>>>Combat Feedback<<<

[Hangar18]

Just now, akd said:

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

correct. when you are higher, your LOS becomes further.

[akd]

Just now, Hangar18 said:

correct. when you are higher, your LOS becomes further.

Yes, but radar does not visually see and ID the target.  I disagree, however, that it is necessarily higher than the highest visual spotting position.  Probably often true, but not always.  Regardless, that is not the point.  Seeing with radar in this era was not the same as visually observing a target.

[Hangar18]

6 minutes ago, akd said:

Yes, but radar does not visually see and ID the target.  I disagree, however, that it is necessarily higher than the highest visual spotting position.  Probably often true, but not always.  Regardless, that is not the point.  Seeing with radar in this era was not the same as visually observing a target.

so lets look at this another way. visually, through smoke you cannot tell what the proper range is. with radar, thats all but certain

[akd]

20 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

so lets look at this another way. visually, through smoke you cannot tell what the proper range is. with radar, thats all but certain

Yes, but with early radar there would be significant range error and even more significant bearing error, and no ability to observe fall of shot.  So "seeing" with radar is not the same as visual observation. Later radar designed for fire control would improve on that, but with the caveats above.

For finding the enemy's rough location, the advantage is almost absolute (perhaps debatable with early radar in the most ideal visual conditions), but for shooting at the enemy it is much more conditional and interrelated with visual conditions.

Edited December 27, 2019 by akd

[arkhangelsk]

On 12/24/2019 at 4:15 PM, Skeksis said:

Hope this image is clearer....

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

 

Honest questions: Since the guns are only measuring accuracies in the 0.x% range, even if they lock the percentage will only be 1-2% or so.

Are you sure this is a bug and not a feature (computer electing to not waste ammo)?

Have you tried rushing your destroyer closer to increase their hit chance and see if that "frees" the guns?

[Hangar18]

10 minutes ago, akd said:

Yes, but with early radar there would be significant range error and even more significant bearing error, and no ability to observe fall of shot.  So "seeing" with radar is not the same as visual observation. Later radar designed for fire control would improve on that, but with the caveats above.

For finding the enemy's rough location, the advantage is almost absolute (perhaps debatable with early radar in the most ideal visual conditions), but for shooting at the enemy it is much more conditional and interrelated with visual conditions.

are we talking about the same era? im not talking about ww1, im talking the ww2 radar systems. 14M of accuracy is pretty good, and far better than nothing at all.

[arkhangelsk]

10 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

are we talking about the same era? im not talking about ww1, im talking the ww2 radar systems. 14M of accuracy is pretty good, and far better than nothing at all.

It is Range accuracy: ± (15 yards + 0.1% of range.) Bearing accuracy: 0.1° to 2 mils. So at 20000m, the range error will be about ±215 yards, lateral error would be ±20m. But the resolution is up to 10 degrees (about 175 mils), so the target blips may well be merging into each other and hard to see.

[RedParadize]

@Hangar18 Its not 14m of accuracy. Check my previous post on the subject for the link.

There is key factor you need to look about this.

First, the radar accuracy beyond visual range is not that great. For a Mk8 at 20000yards, a target will be in a 2000x500 square yards plus +-target angular size. (±15 yards + 0.1% for range. 2mils for angle). Target size will be more or less blurred by atmospheric distortion depending on weather.

That is just the sensor itself, now if we look at the display:

The display is about the size of a hand and its resolution is of analogic level.

Simply put. With a mark 8 you get a very approximate target position and idea of its size. Over time you may get its vector, but we are talking minutes here, target may have turned already.

Don't get me wrong, back then this was a revolution

Edited December 27, 2019 by RedParadize

[RedParadize]

Having said that, at 20000 yard you can see  16" splash around target with a 100 yard accuracy (you have the ship as reference point). At that distance the Mk8 is way better than stereo range finder.

Edited December 27, 2019 by RedParadize

[Skeksis]

1 hour ago, arkhangelsk said:

Honest questions: Since the guns are only measuring accuracies in the 0.x% range, even if they lock the percentage will only be 1-2% or so.

This has nothing to do with accuracies. 

1 hour ago, arkhangelsk said:

Are you sure this is a bug and not a feature (computer electing to not waste ammo)?

Like save ammo until they die! unlikely and not realistic, in whatever case it's a bug, the DD will continue to firing until the destruction of the BC, pretty sure DD destroying BC is not the intent of the game (via gunnery).

1 hour ago, arkhangelsk said:

Have you tried rushing your destroyer closer to increase their hit chance and see if that "frees" the guns?

Debugging is the Dev's expertise.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Skeksis

[Hangar18]

8 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Having said that, at 20000 yard you can see  16" splash around target with a 100 yard accuracy (you have the ship as reference point). At that distance the Mk8 is way better than stereo range finder.

but apply this to say...10km

it should be eating into the smoke penalty fairly harshly. 

