looking for. Other of the options in that scenario is maneouverability and survivability. Which give you access to: -innate better damage absorption/HP (7.5% bonus in Resistance) -Better hull form (10% hull bonus, meaning more speed for less hp, meaning more free weight for a given speed) -Better stability (10% hull bonus, translating into in-built accuracy bonuses due to stability for all your guns) -A wide selection of weight saving in hull, machinery, fuel, armor weights, etc (again, meaning you can pack a lot more stuff in your ship) -better acceleration meanwhile gun choice gives you almost unanimous boost for your main guns. So what's the best pick?. Honestly - both are terrific, and I'm superbly biased towards the M&M one. Even with the tremendous performance you showed out of the 16'' gun, the 14'' triple Mk3 (which you have with the M&M option) is effective ENOUGH. Not to mention that probably thanks to all the weight savings M&M gives you you can pack a ludicrous number of them (I know I did in one of my runs in that scenario), while ALSO, being able to keep the ship well armored and within reasonable speed. The 16in triple MK3 look mighty fine, but not as impressive as fifteen of the 14in mk3 guns in five triples. With the M&M Bonuses you get the weight to spare to cram them all in - while giving them superheavy status, AND going for an increased load AND enjoying a 10% stability-related accuracy bonus AND reasonable speed AND brutal armor, while with gun tech trying to cram just 12 of the 16in guns already tolls your design's armor and speed wise quite a lot. Is one inherently better than the other?. Well, I'd say so, but not by much. Again, gunpower option is terrific and you get the benefits out of it by just slapping guns on your design, the M&M is far more nuanced and you really need to think about what you're doing with the design to exploit all it's multiple advantages and get the best out of them all. But once you do - I'm firmly on the opinion that you do get far more bang for your buck out of the M&M option than out of the gunpower one. For the record, I'll add that in that particular scenario, the money option is just crap.

Splendid! wow you guys get things done really quickly

I kinda disagree with the idea that gun boost is the best. It is in some scenarios. In others it's not. Maneouverability is a huge boost, particularily so with very early-era scenarios - it gives you access to much advanced (and lighter) machinery that saves you a tremendous ammount of tonnage that you can use for better armor for the same speed, or higher speeds on smaller hulls. The difference between using turbines or being stuck the FAR heavier triple expansion machineries is truly key when you're building fast ships, for instance (it's not as vital for designs under 20 knots though). When the option of mixed tech pops up it's also very valuable, you get weight saving from the machinery, on top of better weapons. A little bit of the best of both worlds, without being as specialized as either. Money is the way to go in scenarios where numbers matter more than individual quality. For instance the scenarios where you have to build destroyers/Torpedo boats - those extra funds treated with proper care can give you one more ship, which can be critical to finish off the big ships you're intended to attack. It's not a definitive answer for all of the scenarios, is what I'm saying here. Have played them plenty with different options and yes, in some cases you're truly gimping yourself by going for anything other than tech. But the best tech is not always guns, and funds sometimes is better than tech. It really changes from scenario to scenario.

It does, in a sense - yet introduces another ;). In that battle when you get Earlstone to the edge of map, she retires as she's supposed to and a victory screen is shown with the battle results. But, upon hitting "OK" in that victory screen, music keeps on playing, battle engine keeps on going (but you can't move the camera anymore and the UI is not presented), and the game gets stuck there. It doesn't send you back to the campaign screen with your victory. Tried three times, three times the same problem happened. Already reported it with the in-game tool too :).

Hey! someone in that thread makes mention of the technicolor quote!!!!!. Glad to see I wasn't somehow remembering imagined stuff XDDDD.

