>>>Combat Feedback<<<

[RedParadize]

@Steeltrap I just reread the post you made here and here. Let me reformulate, I think you made a fairly good description of the process. You made good points. As for why I "mostly" agree, well you deliberately left out the change on the damage model and I trough that was something important given the complain people had. My partial disagreement was a question of emphasis basically. Now, in your first post I trough that the later part were separated points. I did not see that all your argumentation was leading to you questioning their methodology. It only became evident when I read the two one after the other.

I do not want to make a big fuzz about it. But if your core argument is that "making changes to ALL the primary processes was a error", then I take issue with that.

First of, they certainly test variable independently on their sides, I will assume we agree on that.
Secondly, on their sides they know where they are going with this, we do not.
Thirdly, they added new damage mechanics too, they are obviously not balanced yet.

For these reasons I do not see the change from alpha 2 to alpha 3 hotfix as a deliberate balance choice. Certainly not to the point of being representative of what will be the game at its release. I am more of the opinion that it might have been a error to show us these change too early. It left us a bit confused on their intent.

[Steeltrap]

On 1/1/2020 at 1:47 AM, RedParadize said:

For these reasons I do not see the change from alpha 2 to alpha 3 hotfix as a deliberate balance choice. Certainly not to the point of being representative of what will be the game at its release. I am more of the opinion that it might have been a error to show us these change too early. It left us a bit confused on their intent.

Funny thing is I thought v3 was an improvement such that secondaries, with the partial exception of later years, was pretty good.

They could hit larger targets out to decent ranges and start fires. They could hit CLs that were trying to close in to 3.5km or lower, provided not covering themselves in smoke. That to my mind was about right.

The problem remained the higher years where combat ranges got greater as DDs could launch from out to 14km if they really wanted and could also get much closer as the cumulative effects of their crazy "target ship size" (-70%), "target high speed" (up to another -50%) and "target manoeuvres" (up to -40% or more?) meant you couldn't hit them with anything other than the main guns.

That and the fact the game allows building DDs (and transports for that matter) with "maximum bulkheads", which meant even if you hit them they could recover excessively well. I gave an illustration of that above.

My own view remains they chose to act on those specific things in ways that had what I hope are regarded as unintended consequences as the methods chosen were too broad.

As for the damage model, I deliberately left it out of the long "process thread" because it wasn't necessary for the point I was making, and the info we have on it is very thin other than knowing bulkheads are disproportionately important BETWEEN classes, not just within. It certainly appears they made it so many or maximum bulkheads might be somewhat easier to kill, but at the same time made things with few or minimum absolute cardboard, even if they're a BB.

I did a rerun of the Armed Convoy mission with my BC that does 33kts, has a bow and stern 3x10" mk 4 mount and a further 8 x (2x6" mk4) arranged with 3 each side and one fore and aft foe a broadside of 10x6". I killed the two pre-dreadnought BBs simply with HE spam mainly from the secondaries as that overwhelms their minimum bulkhead arrangement (no flooding of them at all), the CA, the 2 CLs and all 6 transports in 22 minutes. My ship had 100% structure and floatation. Seems a tad excessive IMO.

It does worry me slightly that they said they "fine tuned" the damage model, although I suspect (and hope) that's a linguistic misunderstanding where they meant they made a minor adjustment. "Fine tuning" typically means "close to what we want but made a few very small tweaks".

Cheers

Edited January 6, 2020 by Steeltrap

[WelshZeCorgi]

Maybe there should be several short "survive the -destroyers, torpedo boats and cruisers" 5 minute missions

Essentially these missions would allow players to play with, focus on and wrap their head around the other aspect of ship warfare like speed, turning radius, armor, to dodge torpedoes, tank/bounce shells and ultimately learn about what helps ship survive under certain circumstances. 

Though I can see how you could argue that all missions are sort of survival missions but I'd just put it out there to see if it would make sense to focus on the defenses of ships. 

[arkhangelsk]

Actually, the pre-hotfix Destroyers vs Torpedo Boats does a pretty good job of that. I won't mind a few more like it.

[akd]

2 hours ago, WelshZeCorgi said:

Maybe there should be several short "survive the -destroyers, torpedo boats and cruisers" 5 minute missions

Essentially these missions would allow players to play with, focus on and wrap their head around the other aspect of ship warfare like speed, turning radius, armor, to dodge torpedoes, tank/bounce shells and ultimately learn about what helps ship survive under certain circumstances. 

Though I can see how you could argue that all missions are sort of survival missions but I'd just put it out there to see if it would make sense to focus on the defenses of ships. 

