>>>Combat Feedback<<<

[ColonelHenry]

Alright. Let's talk about torpedo and their ability to damage ships shall we?
I've been playing around with torps for awhile now and I think the best, and most logical route to balance them is to give their control to the player. AI torp launch should be a little bit more inaccurate instead of being dead on like they are now. As well as limit torpedo load to their historical values. Why? So then we can add realistic torp damage to the system. I do not believe a ship can survive more than 2-3 20 inches torp hit let alone 6-7-8-9. Yet in this game, BB and BC take torp like they are nerf pellets. Torp hits should be devastating and a ship after 2 torp should be rendered nearly useless and 3-4 hit should result in a DEAD and SINKING ship

[RedParadize]

I torpedoed a ship 37 times once. In two salvos. It almost survived!

Edited October 29, 2019 by RedParadize

[DarkTerren]

Well remeber when crew is added flooding and fire will become more dangerous 

[ThatZenoGuy]

47 minutes ago, DarkTerren said:

Well remeber when crew is added flooding and fire will become more dangerous 

Oh please don't be like War Thunder, oh god.

No ship historically was 'lost' due to crew loss.

Ships blew up/burnt up/sank/capsized WAY before the crew were killed in those numbers.

IIRC some battleship in WW1 got shot the hell up and lost barely anybody, at least relatively.

[RedParadize]

@ThatZenoGuy You have to think about what "lost" mean here. If it mean not able to fight anymore, then yes, it happened allot.

What interest me more is the lost of performance as your crew start to die.

Edited October 29, 2019 by RedParadize

[ColonelHenry]

Also... I'm still not convinced the current 'meta' of adding the most amount of gun with the biggest caliber available to a BB/BC hull is the best direction for combat. This is ridiculous. Enemy ships will just add 5 triple turret on their ship and 'cheat' the RNG. Since so many round is fired, it's literally impossible for them not to hit after 3-4 salvos. While the player either has to get rid of authentic looking ship and build like I'm playing minecraft on survival or get blown to bits by 1 stray shell from the 40 shells they spam. I don't want to put 5 triple turrets on my ship just so I can beat the AI. Please consider balancing the combat. Suggestions such as accuracy based on crew experience and others stated on this thread should be considered. AI should build ships around a philosophy based on either their country of origin or something else BUT it should not be just to beat the player. If I want to play that kind of game, I'd buy Starcraft or Age of Empire. Here I want some authenticity of the time period.

[ThatZenoGuy]

3 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@ThatZenoGuy You have to think about what "lost" mean here. If it mean not able to fight anymore, then yes, it happened allot.

What interest me more is the lost of performance as your crew start to die.

As far as I am aware of, major ships losing so many crew they could not fight anymore, NEVER happened.

The ships themselves broke long before enough crew were exploded.

[Absolute0CA]

1 minute ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

As far as I am aware of, major ships losing so many crew they could not fight anymore, NEVER happened.

The ships themselves broke long before enough crew were exploded.

Look at Bismarck for example, she was firing her guns until they were KOed, most of her deaths came from trying to fight longer on a doomed ship that was already dead in the water and and barely able to shoot back. The next largest portion was from the ones who abandoned ship but weren't picked up. (About 400 went overboard and only 114 were saved.)

[RedParadize]

8 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

As far as I am aware of, major ships losing so many crew they could not fight anymore, NEVER happened.

The ships themselves broke long before enough crew were exploded.

You do not have to explode a crew member to end his shift. You just have to wound him. Say a turret get hit and spalling wound half the crew in there. Now you have the other half trying to save their life. Who shoot the gun now? No one. Eventually crew will come to replace them. What will they see when they get there?

Now, upscale that to a complex system like a ship. It is not a coincidence that first ship that get hit usually lose.

[RedParadize]

Thinking about it. I would like it if crew morale was a thing. They already partially made that with accuracy. A panicked crew could make the ship erratic, like not following orders, longer reload times and slower speed. Not systematically, with a ounce of RNG and improvable with training.

[Absolute0CA]

Could be very interesting and remember a hit to the bow/stern isn’t as demoralizing as a main gun getting KOed.

[RedParadize]

2 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

Could be very interesting and remember a hit to the bow/stern isn’t as demoralizing as a main gun getting KOed.

Yeah, being at the bottom of the hull and earning shells explosion but not the main battery must be very demoralizing. How can you not think you are loosing at that point.

[RedParadize]

@ColonelHenry if you do the math it's not advantageous to go for the triple turret in all scenario but one. Just saying.

[Hellstrike]

Crew loss does not equal the inability to fight on. However, a few of the Japanese carriers were lost because their damage control parties were killed and no one else knew how to properly deal with the damage. One carrier at Midway, not sure which one, was lost due to that.
 