Ok, seems it didn't take that much to confirm that one: Meanwhile the San Francisco , which had altered course to 280° T., shifted fire from her stricken enemy ship to a “small cruiser or large destroyer further ahead on the starboard bow. [This vessel] was hit with two full main battery salvos and set afire throughout her length.” The range was 3,300 yards. At about the same time, as nearly as can be judged, a heavy cruiser came up on the Atlanta ‘s port quarter and opened fire at a range of about 3,500 yards, bearing 240° R. The Atlanta reported that 19 hits were scored on her with 8-inch armor-piercing ammunition. Although many of the projectiles failed to explode, her hull was holed several times, and her damaged bridge was shattered. The shells were loaded with green dye, the San Francisco ‘s color. As the first shot struck, Capt. S. P. Jenkins of the Atlanta rushed to the port side to get off torpedoes. When he returned to starboard, Admiral Scott and three officers of his staff had been killed, as well as a large number of other personnel. The foremast collapsed, fires were blazing everywhere, and the Atlanta was dead in the water. https://usssanfrancisco.org/memories/cruiser-night-action-12-13-november-by-jerry-holden/ And it was green dye then. Now what the heck whas USS San Francisco doing shooting dyed projectiles in a night engagement when nobody would be able to distinguish them, don't ask me. Then again she was shooting blue on blue, so I guess asking "what the heck she was doing" about her shooting dyed shells is a little bit out of place anyway xDDDDD

Yeah, the technicolor quote I mentioned in my post comes from that battle. I'm not sure it's not apocryphal though. I don't even remember where the heck did I read it, for crying out loud, so... What also remember now is reading about how USS Atlanta was aknowledged as a case blue-on-blue because before going down green (or blue, I just damned can't recall xDDD) dye was seen on her. And that dye (green, or blue, whatever it was) was USS San Francisco's "color", certifying she had been hit by SF's 8in guns at least once. But again, it's something I read somewhere a good while ago, and I don't like to go on "things I heard about" which I don't have a solid source between my hands to cite that mentions it too. I don't even know if that was true, or yet another of those things you "read in the internetz"...but I guess it can be mentioned with the proper "Is just something I heard somewhere" disclaimer in capital letters ;).

No. There was no reliable intercomms between ships back at the day. To the point that orders were issued with flag signals (light signals during nighttime). Wireless was already present in Jutland, but even there it proved to be suffering from teething problems and unreliability - and even by WW2 wireless comms, even while already being very reliable ways of communication, wouldn't be used to keep a couple of fire control officers having a chat about their respective gun solutions. Like, at all. Several fleets toyed with the idea of color dyes for shells in order to make shell splashes distinctive from long range. The french also used them. One of the side effects of the standard way of aiming guns (spot the fall of shot and correct accordingly) was that if several ships were firing at the same target, it could become really complicated to differentiate which splashes came from whose guns, so you could end up correcting your fire using the fall of shot from someone else's guns - obviously not a very good way to get a proper solution going ;). This was a very real issue in real combat, and one that pretty much forced lines of battles to spread their fire on individual enemy ships; the standard firing order was to "fire on your counterpart" meaning each ship in a line would choose the corresponding enemy in the enemy line (1st would target enemy lead ship, 2nd in line, the 2nd in the enemy line, etc). The more numerous side would have the last ships pretty much forced to double down on some enemy someone else was already shooting at, usually starting from the lead. Which was a problem ,but there was little that could be done about. This of course meant that confusion could happen in battle. And it did in several ocassions, probably the most notable one on Jutland where HMS Tiger completely fuzzed up beatty's order to "shoot on counterpart" and instead of opening up on Seydlitz she ended up firing at Moltke (which already was being engaged by New Zealand), and, confusing New Zealand's splashes by her own's...ended up "correcting" according to the former, which in the end tranlated into HMS Tiger firing salvoes that were landing a whole couple kilometers behind the german line. And she wasn't none the wiser about it for most of that part of the engagement. Dyes theoretically got rid of that problem - each ship would fire a "color" so each gunnery officer would know which were his ship's shell splashes. There's quite a funny anechdote I read a very long time ago, of a french and british ship going through cooperative gun trials and trainings, I think very early in WW2 (It's been a long time since I read that one, so specific details escape me). Seemingly before shooting started the french captain signaled to the british ship, asking "which color would he shoot". The british captain didn't know what the heck the french guy was talking about, and answered the naval equivalent of a very polite "what the heck are you talking about?". The french ship's answer came quickly, in the shape of a "You'll shoot white, then" ;). As for how effective that truly was in battle - I have to confess, I have no idea. I don't even know if "shooting colors" was done in actual combat. In theory it should've worked well, but we all know how ideas that look good on paper don't translate well into practical reality for very different and unexpected reasons. Might have worked well, might have not. As I say, I'm not even aware that "shooting colors" was actually ever done in real combat (even while by the later half of WWII even the previously oblivious british were issuing dyes for the KGV battleship shells, and I know for certain the Iowa class battleships had assigned colors on their own, I just don't know if any of those were actually fired in battle). I also recall reading somewhere the quote from an US officer on the american Taffys during Samar that went along the lines of "they're shooting us in technicolor!", which would likely mean dyes were used there. But I don't even know where I read that one, much less be sure it's not an apocriphal story (it's a funny as heck one though XD) Long story short, what's me, I just can't say how effective it was. Maybe someone else around does. Longest range hit ever scored is a tie between Warspite on Giulio Cesare, and Scharnhorst on Glorious. Both at around 27000 yards, it's impossible to know which of both was actually the longest range hit scored. There are (unfounded) claims that Yamato scored a 18'' hit on White Plains off Samar from farther than 30km - but evidence shows that it was a near miss with a shell that had fell short exploding pretty much next to the american carrier's hull - close enough to do very significant damage, but still does not qualify as a hit. Pretty much academic, the damage that shell caused made White Plains being belching a massive cloud of smoke and Yamato, thinking she was done for, switched targets to another ship. Had she kept on firing she'd scored a hit with almost total certainty in the next couple salvos, as it's plain to see her firing solution was perfect. But that's the old "could've, should've....didn't" thing all over again. Be it as it was Yamato didn't score a hit, so the longest range hit ever registered is still the aforementioned tie between Warspite and Scharnhorst.