Frustration with the Destroyers v. Torpedo Boats mission seems to have driven some of the feedback regarding secondaries.  Probably would have been good to step back and assess the objectives in that mission and realize they were totally artificial, and thus in need of artificial mechanics to accomplish.  Destroyers should only need to mission kill the TBs to succeed in the mission of protecting the capital ship.  This was quite attainable even before the most recent build.  Hunting TBs to destruction should be a mission for independent destroyers that can utilize ToD, weather and geography to maximize their chance of achieving kill-kills.

Edited January 3, 2020 by akd

[arkhangelsk]

I'll dissent with the above  a bit. I agree that in real battle, it would have been sufficient to mission kill or even just stop the TBs from doing their work. However, the extra difficulty does reduce the margin of error and make you learn the system. If anything, arguably most of the other missions are a little too easy. Not everyone is RamJB. Most of us would like to succeed in even a training mission, yet the moment we succeed even once we are reluctant to try it again unless it is a good dumb fun (easy) mission. The logical course is at least some missions that are at the edge of what is achievable, so players learn the lesson.

Maybe a label should have been stuck on that mission: "Look, guys, this one is hard. Don't expect to always be able to win it. It is not the point. You have probably been able to get through the ones before this by building the right ship, and not necessarily even the best one. We don't expect you to be able to do that this time. You will have to build the right ships, make the right choices and be diligent to win. This is where you learn the finer points of the system"

[Steeltrap]

20 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Maybe a label should have been stuck on that mission: "Look, guys, this one is hard. Don't expect to always be able to win it. It is not the point. You have probably been able to get through the ones before this by building the right ship, and not necessarily even the best one. We don't expect you to be able to do that this time. You will have to build the right ships, make the right choices and be diligent to win. This is where you learn the finer points of the system"

I like that idea. The initial ones are clear about learning the systems. Later ones could include lessons on specific concepts that are vital but, while popups do explain them in the shipyard, you still have to look. Plus it's good to set expectations so players' early experiences aren't  "I keep losing, this game sucks" but "wow, they said this would be difficult and I got beaten, let's see what I need to learn to win".

I'm talking about "Target Signature", for example. Absolutely everything you put on the ship adds to it. But what does it do? Well, two things. It affects your surface visibility, which is to say the distance from which your ship can be detected. It also drives the "Target ship size" gunnery modifier, so the higher your ship's value the easier it is to hit.

That alone is pretty important. I always consider it when deciding what funnel capacity I am going to have, and how to get it. I might decide 90% capacity is enough, because if you mouse over the capacity you'll find 90% still gives bonuses, just not as great ones as 100%. Thus if I can reduce the target signature my funnel/s add while getting sufficient performance, I usually will.

Speaking of funnels, we have "smoke interference". We want that as low as possible while still getting decent funnel capacity (see above). Different funnels offer different capacity/interference mixes. Towers can reduce it. In fact some of the secondary towers reduce it while others don't. Secondary tower VI has greater bonuses than tower IV, but IV decreases smoke interference by -5 while VI doesn't. Given "smoke interference" DIRECTLY reduces BASE accuracy, would we be better off with version IV or VI if we have a smoke interference that's >0?

Would be very good eventually if such things could be in the game. Understand why they're not, of course, as they're hardly a priority. But I'm one who's all in favour of providing players with the greatest possible explanation of concepts and "how things work" in games, something that generally has got worse and worse over the years.

Cheers

[Drache42]

Probably jumping into a massive series of discussions but I just wanted to give feedback on stuff like these images.  Hit an enemy ship, cause massive explosion, ammo detonation, etc, sometimes an explosion so huge that is obscures a huge portion of the ship.  Then the fire goes away and the ship is still there with maybe a few % loss in HP and otherwise fine.  Often doesn't even have any flooding!  This compared to ammo detonations seeming, in my readings, to be essentially fatal, especially ones that literally tower over the deck.  I'd wonder if that is planned to be resolved any time soon?  It can lead to extremely drawn out engagements where one can get multiple ammo detonations on an enemy ship and somehow it is still afloat.  I'd also include in this fire damage, as fires seem to be incapable of spreading to ammo stores and causing detonations....

[Latur Husky]

Ships still tends to be indestructible at times. I just had a battle where I was shelling enemy battleship with 18" guns scoring penetrating hits almost every shot from a long range and She just refused to go down below 25% structure. I eventually used up all my ammunition lol...

[Steeltrap]

11 hours ago, Latur Husky said:

Ships still tends to be indestructible at times. I just had a battle where I was shelling enemy battleship with 18" guns scoring penetrating hits almost every shot from a long range and She just refused to go down below 25% structure. I eventually used up all my ammunition lol...

I find this usually is a product of two things:

1. Number (and perhaps improved versions) of bulkheads. Anything with 'maximum' bulkheads in the current version of the game is crazily durable. Conversely, those with minimum can be cardboard. A pre-dreadnought BB with minimum bulkheads will sink from two penetrating hits if they cause flooding in two different parts of the ship. A CL at the same time with maximum can soak ridiculous volumes of secondary and primary hits, even if it's got only a few inches of armour. Which brings us to the second point...

