>>>Combat Feedback<<<

[RedParadize]

2 hours ago, akd said:

Target size and speed factors dominate the accuracy calculation (but this should not be the case).

Yeah I agree with that. I can make ship that are virtually impossible to hit. To the point were AI stop shooting in fact.

About target size, I do not know how much can be attributed to the Hull versus Target Signature. A trimmed down, two turret seem to do quite better at avoiding shot.
 

[akd]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There is a known issue with gun rotation addressed and we will see to add in next update.

Gun accuracy tables do not include all the dynamic battle factors (weather, maneuvers, size, etc.) that are calculated. If accuracy is too low and target is far away, the guns will automatically conserve ammo. If you see this problem again, set the guns to "aggressive" to check if this was the reason they were not firing. 

He was not controlling the BC in the screenshot.  At the same time that the AI would not fire at the destroyer because of accuracy, his destroyer apparently scored 73 gun hits on the BC.  That the BC fired 8 shots at beginning (presumably after first sighting the destroyer) then stopped firing after I think can be attributed to the following recurring issue that seems mostly repeatable (but hard to test since there is no way to do multiple runs with identical conditions):

The first shot fired will almost always "lock" the target, then is followed by a salvo of all guns that can fire. This is true even if it is 1890 and both ships are closing on eachother at full speed and fire opens at 6km+ range and you are only firing with a single gun.  Only after this first ranging shot + subsequent salvo does the relative motion of the two vessels seem to get taken into a account, which is then followed by loss of the target lock and several more salvos to again acquire a lock even if the ships are then sailing on roughly the same course and at roughly the same speed.  Under some conditions, the target lock will never be reacquired.  This can best be observed if you acquire the enemy first and you set your guns to aggressive (that way you can often see 1 shot target lock even when the initial accuracy before firing is like 0.6%).

Locking the target (having a firing solution for long-range gunnery) on first shot in these conditions should be impossible.  The target has just been sighted, so there is no time to determine a course and speed (which anyways would require range-finding not available in 1890), and the conditions are the worst possible: the ships are approaching each other at full speed, imposing the highest possible range rates, while often also sailing on courses that are not reciprocal adding a bearing change problem).

Edited December 23, 2019 by akd

[Skeksis]

1 hour ago, akd said:

Well, as Nick has indicated, the AI is not going to fire with 0.1% or 0% accuracy.

yeah so therefore the guns are lock and then once they are locked they won't restart accuracies/aiming/laddering event or anything else thereafter, they stay lockup. 

Accuracies calc itself is not the problem, I don't think. It's the event preceding aiming/laddering that has the problem, like gun rotation.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

On 12/24/2019 at 10:49 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

If you see this problem again, set the guns to "aggressive" to check if this was the reason they were not firing. 

you keep saying this, I don't understand. How can I change the AI  (enemy, NPC, BC) gun mode? I'm reporting a problem with the [enemy] AI, not the toolbar.

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Skeksis

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

you keep saying this, I don't understand. How can I change the AI  (enemy, NPC, BC) gun mode? I'm reporting a problem with the AI, not the toolbar.

I am not able to screenshot to show you exactly, but you can find this in the controls when you select your ship.
If AI does not fire, it is another issue, related as I see, with this reason, AI does not want to spend ammo but is afraid to come closer to fire (often AI closes up to fire if it feels strong in relation to your ship).

[Skeksis]

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

(often AI closes up to fire if it feels strong in relation to your ship)

so the enemy AI could and does refrain from firing.

This is what I've reported, the enemy npc DOES NOT resume firing again, even if both ships closes range.

Is that the bug, the AI is stuck in the save-ammo state (sometimes). 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Skeksis

[RedParadize]

While I have a 15% hit chance at 10k in my unarmored BC. The AI fleet is having 0.3 and can't shoot.


Enemy is going at 24.8kn and I am getting a -42.9% Target fast speed. No Idea what it is at 49kn. Now I understand it is extreme speed. But even at more reasonable speed it is much better to invest in speed over armor.

Edited December 24, 2019 by RedParadize

[arkhangelsk]

That is a pretty well known one that comes from Alpha-2. Technically the penalty should be for maneuver, but the AI can't S-curve that well and neither can the human player when he is managing a fleet of ships, so I can accept the compromise of tying it to speed - just imagine that ship maneuvering violently.

[Skeksis]

Hope this image is clearer....

Enemy NPC weapons are frozen, they do not unlock, bug repeatable as noted in previous post... 

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Skeksis

[RedParadize]

50 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

That is a pretty well known one that comes from Alpha-2. Technically the penalty should be for maneuver, but the AI can't S-curve that well and neither can the human player when he is managing a fleet of ships, so I can accept the compromise of tying it to speed - just imagine that ship maneuvering violently.

Ah, I didn't know that. Regardless -42.9% at 24.8kn might be a bit high.

[arkhangelsk]

11 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Ah, I didn't know that. Regardless -42.9% at 24.8kn might be a bit high.