[RedParadize]

@Skeksis The counter do not refresh on every shot. To force it to refresh display info of other ship and come back to it.

@Hangar18 Operating a radar was a longer process than stereoscopic range finder. Also. as I said you do not get target vector instantly, it reveal itself over time.

Edited December 27, 2019 by RedParadize

[Skeksis]

No sound, no hits recorded, no tracers, etc...

Weird, no one thinks this is a bug, even @Nick Thomadis, it's like collective phenomenon of disbelief that it could be a bug. 😕

Edited December 27, 2019 by Skeksis

[arkhangelsk]

6 hours ago, Skeksis said:

This has nothing to do with accuracies.

Maybe it doesn't, but with that picture you put up, I think most people would first notice the accuracy than anything else. You will probably have to show a series of photos within one scenario to better get your point across...

Quote

Like save ammo until they die! unlikely and not realistic, in whatever case it's a bug, the DD will continue to firing until the destruction of the BC, pretty sure DD destroying BC is not the intent of the game (via gunnery).

It's not really that likely it can save itself by shooting at such poor hit rates. DDs being able to destroy BCs is apparently the "feature" of this hotfix, albeit one I have not yet and have no real enthusiasm in reproducing (I'm also overseas and surrounded by mega-weak computers).

The solution would seem to be a mix of nerfing the new super penetrations they are getting (given your enemy's 90% armor quality, a Mark V 5" gun would enjoy 4.1" of penetration at 7500m increasing to 5.89 inch at 5000m, which means it can penetrate most areas of your photo's "enemy battlecruiser") and making sure the enemy tacks just a bit more armor (rather than putting on 5 different calibers of secondaries) to their battlecruisers.

In fact, secondaries until 6 inch should probably just fire HE instead of any AP - just lock their ammo choice on HE Lyddite if we need to make their hits a bit more useful by raising the fire chance.

Edited December 27, 2019 by arkhangelsk
Added some 5 inch penetration data

[Skeksis]

8 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

You will probably have to show a series of photos within one scenario to better get your point across...

There's enough info for Dev's to reproduce, there is no 'my point to this', I'm just reporting, now it's up to Dev's to debug.

8 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

DDs being able to destroy BCs is apparently the "feature" of this hotfix

Nah not really, part of the patch was for secondaries to be more effective against smaller targets at close range and for the most part I think it's working.

8 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

The solution would seem to be a mix of nerfing the new super penetrations they are getting (given your enemy's 90% armor quality, a Mark V 5" gun would enjoy 4.1" of penetration at 7500m increasing to 5.89 inch at 5000m, which means it can penetrate most areas of your photo's "enemy battlecruiser") and making sure the enemy tacks just a bit more armor (rather than putting on 5 different calibers of secondaries) to their battlecruisers.

When everything working properly, BCs destroys DDs within a few salvos, mostly with mains at mid-range.

I'm not trying to destroy a BC with a DD, the goal of this was to 'disclaim' DDs destroying BCs, which I'm satisfied that BCs has the upper hand (when the game is working). Except for smaller ship concealment, it's very WOWS like and not realistic, DDs seems conceal until they are right on top of you, maybe this is related.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Skeksis

[Hangar18]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

When everything working properly, BCs destroys DDs within a few salvos, mostly with mains at mid-range.

I'm not trying to destroy a BC with a DD, the goal of this was to 'disclaim' DDs destroying BCs, which I'm satisfied that BCs has the upper hand (when the game is working). Except for smaller ship concealment, it's very WOWS like and not realistic, DDs seems conceal until they are right on top of you, maybe this is related.

depending on the height of your ship, and theirs it will change without radar.

at an estimated 45'

it would be spotted at about 13km. i would assert you would likely see the smoke long before the ship 

 

[arkhangelsk]

6 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Nah not really, part of the patch was for secondaries to be more effective against smaller targets at close range and for the most part I think it's working.

I was being sarcastic. DDs vs BCs are but one of the horrible side effects, because you can't just make something (like little guns) artificially powerful against one type of target (overall effectiveness increased by something like FIVE times over the realistic value) without having some "unfortunate" side effects.

6 hours ago, Skeksis said:

When everything working properly, BCs destroys DDs within a few salvos, mostly with mains at mid-range.

Yes, but to do that it needs hit rates (even unlocked ones) a bit more than less than 0.5%. With the current rate, it'll be more than a few salvoes before it can land the hit. One problem that may not be visible to us is the computer not investing enough in the best fire control equipment. Still, it could probably avoid dying to your destroyer if only the penetration values are less "optimistic" and the  AI thinks more about armor, not more little guns.

BTW, if you really want something debugged, sending them as much information as possible could not hurt :)

[Hangar18]

5 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

(overall effectiveness increased by something like FIVE times over the realistic value)

what exactly is inflated?

