>>>Combat Feedback<<<

[Radium_Bullet]

I've greatly enjoyed combat so far, but I can't help but notice how underwhelming secondary armament is, even against soft targets like torpedo boats and cargo ships. I understand damage increases exponentially with gun caliber, and high caliber guns are more accurate at long ranges, but secondary armament can't seem to hit a barn door at close range. It feels like using primary guns against destroyers and small boats is currently more effective, negating the uses of secondary armament. Would like to see small guns improved in some way, perhaps accuracy-wise against small ships.

[Steeltrap]

16 hours ago, Radium_Bullet said:

I've greatly enjoyed combat so far, but I can't help but notice how underwhelming secondary armament is, even against soft targets like torpedo boats and cargo ships. I understand damage increases exponentially with gun caliber, and high caliber guns are more accurate at long ranges, but secondary armament can't seem to hit a barn door at close range. It feels like using primary guns against destroyers and small boats is currently more effective, negating the uses of secondary armament. Would like to see small guns improved in some way, perhaps accuracy-wise against small ships.

Yes we've all been discussing this one.

It seems to be a combination of factors, such as accuracy being in part a function of maximum gun range and the damage model being "unusual" for small ships.

This is somewhat mitigated by the secondary guns often getting vey high accuracy at insanely close range (such as under 1km), but of course most of the time you don't want to be that close to anything that can shoot back. And I don't know that the modifiers for tech and towers apply to anything other than the main guns, even though that really ought not be too great a factor until effective centralised main gun direction becomes common i.e. before plots and tables and large rangefinders mounted independently of the gun mounts, the performance of 8" v 4" ought not be insanely different firing at something 3km away.

Regardless, that ship modifier appears to get applied equally to all guns regardless of type, RoF or range. So the 12" gun firing once every 40 seconds ends up with a much greater chance to hit (tower bonuses and short range compared with max range plus "own cruise speed" and other modifiers) than the quick firing 4" guns that ought to get multiple opportunities to correct their aim.

Then there's the damage model, where certain ships soak up vastly more firepower than ought to be possible. Torpedo boats and merchant ships are the worst offenders. 

A 500 ton TB ought to be probably the most difficult target to hit due to being small, low to the water and fast (and indeed it is), but it isn't going to be significantly compartmentalised to deal with a single 8" HE round very well if it does get hit. The damage model gives them "maximum" number of bulkheads, however. They soak up hits from 3-6" in size disturbingly well. Granted a 12" or larger HE shell tends to wreck them (which it would), but it's pretty absurd to think ships would be using those guns on such a target when they've got banks of all sorts of secondary and tertiary mounts intended for exactly that purpose.

A merchant ship isn't as hard to hit, as its "target size" modifier is lower (although still might be as much as -20 or -50), but again they are ridiculously durable. Merchants typically had very little compartmentalisation, and certainly not the sort designed to contain explosions. Yet they rate as "maximum" for bulkheads. You can slam them with hits of all sorts, set them afire and flooding, shift targets, and find that they've reduced the fires and are pumping out the flooding like a warship.

So, yes, the system of how hits are calculated (a set probability with certain modifiers that combine to make main guns always the most accurate) and peculiar damage models for some targets can indeed make secondaries sometimes seem seriously underwhelming.

My experience is I've got to get inside ranges of 3km even with decent tech for them to hit reliably, and even then the damage model can make that seem a bit pointless. The occasional ammo explosion can surprise, but then I've seen merchants and TBs survive even those.

I've little doubt the devs will have alterations to this in the next update.

[oread]

I don't know how exactly to improve it but ship looks miniature or toy boat in combat

it's like floating leaf on the ocean and can't feel the massive tonnage of battleship

maybe scaling are way off and waves are too big and rough?

[The Fundamentalist]

I've had a lot of issues with formations and pathfinding that I've been reporting in game via the bug report tool. I think some of it is my inexperience with larger fleet maneuvers (I was a Marine, not a Sailor lol), but there seems to be some bugs in changing the squadron rosters, especially if there's a decent amount of space between units. It would be cool to have an Ultimate General Gettysburg style of drawing a route instead of the Total War concept. I've also had limited success with grouping and directing multiple squadrons at once, especially as far as dealing with opposing lines of ships. I wish there was a mechanic where the squadron would engage a parallel enemy line by respective position in the line, or a way to target ships individually from within a squadron without breaking the squadron integrity. 