It already works that way. Ships with heavily damaged structure lose a portion of their top speed, and their accuracy is reduced according to the ammount of damage received. I'd also like to see some kind of gun reload penalty for heavily damaged ships too, and maybe a loss of damage control capability on massively damaged ships too (both only make sense), but there certainly are consecuences for structural damage already.

Brits didn't eschew using gyros - they used them on their torpedos. They just didn't need to bother with setting gyros as it was standard practice to just throw the torpedo at the proper bearing by training the mounts that way. No need to resort to gyros when you just can throw straight runners. But they could do it. The same as the US. That their torpedoes had gyros and the capability to "curve" doesn't mean it was something used in practice. Which, as far as I know, was not. Every fleet of the WW2 era had gyros on their modern torpedoes for surface action. Theoretically all had the same capability. But it was far simpler to just throw the torpedo on the true running bearing and leave complexities aside ;). Specially when the US officers knew only too well that their MK15 torpedo couldn't even keep their proper depth (which until 1943, it couldn't), to go on to toy and try to challenge their torpedoes to head in the correct direction by throwing them off-boresight and trusting a gyro to do the turn.

Goes on to prove that even having read a lot, there's always new stuff to learn every day

You can build her in game. Or something that really is very close to her. Took me just 10 minutes in game:

All colors are different degrees of damage. Green is very lightly damaged. Something has hit, done very minor damage, that's it (for instance, a 5'' half-pen). Yellow is quite damaged, but still operational (I think at a reduced efficiency, but not sure about that). Red is destroyed and KO. The whole compartment is a mess and whatever's inside is no longer working. If it's an item (weapon, superstructure, etc), as long as it's not red, it's operational. Once it's red, it's gone. In the case of underwater (low row hull compartments) I notice that in general flooding can be contained and pumped out as long as the compartment is not destroyed (red). If it is yellow it might flood but after giving some time to the damage control parties, it'll being going down as water is pumped out (ofc anti-flooding settings in the designer are capital to decide how effective your crew is at doing that). If it is destroyed your best hope is for the flooding not to spread (lots of bulkheads help a lot for that), but that compartment will remain flooded for the remainder of the battle. The yellow "bubbling" effect, indeed, is that the compartment is on fire.