Dead crew should definitely impair repairs, fire extinguishing and flooding control, as fewer people alive means fewer people who can work pumps, fire hoses and run around to fix things. Manning AA guns also gets tricky after your superstructure got raked by HE shells and a few hundred of your gunners are dead and injured.

 

Also, presumably in the campaign mode, the loss of veteran crew would reduce effectiveness as you have to train new recruits. At the same time, you could be able to reassign your elite sailors if their ship is getting a lengthy refit or is in drydock to repair extensive damage.

[mcmurphy man]

The combat balance of the large ships seems to be in a good spot CA and greater. There are still issues with the small ships however. I have found most of the missions available to be enjoyable. The few restricting the player to small ships are frustrating at best and I've just given up on them after hours of failed attempts. The AI is too responsive to torpedoes is the issue in my opinion. The thing is, if I have to trust the AI to have control as to when and in what direction to fire the torpedoes, then they should have a good chance of hitting their target. Also I would really like to see the ability to change targets of the various guns that I have. For example, I would like to target a battleship 18km away and target a destroyer closing in at 5km with my secondary or casemate guns simultaneously at my discretion, by clicking the applicable gun in the window that opens when I select my ship and selecting a target. If no gun group has been issued a target, then it should default to aiming for the vessel that it stand the greatest chance of hitting or proximity. 

[Christian]

On 10/15/2019 at 10:57 AM, Shaun said:

I doubt that would be an option; issue being ships record their armour as a thickness, not as an effective thickness, for example in game, an early Battlecruiser with 6 inches of Krupp armour would be as effective as 9 inches of iron plate, compound or even Harvey armour on an 1890s pre-dreadnought like the Majestic class, but historically both would state their thickness, not their effective armour, otherwise the earlier ironclad battleships with 18 inches of iron armour would have stated their effective armour was 9-12 inches.

Krupp and harvey nickel steel is actually quite comparable at thinner thicknesses but krupp becomes better at thicker thicknesses (mostly due to the hardening process of krupp having less of a deep hardening advantage on a thin plate)

 

also as pointed out Iron Plate armor is pretty trash

 

a gun from 1888 firing a non capped shitty ap shell http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_162-30_mk1.php

can penetrate

 

 

also yes that means currently out 18 inch gun which has 36 inches pen maximum at point blank is comparable to a 1888 16,25 inch gun 

 

 

[G777GUN]

On 10/28/2019 at 11:51 PM, RedParadize said:

I must have spent 500 16" shell on it just to get it from 12% to 6%, not even exaggerating. That ship only have a barbette and few casemate guns left above the waterline, but because I can't get on his side his engine and middle hull can't get hit. This is a bit annoying.

I can just hear the echoes of dead captains from WW2 and WW1 calling BS to just how much damage that ship has and its STILL sailing about. However have you tried using AP. Even so....

Okay here is an idea. CO2 poisoning. Lets be honest there is no way those people in that ship are still able to breathe. Damage control is gone. Wounded are everywhere. There is no working vents or structure for that matter. The crew is pretty much wiped out above deck. Heck the funnels are destroyed. 

The ship is basically dead.

BUT I bet that ship can still hit you a few times even with its casemate guns which are saying LOCKED. There is no more command structure also, its gone.

This ship would be blind and manuevering would be impossible. Btw that thing would be killing the crew at full power.

 

[G777GUN]

2 hours ago, Christian said:

Krupp and harvey nickel steel is actually quite comparable at thinner thicknesses but krupp becomes better at thicker thicknesses (mostly due to the hardening process of krupp having less of a deep hardening advantage on a thin plate)

 

also as pointed out Iron Plate armor is pretty trash

 

a gun from 1888 firing a non capped shitty ap shell http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_162-30_mk1.php

can penetrate

 

 

also yes that means currently out 18 inch gun which has 36 inches pen maximum at point blank is comparable to a 1888 16,25 inch gun 

 

 

It depends if the folks that made the game have went through this yet. I dont think they have. The guns are pretty much just basic data (if you can call them that :p) the same as the armours, for the moment until different nation guns are implemented.So far Iron Armour is just there to be armour to deflect the standard AP projectiles. One could argue that its the projectiles that also should be looked into and changable, again thats a future thing.

But for now got to help them make just basic combat more realistic.
If you put that gun in the game, that monster 16.25 inch cannon. It would most likely miss despite being so powerful (which they even say in your link). And even if it did hit it might bounce off. Thus making Iron armour not a bad idea for the time period.

Bet that gun would cause some very serious flooding if it did hit.

[Christian]

11 minutes ago, G777GUN said:

It depends if the folks that made the game have went through this yet. I dont think they have. The guns are pretty much just basic data (if you can call them that :p) the same as the armours, for the moment until different nation guns are implemented.So far Iron Armour is just there to be armour to deflect the standard AP projectiles. One could argue that its the projectiles that also should be looked into and changable, again thats a future thing.