I've also noticed some bugs and inefficiencies with torpedoes. The AI torpedo boats often sink themselves (once every other battle or so) and I've noticed that my own ships, regardless of the torpedo ROE settings, often launch at very sharp angles to the target and end up only successfully deploying perhaps half or less of the torpedoes that should be launched per spread. 

It would also be a smart idea to implement some sort of "torpedo dodge" mechanic that could be adjusted like the ROE. It's incredibly clunky and time consuming to order individual ships out of their formations to skirt a spread of torpedoes when in reality this was generally done on their own with notable exceptions. 

Otherwise, I've noticed that the sub-8" guns are borderline useless against smaller craft, but I believe that's being updated in the next version. 

[Steeltrap]

On 11/26/2019 at 9:33 AM, The Fundamentalist said:

I've had a lot of issues with formations and pathfinding that I've been reporting in game via the bug report tool.

Otherwise, I've noticed that the sub-8" guns are borderline useless against smaller craft, but I believe that's being updated in the next version. 

Yes, the pathfinding is awful other than for sailing in formations with minimum course changes.

Smaller ships apply a considerable gunnery penalty against anything targeting them, and that penalty is uniform regardless of range or relative movement.

I had a case a few days ago where a CL was sailing essentially line abreast with my battlecruiser at ranges that varied between 1.9km and 2.1km. I had 7", 5" and 2" guns firing at it. They continued to fire at it for approximately 8 minutes. I also don't know how it kept pace with me, either, as I was doing 24.5 knots and its maximum was listed as 23 knots, yet damage would clearly have reduced that.

Anyway, something like 8 minutes in-game time where an 8,000 ton CL was at about 2km of an enemy BC blasting at it. Barely hit it.

Even worse, it had "many" bulkheads, which is code for "good luck killing this thing, it's going to be as durable as KMS Bismarck in terms of soaking shells and not sinking". My pet hate is transport ships (merchant marine) with 'maximum" bulkheads. I've failed in the "armed convoy" mission because a transport was able to soak the entire gunnery output of my BC with 12", 8", 5" and 2" guns for more than 4 minutes.

Utterly ridiculous.

As you said, however, it's at least being changed in the update, although just how it turns out remains to be seen.

[SDGMusic96]

It would be great if ships in a division would automatically take evasive manuvers when torpedos are spotted. When I spot torpedoes while sailing in a line of battle with multiple battleships, the only way I've found to take evasive maneuvers is to manually remove the targeted ship from the division, and then order an evasive manuver. It would be great if this would be done automatically so I don't have to detach and reattach a ship. 

Along the same lines, it would also be great if there were a way to order all ships in a division to execute a corrdinated u-turn. Perhaps that could have some sort of mechanic where ships under heavy fire or at the edges of communications range, poor visability effects the coordination of the maneuver (such as the disorganized German u-turn at Jutland under heavy British fire) 

[HomTanks]

I played through all the missions over the last week or so and here are the main problems I ran into. I didn't read anything about any of the known problems with the game before I played it and I didn't read through what other people have reported about the game, so this is as unbiased as I can make it. Overall, it's a pretty good game, but I'd really like to see these particular problems addressed.

Sometimes, not all of my guns will fire and there is no clear reason why they wouldn't. For instance, I'd be playing a battleship with 4 centerline turrets, 2 in front and 2 in back. My ship would be almost completely broadside, so there were no issues with the firing arcs of any of the turrets. The ranging shots would've already been done and my guns would be firing as would be expected. Then, for no apparent reason, only 1 or 2 of my turrets would fire at the target even though the others are still locked on and clearly ready to fire. If those specific turrets were reloading because of the turrets being out of sync, that'd be one thing, but that's not the case. Instead, I just have to sit there and wait for the 1 or 2 turrets that did fire to reload before any of the other turrets are allowed to fire. It makes no sense and needs to be fixed.

Speaking of the main guns, it would really be helpful if the turrets would fire when they have an angle instead of having to wait for all of them to be reloaded again before being allowed to fire. There's no good reason why the turrets shouldn't be allowed to fire out of sync. If my front guns fire and then I turn to use my rear guns, I shouldn't have to wait for my front guns to be loaded again in order for the rear guns to be allowed to fire.