The speed modifier is what Nicolas Moran would have called a "soft stat", something well in the back that can be adjusted to get a desired result, be it for realism or balance without being blatantly false. If you are getting a reasonable percentage of hits (leading to kill effectiveness) on battleships moving within the normal speed range, this calibration is OK.

[halfmanhalfsquidman]

I don't know if this is mentioned in the earlier posts on this thread, but i find the spread of torpedos frustrating. If you have multiple torpedo launchers on your deck they all fire on the exact same bearing creating groups of torpedos very close together and at many ranges a ship can and does slip between these groups of torpedos. If multiple launchers fired on slightly different (1 or 2 degrees different) at longer ranges you would create more effective torpedo spreads. Additionally formations tend to fire torps as individuals. I'd rather all 3 torpedo boats drop torpedos roughly at the same time to create a larger more dangerous spread rather than sequentially down the line. Is this something we might be able to expect in future updates?

 

Additionally I think a button to enable torpedo avoidance would be good so even if you are controlling a formation and not the AI, if they spot torpedos they will maneuver to avoid it. I'm usually so busy managing a fight I'll eat a detected torpedo because that ships captain refuses to adjust course. I know it can create problems in battle managament but that would be more accurate.

[Hangar18]

Convince me otherwise. Radar should mitigate, or remove penalties for firing into smoke...in general radar imo should be buffed a bit.

[RedParadize]

44 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

Convince me otherwise. Radar should mitigate, or remove penalties for firing into smoke...in general radar imo should be buffed a bit.

Target position do not equal firing solution. For example, shell flight characteristics are altered by meteorologic conditions, its small for such large shell but over distance it matter.

For the given period radar weren't that good. For range finding it was a powerful tool but for the rest optical targeting was both quicker and more reliable. There is few instances of night fight were radar the primary tool in late WW2, but its marginal.

Bottom line is that it took a long time before gunnery took full advantage of what radar could offer. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by RedParadize

[Hangar18]

3 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Target position do not equal firing solution. For example, shell flight characteristics are altered by meteorologic conditions, its small for such large shell but over distance it matter.

For the given period radar weren't that good. For range finding it was a powerful tool but for the rest optical targeting was both quicker and more reliable. There is few instances of night fight were radar the primary tool in late WW2, but its marginal.

Bottom line is that it took a long time before gunnery took full advantage of what radar could offer. 

The mk 8 fire control we see on the towers of the modern battleship and modern battle cruiser hulls were pretty excellent.

Smoke in a very tiny area is not going to impact shells.

[Hangar18]

5 hours ago, halfmanhalfsquidman said:

I don't know if this is mentioned in the earlier posts on this thread, but i find the spread of torpedos frustrating. If you have multiple torpedo launchers on your deck they all fire on the exact same bearing creating groups of torpedos very close together and at many ranges a ship can and does slip between these groups of torpedos. If multiple launchers fired on slightly different (1 or 2 degrees different) at longer ranges you would create more effective torpedo spreads. Additionally formations tend to fire torps as individuals. I'd rather all 3 torpedo boats drop torpedos roughly at the same time to create a larger more dangerous spread rather than sequentially down the line. Is this something we might be able to expect in future updates?

 

Additionally I think a button to enable torpedo avoidance would be good so even if you are controlling a formation and not the AI, if they spot torpedos they will maneuver to avoid it. I'm usually so busy managing a fight I'll eat a detected torpedo because that ships captain refuses to adjust course. I know it can create problems in battle managament but that would be more accurate.

If I run torps, I run the largest I can get without compromising anything else. Then run 02, and use multiple launchers. 

 

Basically just go full kitakami.

[RedParadize]

On 12/24/2019 at 3:57 PM, Hangar18 said:

The mk 8 fire control we see on the towers of the modern battleship and modern battle cruiser hulls were pretty excellent.

Smoke in a very tiny area is not going to impact shells.

Mk8 is S-band. It could not be not great, but definitely better than predecessor or no radar at all. I don't know its detail but it  probably provide some fire corrections capacity, up to a certain point.

Let's flip the argument around, smoke do not negate radar bonus, it just add a malus. I would say it's far. Lost visibility would definitely have reduce accuracy in that era.

Edited December 26, 2019 by RedParadize
"It could not be great" and not "It could not be not great"

[Hangar18]

On 12/24/2019 at 5:12 PM, RedParadize said:

Mk8 is S-band. It could not be not great, but definitely better than predecessor or no radar at all. I don't know its detail but it  probably provide some fire corrections capacity, up to a certain point.

Let's flip the argument around, smoke do not negate radar bonus, it just add a malus. I would say it's far. Lost visibility would definitely have reduce accuracy in that era.

lost visibility is certain during ww2 engagements because the engagements could be fought over the horizon.

Assume the highest point of an Iowa class where someone could stand. His view 41 meters above the waves gives him a maximum view of about 22k km

The mk8 could detect a destroyer at 28k km and a battlship at 36k km. accurate to 14 meters.

this doesnt account for target height but, i think the point still gets across

 

 

[RedParadize]

There was a typo in my last post, I mean "It could not be not great". You seem to have understood anyway. I am gonna edit it just for clarity.