Plainly stated: Love it. Has totally reignited my desire to play the game after I had lost all will to do it by the time I posted this thread ;). If that's not good enough praise of what I think of this change....nothing is ;).

Warping was a different matter. That kind of thing would cause the torpedo to veer off the intended straight running path at a somewhat constant rate, but quite slowly. If given enough time, enough space (so the torpedo didn't run aground against the coast), and loads of fuel the torpedo wouldn't likely have, that would've resulted in a huge circle with a pretty large radius...not to mention a very long timespan for the torpedo to complete the circle, so if whatever launched it wasn't stationary (which obviously wouldn't be the case), it'd be well out of the way by the time the torpedo would return (Again, if it ever did, because it'd run out of fuel much sooner). A circle runner was a very different thing. A torpedo fired off with gyro settings had a very tight turning radius and completed it very fast. It's easy to understand why, the faster and the tighter the torpedo turns the "corner" towards it's intended firing path, the least innacuracy will be caused by the parallax efect I Described before. This led to truly small turning radiuses - in the case of the G7 german torpedo, when fired on the 30 knot setting, it would take only 90m of radius to turn into a course 90º off it's fired direction. Now if one of those had a gyro or steering malfunction that locked it in a max rate turn that converted it into a circle runner, then we're talking about a 30 knot torpedo doing a 180m diameter circle. The sub didn't have much time to react to something like that, specially not when in most cases torpedoes were fired while submerged and submarines underwater had top speeds in the 7-8 knots range only. BTW the Mk13 was the air-dropped torpedo of the US Navy. Surface forces used the MK15. Submarines used the Mk14 (initially, there were several later marks). Regardless of the distinction, at the very beginning of the pacific war they were all pretty much unreliable junk. And no, again, surface-dropped torpedoes didn't use gyro settings. They had gyros, but the standard use was to aim them by training the torpedo mount towards the intended bearing, and launching them in straight running without any gyro input. If the torpedo doesn't use the gyros to turn after launch, there's no chance it turns into a circle runner. I can't vouch for it, I can't swear it never happened, but I've never, ever, heard of a circle runner fired by a surface unit, be it TB, DD, cruiser or battleship.

It actually would make for a very interesting experience indeed. But we'd need some kind of in-battle minimap for that kind of thing first (AFAIK there's none yet in the game?). In fact in one of the very first naval wargames I played on a computer ,called "Dreadnoughts" , that was pretty much what you had to do- guide your fleet from your flagship. With communication mistakes accounted for, the problems of not being able to give any real commands if you were transferring your flag to another ship, etc. Quite the experience, but if the game enforced something like that I'm sure there'd be riots here XDDDDDD. I also don't think that something like that warrants the inevitable distraction of development time to implement it, with as much work the game needs in far more urgent areas, to ask for something like that now. Maybe in a more or less far future, who knows.

Uhm....In the battle of Sunda strait three japanese transports were sunk. By japanese torpedoes, mind you (which had been aimed at Houston and Perth), but they were loaded to the top with troops. So much so that aboard one of the transports that got torpedoed was the commander of the whole landing force, General Imamura. Who was forced to pretty much jump overboard to get off his sinking transport. I'm sure he thought that was quite annoying to say the least. So there's that. And if in Savo or Samar there weren't fully loaded transports being shot up with troops being forced to jump to the sea was that in both cases the japanese forces retreated when they had a pretty much expedite way to cause carnage. But it could've very well happened and in fact it was kind of a miracle that it didn't happen in either case. At any rate, yes, we do that land battles really have nothing to do with this game ;).