There needs to be a button that allows you to manually force a ship to launch its torpedoes. I have seen many many times where my destroyers absolutely refuse to fire the torpedoes. I'll have them totally broadside to the target so that the firing arcs of the torpedo launchers are not a problem, the target will be well within range (8km target with 14km torpedoes), the torpedoes are loaded, I set the ships torpedoes to "normal", and sometimes they refuse to fire. I'll then set the torpedoes to "aggressive" and they will still refuse to fire. The game seems to be trying to determine for me when the "best" time to fire is and it'll simply override my attempts to fire the torpedoes. I have missed many great opportunities to kill a target because the game simply will not allow me to fire the torpedoes. (Yes, I know that the torpedo settings have to be changed manually for each individual ship because there's no option to change the settings for all the ships in a division at once.)

There needs to be an option to manually place the torpedoes that are launched. By that, I mean I want to be able to launch my torpedoes in any random direction I choose, provided the current firing arcs allow it. I already know that if I launch torpedoes at a destroyer, it's just going to turn around and dodge them. I want to be able to preemptively launch torpedoes a little behind the target so that not all of my torpedoes are going to the same predictable spot. It'd also be nice to be able to launch torpedoes a little behind the target for targets at longer ranges because when the target turns just a little for any reason, most or all of the torpedoes are going to miss. As it stands, there's no option for controlling the spread of the torpedoes and it'd be extremely helpful if there was.

Another major problem is ships not being able to handle driving in close proximity to other ships. I have had dozens of times where my ships automatically made turns that I didn't want them to simply because the game thought I was getting too close to another ship. It'd be nice if the game would allow me to run my ships into each other as much as I want instead of automatically taking evasive maneuvers at some arbitrary distance. It should be left entirely up to me to keep from running my ships into each other instead of having my ships act like a bunch of giant magnets trying to repel each other. In one instance, the games steering override feature was so completely obtrusive that it literally drove my ship into a torpedo that I could've easily dodged. There was a sinking ship in front of my destroyer and there were torpedoes coming from my right side. I tried to turn right, which put me closer to the sinking ship, so the game stopped my right turn and made me start turning left. I used the rudder slider bar to force my rudder fully to the right. The green turning circle showed I'd easily miss the sinking ship and would clearly dodge all of the torpedoes. The game tried just that much harder to make me turn left, overriding my use of the slider bar and forcing me into a full left turn. The game managed to miss the sinking ship (which I was already going to miss), but it forced me to be completely broadside to the torpedoes I was easily going to miss and my full health ship was instantly turned into a sinking ship. With the game acting in this way, it makes using the "tight" formation for a division very problematic.

It'd be nice to know how much armor my high explosive shells can penetrate instead of having to wait until I shoot something and see what happens. You already give us the penetration values for the armor piercing shells, so just do the same thing for the high explosive shells too. Being able to see the penetration values of different guns as I'm building a ship would help a lot in figuring out just how much armor I need to counter a given gun caliber.

It'd be very helpful if I could set my secondary guns to target one ship while I use my main guns to target a different ship.

What I consider to be the biggest problem I've run into is the game automatically switching targets. I've had dozens of times where I'd be firing at a ship, then suddenly the game thinks I should be shooting at something else instead and starts shooting at the next target. The aiming bonuses I had built up from shooting at the original target are lost, I was forced to lose a volley because I have to wait for my 1 turret that was used to do a ranging shot to reload, I have to lose another volley doing another ranging shot as I re-target the original target, and then I can finally start shooting at the original target again. Meanwhile, the enemy ships were shooting at me the entire time with no problem. This problem really needs to be fixed. There should never be a time that the game switches me to a new target while my original target is still alive. It's kind of hard to be the "ultimate admiral" when your ships randomly ignore your orders.

[Hangar18]

I have to agree ships are far too durable, being  able to soak up 18" shell hits with ease. Armor is still to effective as well. especially the extended belt...Please do not go the WOWS route, i dont want more bow tanking, but right now its one of the best ways to cheese the game.

Secondaries are extremely inaccurate, I'd like to see some improvements there. maybe a new module slot with a secondary FCS?

AP pens dont seem to do as much damage as they should. It's very rare to get a really solid hit with AP outside a mag detonation. shouldnt these hits be doing large amounts of damage once they pen?

In addition to ammunition detonations (which i'm very satisfied with) maybe fuel should be considered?

Fire doesnt seem to make a difference. I'd like to see it spread, and have an impact if its in the right place.

Floods don't seem to do anything unless you sink the ship entirely with it. Flooding should be serious.