But for now got to help them make just basic combat more realistic.
If you put that gun in the game, that monster 16.25 inch cannon. It would most likely miss despite being so powerful (which they even say in your link). And even if it did hit it might bounce off. Thus making Iron armour not a bad idea for the time period.

Bet that gun would cause some very serious flooding if it did hit.

of course for the time period it wasent a particulairly great gun (on top of the ship only having one gun) but it still shows just how much iron plate could be penetrated by a sub par shitty gun firing a shitty shell

 

Quote

And even if it did hit it might bounce off. Thus making Iron armour not a bad idea for the time period.

iron armor is so brittle and easy to dent that bouncing shells off of iron armor is almost impossible as the shell will just dig into the armor unless its at a very high angle

the armor is REALLY bad

 

another example is the 12 inch gun on the canopus class 

bit more modern its from 1890

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_12-35_mk8.php

 

 

this also brings into perspective just how shit the 16,25 inch gun was because it actually performed worse than a 12 inch gun made around the same time

Edited October 30, 2019 by Christian

[Hellstrike]

One thing I found annoying for torpedoes is that launchers mounted off the centerline behave weirdly. Sometimes, there are cross-deck capabilities which should not exist and, worse, the game considers them one weapon group. So if you build a DD with 2 launchers on each side, you can still fire only one side before the reload kicks in.

 

One workaround is to have 3*2 launchers on one and 2*3 on the other side, but this gives you instability and odd firing angles. There should be the possibility to simply set up port and starboard as weapon groups and make use of the greater number of tubes. The same issue exists with underwater tubes.

[Illya von Einzbern]

2 hours ago, G777GUN said:

I can just hear the echoes of dead captains from WW2 and WW1 calling BS to just how much damage that ship has and its STILL sailing about. However have you tried using AP. Even so....

Okay here is an idea. CO2 poisoning. Lets be honest there is no way those people in that ship are still able to breathe. Damage control is gone. Wounded are everywhere. There is no working vents or structure for that matter. The crew is pretty much wiped out above deck. Heck the funnels are destroyed. 

The ship is basically dead.

BUT I bet that ship can still hit you a few times even with its casemate guns which are saying LOCKED. There is no more command structure also, its gone.

This ship would be blind and manuevering would be impossible. Btw that thing would be killing the crew at full power.

 

Crew as HP would be nice addition. I have witnessed quite a few ships which has gotten lit up from stern to bow and acts like "pah it's just a scratch".
Ammo detonation whole midsection red and in flames 30% structure but hey "is just a scratch".
CO2 poisoning could be a thing but question how to improve ship ventilation ect? 
Damage control capabilities of various nations went from good to horrendous and even among the same class sister ship might have faulty fire suppression systems or simply over looked such things. These things are also quite heavy and complex. Water pumping systems, fire suppression systems, ventilation, electric systems and auxiliary systems and so fort. Having an option to choose what systems to have/ improve via tech or by slider check box.

 

I agree that the crew would be now abandoning the ship.... It won't make it back.

Edited October 30, 2019 by Illya von Einzbern

[Cptbarney]

Yeah ships should either be destroyed via catastrophic damage or by crew abandonment and/or incapacitation.

This means that you don't have to just kill the ship itself and new types of shells can be introduced furthering the number of tactical and strategic options (plus new tech as well) avaliable to the player for utilisation.

[Illya von Einzbern]

Abandoning the ship should allow you to maintain the crew and to be utilized on other ships (campaign feature perhaps)
Unless you lose the battle and the now floating crew can not be saved then you are lost as prisoners or out right killed by enemy crew (sharks and other natural reasons).

[akd]

“Salvaging” crew from abandoned / sunk ships would be an excellent ancillary role for destroyers.

[G777GUN]

3 hours ago, Christian said:

of course for the time period it wasent a particulairly great gun (on top of the ship only having one gun) but it still shows just how much iron plate could be penetrated by a sub par shitty gun firing a shitty shell

 

iron armor is so brittle and easy to dent that bouncing shells off of iron armor is almost impossible as the shell will just dig into the armor unless its at a very high angle

the armor is REALLY bad

 

another example is the 12 inch gun on the canopus class 

bit more modern its from 1890

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_12-35_mk8.php

 

 

this also brings into perspective just how shit the 16,25 inch gun was because it actually performed worse than a 12 inch gun made around the same time

Well it was just what they had for the time period. Everything was well... crappy. Plenty new ideas still being integrated and such for the time period.  Heck even the link for that big gun it, says it was "too ambitious". Heck that gun was only tech development.

About the armour. Still Iron was better than nothing if thats your only choice.
Still Iron can deflect incoming shells if the angle is just right but against a gun head on at point blank. Oh crap.