I think torpedo accuracy has to do with how easy it is to aim with them for the crew. Not sure, I agree it needs clarification. Circle running torpedoes were a thing for submarine forces because they almost always were using gyro settings for their torpedoes. Essentially, the submarine wasn't pointed at the aimpoint of the torpedo, so the torpedo had to turn towards the intended firing bearing. It did so with a set of gyros and a set of given instructions for the torpedo. After leaving the torpedo the gyro would know it would have to turn it X degrees either port or starboard to put the torpedo in the correct course, so it did so. This enabled the sub to fire at target solutions well off their bow or stern tubes, even if at a slight loss of accuracy (parallax error induced by the space the torpedo took to turn into it's true intended bearing). Problem of course is that if by any reason the gyro became stuck, or the torpedo steering malfunctioned, you could end up with a torpedo that instead of turning towards the intended bearing and running straight from there, would circle endlessly. Keeping in mind that at the base of that circle there was the submarine that launched it...well, the results are self-explanatory. In surface forces, at least in what regards to over-the-water mounts, torpedoes didn't use gyro settings. The mount itself would be trained towards the intended firing beam, and the torpedo would run straight since the second it entered the water. Ditto with underwater torpedo tubes for surface units (those became exceedingly rare after WW1 anyway): the tube itself would be trained towards the intended bearing. No gyro settings needed. Hence, no circle running for those either. So, at least up to what I know about it, there was never a case of a circle runner for a surface launching unit, while there are several very notable cases of submarines lost to circle runners.

I don't want to furthen the offtopic. I don't disagree that this is a game. I completely disagree that this being a game means it automatically shouldn't bother at all with being loyal and faithful to history, when it's historically realistic and immersive gameplay what it intends to portray. For further understanding exactly what I disagree with, you can re-read my first answer to your post. No need to repeat what was clearly stated there.

In WW2 alone there were quite some: Savo Island, during the landings at Lunga, and the engagement off Samar during the Battle of Leyte Gulf come to mind. Both engagements had US ships protecting landing forces and had the japanese gone through them it'd been quite the disaster. USS Houston also came pretty close to a japanese landing force in Sunda too, though she was pretty much mauled into oblivion by the japanese covering force. Those come from the top of my head, I'm sure there are several other instances I'm forgetting right now. I don't see any problem with escorting missions/landing covering missions, etc. What I don't want to see is the game forcing you to take the role of commanding your land troops. First because I think is overcomplicating an already complex game to develop, and second because, honestly, that wasn't the role of someone in charge of commanding a naval force (I know there are cases of admirals commanding land forces - but those weren't giving orders to a naval formation simultaneously...it was one or the other).

I don't necessarily disagree with any point in your wishlist (though I somehow really don't see why manual torpedo fire should be a thing in a game where you're the admiral or captain, not the dude crewing the torpedo tubes...torpedos should be automated for the same reason you don't aim the guns yourself: it's not your task to aim your weapons, but to tell your crew what to fire at). What I disagreed with was with the opening statement you made, and the argument it was based on. Completely different things .

Great news. but something's off. In the mission that takes the place of the Bunker Hill ground battle, you gotta save a transport called Earlstone. I did it, managed to put it in the escape zone and did a succesfull disengage. Result was Defeat, and ending the campaign. Both times I tried it, both times I was succesful, both times the game told me I had lost. So something must be off in the victory conditions of that scenario ;). /edit: I ran it a third time. Both previous ones I had engaged with the enemy with my own ship while Earlstone was disengaging, capturing one ship both times. The scenario intro says "avoid contact with the enemy as much as possible", so I just tried my luck running for it with both ships, only trying to fight when any enemy came close to the transport, just in case that was somehow what was causing the defeat screen at the end. Nope - Managed to put Earlstone into the disengagement area allright - again I was told I lost. Campaign over. Something's definitely off ;).