2 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

lost visibility is certain during ww2 engagements because the engagements could be fought over the horizon.

Assume the highest point of an Iowa class where someone could stand. His view 41 meters above the waves gives him a maximum view of about 22k km

The mk8 could detect a destroyer at 28k km and a battlship at 36k km. accurate to 14 meters.

this doesnt account for target height but, i think the point still gets across

I had to dig up a bit, most of my knowledge on the subject come from research I did on Air-Air and Ground-Air radar of the 50s 60s and 70s a while ago. This does not apply directly to Surface-Surface radar, ship do not move as quick, so firing solution is not as hard to obtain. Having said that, even for ship, target position do not equal firing solution.

Just like for optical range finder, radar imprecision scale with distance. Mk8 mod 0 had range accuracy of ± (15 yards + 0.1% of range.)*. Having said that, a Mark 8 mod 0 could spot 16-inch splashes out to about 18,300 m.* So above that there is not much firing solution possible unless with forward observer and good Communication/Coordination. It probably got better has the system matured, but I doubt a good enough accuracy could be established with a S-Band radar of the era.

To go back to what really concern us, I still think that fire without sight should have a negative impact on accuracy. -25% is justified from that point of view.


*Source I provided are a bit dodgy. I however found similar result on many other site, they may still all come from the same wrong data trough. If someone find better, more reliable source that contradict this I will gladly take them.

[Hangar18]

8 hours ago, RedParadize said:

There was a typo in my last post, I mean "It could not be not great". You seem to have understood anyway. I am gonna edit it just for clarity.

I had to dig up a bit, most of my knowledge on the subject come from research I did on Air-Air and Ground-Air radar of the 50s 60s and 70s a while ago. This does not apply directly to Surface-Surface radar, ship do not move as quick, so firing solution is not as hard to obtain. Having said that, even for ship, target position do not equal firing solution.

Just like for optical range finder, radar imprecision scale with distance. Mk8 mod 0 had range accuracy of ± (15 yards + 0.1% of range.)*. Having said that, a Mark 8 mod 0 could spot 16-inch splashes out to about 18,300 m.* So above that there is not much firing solution possible unless with forward observer and good Communication/Coordination. It probably got better has the system matured, but I doubt a good enough accuracy could be established with a S-Band radar of the era.

To go back to what really concern us, I still think that fire without sight should have a negative impact on accuracy. -25% is justified from that point of view.


*Source I provided are a bit dodgy. I however found similar result on many other site, they may still all come from the same wrong data trough. If someone find better, more reliable source that contradict this I will gladly take them.

We're already firing past LOS.

Especially with 15" + guns.

[akd]

Well, not really, because all radar currently does is extend LOS, and then gets restricted by the same factors that affect LOS.  It is a poor representation of radar.

Edited December 26, 2019 by akd

[RedParadize]

On the subject of LOS, it seem to be global and not per ship. There is no penalty from 3rd party spotter. I think there should be a malus for this, tied to communication technology. About communication technology, I think it should affect player ability to give order and receive information. Atm  its like player is on every ship.

[akd]

21 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

On the subject of LOS, it seem to be global and not per ship. There is no penalty from 3rd party spotter. I think there should be a malus for this, tied to communication technology. About communication technology, I think it should affect player ability to give order and receive information. Atm  its like player is on every ship.

Yes, but I think simple penalty is insufficient.  That still leaves you with the possibility of a single destroyer conducting fire control for an entire fleet.  I think the rule should be simpler: either the ship itself or divisional ships sailing within XXXm must be able to visually see the target to fire on it with the following limitations:

• Before the advent of complex fire control computing and dedicated fire control radio frequencies, ships firing on same target should suffer a significant "concentration fire" penalty. (And this should be per ship selectable technology, not unlocked and applied to all ships subsequently built.)
• Radar II (assumed to be second generation search + fire control radar, not first-gen search only) can allow ship (or division with above restrictions) to fire on an unseen target, but only within 18,000m (as noted above this was broadly the range for large caliber splashes to be spotted on radar, allowing for adjustments).  Possibly blind fire beyond that range might be allowed with a significant penalty for not being able to spot and adjust.

Radar should not give any information on targets that are out of visual sight except possibly a broad classification such as small, medium or large and course + speed.

Edited December 26, 2019 by akd

[Hangar18]

8 hours ago, akd said:

Well, not really, because all radar currently does is extend LOS, and then gets restricted by the same factors that affect LOS.  It is a poor representation of radar.

radar masts are generally higher than anything else. for example on the iowa theyre mounted about 20' higher, which is a pretty big deal.

[akd]

3 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

radar masts are generally higher than anything else. for example on the iowa theyre mounted about 20' higher, which is a pretty big deal.

When we speak of LOS here, I think we are talking about literal line of visual sight.