Torpedoes are literally pounds of explosives laying on the deck. Hitting them should be cause for an explosion.

Even 24" torpedoes only do like 150 dmg to some BBs. But i believe this stems from ships being to durable rather than torps needing a buff. CAs tend to split from hitting them.

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Hangar18

[Steeltrap]

9 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

especially the extended belt...Please do not go the WOWS route, i dont want more bow tanking, but right now its one of the best ways to cheese the game.

My experience has, oddly enough, been the complete OPPOSITE.  Just to be clear, however, I'm not for one second saying "you're incorrect", just that our experiences and thus conclusions apparently differ.

If an enemy BB presents its bow, or especially its stern, I switch to HE and do FAR more damage with HE because it seems immune to ricochets and can seemingly explode all the way to the primary magazine. If a lesser armoured ship does it, chances are guns are already firing HE. On top of that, however, is smaller calibres, even 4", can detonate a CL by doing with AP in the same way heavier HE does BBs. 

The apparent absence of any effective transverse bulkheads is a huge flaw in the current armour and compartmentalisation model. As I pointed out some earlier time somewhere, pre-dreadnoughts of the late 1800s could have transverse bulkheads as heavy as 14-16" of basic armour plate. No way on earth does an AP shell get through the outer structure, potentially even a reduced belt layer, AND reach that bulkhead in tact AND then penetrate it AND explode. An HE shell either would explode on the bow/stern or partly through it, so the apparent fact that an HE shell can be even more effective than AP is doubly absurd and utterly unhistorical.

The fact is the Royal Navy's AP shells proved abysmal at penetrating anything much at Jutland, despite the fact many of them were 13.5" and even 15", thus heavier than the German's guns. It brought about a complete redesign after Jellicoe was promoted and he appointed his former Flag Captain to Ordnance to address it. It was a pretty remarkable achievement that by 1918, had the Germans encountered the RN in serious capital ship combat, the RN was pretty much entirely provisioned with dramatically better AP rounds and the consequences could well have been decisive.

9 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Fire doesnt seem to make a difference. I'd like to see it spread, and have an impact if its in the right place.

It may look like that, but and in effect can be true, yet if you set the 'report' section to its greatest level of detail you can see what's happening. From what I've seen, you'll see "x ship fire spreads". Soon after you might see "x ship y component damaged" (usually engine) or, more often, "x ship puts fire out".

9 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Floods don't seem to do anything unless you sink the ship entirely with it. Flooding should be serious

It does apply a flooding instability penalty to gunnery, and I think also damages components such as engines. Whether those are enough is an open question, true.

I agree with you all these are still significant questions to address. My own conclusions after looking at damage and means of sinking ships over many battles are:

The more I watch the available information in detail, the more confident I am that the single most important aspect with respect to the significance of fires and floods is the number of bulkheads.

I have sunk pre-dreadnought BBs with far fewer hits than I have transports FFS and it appears entirely to be due to the bulkheads 'number'. Anything with 'many' or 'maximum' is going to be a real damage sponge and PITA to sink. Anything with 'minimum' or 'few' is going to be pretty easy. Now it could be the devs are just playing around with the values to see the effects, but if I were to make suggestions they would include:

1. Ship classes ought to have both a minimum and maximum bulkhead condition, OR their bulkheads ought to have an automatic level of effectiveness that differ even without the player choosing to include improved bulkheads in their designs. No BB can EVER be easier to sink than a merchant ship, period, no matter what their bulkhead 'number' is shown as. My own preference would be the min/max value approach, so you can't have transports with max or BBs lower than 'standard' (or perhaps 'few'?) and then their quality can be chosen as per now.

2. Ability to perform damage control ought to be a function of crew numbers. At present this doesn't seem to be the case, and you can see merchant ships with fires all over the place and flotation down to 10% start to recover if you stop firing at them. Apart from sheer size and armour reasons, BBs were also the hardest to sink because they had the most specialist damage control crews on top of crew generally that could be diverted if important enough. Yet this doesn't seem to apply so far.

I suspect the whole issue of bulkheads, compartmentalisation, various citadel armour schemes and their consequences plus means of damage and means of damage control are all works in progress. They must be, as clearly they're rather crude and insufficiently detailed at present and thus produce some clearly unreasonable results.