There are some already in place. Gun mounts have their own statistics wich account for some. The ship statistics generated by the ship designer account for some others. There are quite some that aren't contemplated, but what's in here allows for pretty crazy stuff to be designed, put to the test, and have to say as a credit to the developers, the drawbacks of widely unpractical stuff generally show up in the resulting battle performance. Maybe not in the full scale I would expect in some instances, but meaningful nonetheless. Which ain't bad at all for a game in alpha status. It came within a split hair of actually happening. Specially after Tsushima. Because ironically, if Tsushima really proved something was that ranges were increasing really fast, that big guns were becoming progressively much better at firing quite fast, and that the very limited penetration of mid caliber guns (fast firing or not) soon would make them completely innefective against well armored ships at the ever-increasing ranges naval battles were fought at. But Tsushima also saw a sterling performance of the japanese armored cruisers taking battleline responsabilities and roles, and quick firing guns did quite the number on the russian fleet. Not lethal damage, but still hugely impactful in the scope of the battle. So there wasn't a lack of voices afterwards who suggested battleships were completely obsolete by the armored cruiser with mid caliber quick firing guns. Nor there were before, if we're at that. There's a reason why the Spanish Fleet of 1898 was mostly centered aroudn the armored cruiser. By that stage there was a true doctrinal debate about which one was the true queen of the seas. Because by that stage 12 in guns would fire maybe once each two minutes while small QF guns were firing several times per minute and engagement ranges were so short that the lesser penetration of mid-caliber guns was still judged as good enough. Quite surprisingly for many, one of the defenders of giving up big calibers after Tsushima was Jackie Fisher, as shown by his correspondence in the years prior to his access to the First Lordship. At that stage his "ideal capital ship" would've looked like an overgrown armored cruiser loaded to the brim with 9.2in QF guns in an unified battery (Fisher got that part wrong, but the part about an unified caliber for the main battery, he had it right). And of course, very fast. He made mentions of such a ship quite many times in his correspondence of the time. Of course once he got to be First Lord there were many things he could push forth, but giving up 12'' guns wasn't one of them. Nor was giving up battleships (Even if that's exactly what he really wanted). Specially because by that stage it was clear that 12'' guns would soon be able to fire a couple times per minute themselves, rendering any arguments about smaller QF ones moot. And because not even Fisher could go over the RN establishment demanding battleships first, cruisers later. But at any rate, what you mention wasn't that "fantastic". Like, at all. As for sextuple mounts....sure. Give them 250% the reload time of the equivalent triple mount, an accuracy penalty according to it's impracticability, demand insanely brutally massive barbettes in order to place them on (not to mention wide enough ships to accomodate for them), make them prohibitively costly to properly armor because of their ridiculous size, affect your ship's stability in the proper measure demanded by putting that laughably massive ammount of topweight avobe your decks (and don't get me started on superfiring mounts!!!!), etc etc etc.... and if you still want to put them on your ships, all the power for you. I've said it many times, as long as you pay the realistic price for the inordinately impractical stuff you want to toy with, you should be allowed to do so. But not for free, and not with those turrets operating as if they were twins. As long as the result and penalties attached to whatever impractical stuff you want to use are fairly represented, the game should let you get away with whatever you want to do with it. But always paying the proper price in the shape of compromises, so you then later on find out in war, why, exactly, those things were judged as completely impractical back in the day, and judged to be the equivalent of todays memes.

If we leave out those blown up by magazines blowing up (which is not the usual way you were expected to sink ships anyway): Rarely. And none of them of capital size through means of structural destruction. It was pretty hard to break a ship in half unless something really cataclysmic happened to it. And gunfire alone wasn't enough for doing that to capital ships. What sunk ships other than catastrophic structural failure - something that again, was unheard of in ships that size unless a magazine detonation had took place - was what "sinking" usually means ;): Destruction of enough flotability as to render the ship either unable to float anymore, or unstable enough as to capsize, turn turtle, and go down. And an inordinate majority of sinkings were due to the later. Essentially you sank ships via punching holes to cause flooding to either make the ship float no more, or make it list so much as to turn upside down and remain like that until she went down. Out of both the later one being the usual outcome. As a result I do have misgivings about how the game treats structural damage and forces a "destruction" when the counter reaches 0. I rationalize it as the captain giving an order of abandoning ship because of the ship being so damaged as to be completely unbattleworthy anymore, but I'm still not happy about it. The main problem here is that flooding is unidimensional at this point. You get flooded compartments, but only longitudinally. Not Transversally. What caused ships to sink, in the immense majority of cases, was uneven flooding that would cause the ship to list until the point it's stability point was crossed and the ship capsized. Without transversal flooding there's no capsizing in the game. And that's a quite huge thing that's missing thus far and that will have to be somehow added in the future.