 

[arkhangelsk]

Look at this post where I catalog some of the manifest artificiality that were stuck into the stats to get the results:

Next, the recreated Battle of Texal, that I used to see how much aggregate effect there will be on the "intended" part of the consequences (since DD killing BC was an unintended side effect). Basically, ships that were very close replicas to the real victims being attacked by replicas to the real attackers died about 5 times faster than the historical result.

 

[RedParadize]

@arkhangelsk I read the post you made, (the one with allot of image) Note that 100% accuracy ≠ 100% hit rate, it just mean that one of the modifier is at 100%. Against a fast DD you will get somewhere around 15% hit chance under the 100% accuracy mark. Which is plenty enough to reliably kill it.

A DD can kill a BC because:

1: Penalty from fast moving target is really high. I can do the same with a fast 28500t BC vs 2 Super Dreadnought.
2: Armor model don't have a real citadel. Nick said they are working on that.
3: +-1/12 of hits bypass armor, regardless of caliber. As I demonstrated Here (last post at the bottom).


I am not saying that accuracy buff do not play a role in what you described, but point 2 and 3 alone are enough to make ship die really quick. A ship and its critical comportment cant be reasonably protected ATM. Anyway, I would like where you got your figure for this:

9 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

(overall effectiveness increased by something like FIVE times over the realistic value)

You compared in game effectiveness to what?

[arkhangelsk]

34 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@arkhangelsk I read the post you made, (the one with allot of image) Note that 100% accuracy ≠ 100% hit rate, it just mean that one of the modifier is at 100%. Against a fast DD you will get somewhere around 15% hit chance under the 100% accuracy mark. Which is plenty enough to reliably kill it.

To be more accurate, the base (before modifiers) is now 100% accuracy at 2500m, and even if they are not 100% they are higher than the bigger guns at 2500m which is a manifest implausibility. As are the 1100m/s muzzle velocities or eye-popping penetrations.

34 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@arkhangelskA DD can kill a BC because:

1: Penalty from fast moving target is really high. I can do the same with a fast 28500t BC vs 2 Super Dreadnought.
2: Armor model don't have a real citadel. Nick said they are working on that.
3: +-1/12 of hits bypass armor, regardless of caliber. As I demonstrated Here (last post at the bottom).

Well, AFAIK, the combination of effects, you know, that tactical accuracy never got to the point before this hotfix that people were actually succeeding in getting the battlecruisers with the destroyer. The changes mean a lot more "real" penetrations than before, and the 1/12th little gun hits auto-bypass, even if it also happened before this hotfix, must have hurt a lot less when the hit rate was realistic than after they buffed it, which gave the battlecruiser substantially more chance to hit the destroyer at least once or twice before it died.

34 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

You compared in game effectiveness to what?

Well, you might remember it was you who brought the Battle of Texal to the table. So, I used the Custom Scenarios to build something similar (and on the first try the computer proved cooperative and gave me pretty much what I needed). The real scenario took over 73 minutes in the decisive phase and 3 hours from first contact. When I played it, three of them went down in under ten minutes and the only reason the fourth didn't die in at most five minutes more is because it was placed outside my sight and for some reason my ships won't increase speed to chase it (and it wasn't because they were hurt). If in game the torpedo boats die in ~15 minutes and in the real thing ~75, then the indication is that the guns are 5 times as effective as they should be.

In a way, I'm almost as appalled as the DD vs BC thing because at least the latter is exploiting the speed modifier in an extreme scenario, while Texal is a real one being replayed, and the exact thing they were trying to "solve" in this hotfix.

Edited December 28, 2019 by arkhangelsk
Cut out extra quoted text.

[RedParadize]

@arkhangelsk During Texel action, most of the time was spent catching up with target, but that's not the problem here. You can't expect AI to behave as human did in that battle. I mean, not just the AI, but all other factor as well. To reduce all that to accuracy would be a mistake.

 

[arkhangelsk]

Yes, that's why I counted in only the last 73 minutes of the battle (1517-1630) as the comparison, rather than 13:50 to 16:30 (oh sorry, it wasn't 3 hours, it was 2 hours 40 minutes) from first contact. We won't be able to get 100% recreation in any case, but come on, we are talking about 5 times faster. I think that the scenario is equipped with huge margins.

[RedParadize]

It isn't a recreation, the only "common" aspect was the ship selected.

Flip it around, if the Germans DDs would have behaved as AI did, do you think its possible it would have ended faster?

[arkhangelsk]

Well, the boats fought back, as did the real Germans. In fact, the real scenario had a few more things going for the Brits, such as the real Germans only having puny 50mm guns which AKD wouldn't let me call pom-poms :) while the computer created his with at least one 4" gun (so it could shoot back a little bit).

I think at some point you might notice you are spending most of your time trying to "dodge" the historical and simulation results. Sure we can make excuses but really it just isn't looking too good, isn't it?