Cheers

Edited December 15, 2019 by Steeltrap

[Evil4Zerggin]

On 11/19/2019 at 6:18 AM, oread said:

I don't know how exactly to improve it but ship looks miniature or toy boat in combat

it's like floating leaf on the ocean and can't feel the massive tonnage of battleship

maybe scaling are way off and waves are too big and rough?

Perhaps a contributing factor is time compression. When you compress time the ship appears to pitch and roll more rapidly, which gives the impression of a smaller vessel. A simple formula for roll period has it proportional to beam divided by the square root of metacentric height. For a uniform scaling of the ship this makes the linear dimension of the ship scaling as the square of the roll period, and the displacement scaling as the sixth power. So:

• At 2x time compression, the ship behaves as if it were 1/64 of its actual displacement, or 1/4 scale. This turns Yamato into a destroyer.
• At 3x, this is 1/729 displacement, or 1/9 scale. Yamato is now a Schnellboot.
• At 5x, this is 1/15625 displacement, or 1/25 scale. Yamato almost fits on a trailer.
• At 10x, this is 1/1000000 displacement, or 1/100 scale. Yamato is now nearly a RC model.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Evil4Zerggin

[SDGMusic96]

If possible, it would be great if the individual ships would take evasive maneuvers automatically when torpedoes are detected. 

[Hangar18]

On 12/14/2019 at 11:49 PM, Steeltrap said:

My experience has, oddly enough, been the complete OPPOSITE.  Just to be clear, however, I'm not for one second saying "you're incorrect", just that our experiences and thus conclusions apparently differ.

If an enemy BB presents its bow, or especially its stern, I switch to HE and do FAR more damage with HE because it seems immune to ricochets and can seemingly explode all the way to the primary magazine. If a lesser armoured ship does it, chances are guns are already firing HE. On top of that, however, is smaller calibres, even 4", can detonate a CL by doing with AP in the same way heavier HE does BBs. 

The apparent absence of any effective transverse bulkheads is a huge flaw in the current armour and compartmentalisation model. As I pointed out some earlier time somewhere, pre-dreadnoughts of the late 1800s could have transverse bulkheads as heavy as 14-16" of basic armour plate. No way on earth does an AP shell get through the outer structure, potentially even a reduced belt layer, AND reach that bulkhead in tact AND then penetrate it AND explode. An HE shell either would explode on the bow/stern or partly through it, so the apparent fact that an HE shell can be even more effective than AP is doubly absurd and utterly unhistorical.

The fact is the Royal Navy's AP shells proved abysmal at penetrating anything much at Jutland, despite the fact many of them were 13.5" and even 15", thus heavier than the German's guns. It brought about a complete redesign after Jellicoe was promoted and he appointed his former Flag Captain to Ordnance to address it. It was a pretty remarkable achievement that by 1918, had the Germans encountered the RN in serious capital ship combat, the RN was pretty much entirely provisioned with dramatically better AP rounds and the consequences could well have been decisive.

It may look like that, but and in effect can be true, yet if you set the 'report' section to its greatest level of detail you can see what's happening. From what I've seen, you'll see "x ship fire spreads". Soon after you might see "x ship y component damaged" (usually engine) or, more often, "x ship puts fire out".

It does apply a flooding instability penalty to gunnery, and I think also damages components such as engines. Whether those are enough is an open question, true.

I agree with you all these are still significant questions to address. My own conclusions after looking at damage and means of sinking ships over many battles are:

The more I watch the available information in detail, the more confident I am that the single most important aspect with respect to the significance of fires and floods is the number of bulkheads.

I have sunk pre-dreadnought BBs with far fewer hits than I have transports FFS and it appears entirely to be due to the bulkheads 'number'. Anything with 'many' or 'maximum' is going to be a real damage sponge and PITA to sink. Anything with 'minimum' or 'few' is going to be pretty easy. Now it could be the devs are just playing around with the values to see the effects, but if I were to make suggestions they would include:

1. Ship classes ought to have both a minimum and maximum bulkhead condition, OR their bulkheads ought to have an automatic level of effectiveness that differ even without the player choosing to include improved bulkheads in their designs. No BB can EVER be easier to sink than a merchant ship, period, no matter what their bulkhead 'number' is shown as. My own preference would be the min/max value approach, so you can't have transports with max or BBs lower than 'standard' (or perhaps 'few'?) and then their quality can be chosen as per now.

2. Ability to perform damage control ought to be a function of crew numbers. At present this doesn't seem to be the case, and you can see merchant ships with fires all over the place and flotation down to 10% start to recover if you stop firing at them. Apart from sheer size and armour reasons, BBs were also the hardest to sink because they had the most specialist damage control crews on top of crew generally that could be diverted if important enough. Yet this doesn't seem to apply so far.

I suspect the whole issue of bulkheads, compartmentalisation, various citadel armour schemes and their consequences plus means of damage and means of damage control are all works in progress. They must be, as clearly they're rather crude and insufficiently detailed at present and thus produce some clearly unreasonable results.

Cheers

As far as bows taking damage. IRL it would be a tactical win to cross the T and shoot through the bow. but that isnt what we have right now. AP should be going through the bow of the ships.

The RN thought that fast and light AP was best. thats why there was a change. because they figured out that was not the case.

I've never seen a fire spread. I've never seen a component damaged from a fire or flood. Accuracy penalties are applied, but components should be damaged.

[Steeltrap]

On 12/18/2019 at 10:35 AM, Hangar18 said:

I've never seen a fire spread. I've never seen a component damaged from a fire or flood. Accuracy penalties are applied, but components should be damaged.

Net time you play, open the "report" section on the left of screen in battle and make sure the lowest level reports are also ticked. Trust me, you'll see messages of fires spreading and being put out all the time, plus you'll see components damaged (rudder/engine) from floods.

I took a load of screenshots to comment on the damage model that would also include examples of fire/flood spread and control, and module damage, yet on inspecting them they don't show any of the interface/information. WTF???? AAARRRGHH!! LOL.

 

[arkhangelsk]

Well, you can always use Irfanview to capture the photos. Here's the latest batch of me playing Battleships vs Torpedo Boats. 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/gC8w2Q628BZvCrzC7

The good news is, the hotfix did its job of persuading me to try secondaries. The not-so-good news is, the main guns still played key roles in sinking at least two of them, and overall I feel that I am less lethal than previously. Perhaps because I am too scared of the new APDS small guns held by the enemy torpedo boats, I didn't press them as hard as when I tried things last time. Or maybe it was just that new added torpedo boat. Anyway, the game ruled I was overtime by maybe 5 seconds. No big deal, I already got the green tick there previously.

[Skeksis]

Here's the enemy weapon freezes bug, running multiple simulations is the only way to preproduce this bug, it's not consistent.

the test setup... (you can use quick start and restart battle to simulate but needs multiple runs) 

only 8  356mm shots fired, then the AI (NPC) weapons freezes, NPC fires nothing else... (screenshot at 17 minute). 

all the weapons are frozen, the NPC ever resumes firing.  

Edited December 26, 2019 by Skeksis

[Nick Thomadis]

The ship probably conserves ammunition as it is set to "Normal" firing mode. Watch how low is the accuracy of the main guns. If you wish to fire, set the fire mode to "Aggressive".

[Skeksis]

37 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The ship probably conserves ammunition as it is set to "Normal" firing mode. Watch how low is the accuracy of the main guns. If you wish to fire, set the fire mode to "Aggressive".

Wait… does setting the mode to "Aggressive" applies to the enemy (screenshot is of the enemy BC).

Also note that once the enemy weapons are frozen my DD will keep firing until the BC is destroyed no matter the range change.

oh, expect if the enemy turn more than 180`, this seems to unlock enemy weapons.

And/or is this bug related to the AI firing mode?

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Skeksis

[akd]

I don’t think AI ever uses aggressive.

Edited December 23, 2019 by akd

[Skeksis]

Deleted

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by Skeksis

[akd]

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

[Skeksis]

3 hours ago, akd said:

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

Sorry but I don't think this as anything to do with accuracies as they were all normal  (anyone can repeat), its something else.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Skeksis

[akd]

7.3% is the baseline for the gun, not relative to current target and conditions.  The BC likely fired one ranging salvo and one full salvo because of a problem / bug in the gunnery model I will make a separate post on. As Nick noted, you can see the current accuracy of 0.1% in your screenshot, he just thought you were controlling the BC.

Edited December 23, 2019 by akd

[Skeksis]

there could be other causes too, like maybe difference between ship classes effecting things or gun rotations are out of range and freezes, these are all guesses though but generally bugs causes are not what you expect. 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Skeksis

[akd]

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

Edited December 23, 2019 by akd

[Nick Thomadis]

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.