2. Hitting different locations. I've piled all sorts of fire into the bows of a ship and flooded plus wrecked it. Hell, even exploded a magazine. But, especially if combined with a high number of bulkheads per point 1, it won't sink if I can't get hits elsewhere. I've even chosen to sop firing at times until I can get to a fresh angle so as to have a greater chance of hitting 'fresh' parts of the target.

It can be frustrating, that's true. Still, I'm sure the devs know about it and will make further changes in v4.

Cheers

[DougToss]

I wouldn't know offhand but how frequently were ships sunk by shellfire in the game's time period? Maybe this is a case of the game needing to tell players that winning the engagement (and what that means for their campaign) isn't about sinking the enemy's ships. If they return home damaged and are under repair for months, that might be a battle won. On the other hand, if ships are surviving far more battle damage than in reality, that also needs to be looked at. 

This tension between expectations and reality seems to be also driving the discussion (and hotfix) on accuracy. If 5% is a fantastic hit rate at typical engagement ranges, players need to be told so. It's common in wargamers for new players to be frustrated they are not annihilating the enemy on the field. It is unreasonable to expect most people to know that they can control the key terrain with fire rather than movement or the merits of concentration or dispersal. If you've seen new players tackle Graviteam or Combat Mission, you've seen the experience of the French Army in 1914 play out a hundred times as they charge concentrated columns at entrenched, concealed enemies and suffer the consequences. When the game provides them with the appropriate information they are less likely to fight their pixeltruppen to the last man or to be dismayed when the enemy cancels an attack or begins to withdraw at 10-15% casualties.

To be able to design ships and fight the campaign, the information needs to presented to players so that they can make informed decisions based on the same realistic factors as their historical counterparts while understanding why they are making those decisions and having fun. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by DougToss

[RAMJB]

1 hour ago, DougToss said:

I wouldn't know offhand but how frequently were ships sunk by shellfire in the game's time period?

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.

Edited January 10, 2020 by RAMJB

[AML]

19 hours ago, RAMJB said:

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.

Going off of this point I wonder if structural damage could be separated from a ships sinking and tied into its fighting efficiency instead. A heavily shot up ship could have penalties to various soft stats so its still afloat but more vulnerable. 

[RAMJB]

14 minutes ago, AML said:

Going off of this point I wonder if structural damage could be separated from a ships sinking and tied into its fighting efficiency instead. A heavily shot up ship could have penalties to various soft stats so its still afloat but more vulnerable. 

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.

[Steeltrap]

All of the above highlight why the "bulkheads status" of minimum through maximum has such a ridiculously powerful effect on survivability. Almost everything in the damage model is tied to it, including damage control for fires and flooding.

As I've said many times, you can kill a minimum bulkhead pre-dread BB in the 'Armed Convoy' mission with a bow and stern penetration where both cause flooding but a merchant with maximum bulkheads you pretty much have to shoot until it sinks because it is capable of repairing from crazily low floatation levels if you don't.

[DougToss]

10 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

All of the above highlight why the "bulkheads status" of minimum through maximum has such a ridiculously powerful effect on survivability. Almost everything in the damage model is tied to it, including damage control for fires and flooding.

As I've said many times, you can kill a minimum bulkhead pre-dread BB in the 'Armed Convoy' mission with a bow and stern penetration where both cause flooding but a merchant with maximum bulkheads you pretty much have to shoot until it sinks because it is capable of repairing from crazily low floatation levels if you don't.

Could bulkheads be gated by technology? I seem to remember that when secondaries were in the superstructure, the interior would be open or have thin, lightly armoured partitions. 

[Steeltrap]

On 1/12/2020 at 3:53 AM, DougToss said:

Could bulkheads be gated by technology? I seem to remember that when secondaries were in the superstructure, the interior would be open or have thin, lightly armoured partitions. 

Yes, the casemate guns did have space behind them. Thing is, however, they generally weren't large spaces nor were they critical to the survivability of the ship. They were moved increasingly higher in ships, shifting from being mounted often below the main deck to potentially one or two decks above. This was because the increasing speed of warships meant those casemates in the hull became useless in even moderate seas as they were prone to flooding. When shifted their previous spaces tended to be sealed with a blank plate unless the shift occurred with a major refit in which case the removal might be addressed more thoroughly.

The real problem is the lack of the fore and aft main transverse bulkheads, and that technology and design goes back a long way. Here, for example, is the section on armour of the Royal Navy's pre-dreadnought BB Royal Sovereign class consisting of 8 ships commissioned between May 1892 and June 1893 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-dreadnought_battleships_of_the_Royal_Navy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Royal_Sovereign_(1891) ) 

The Royal Sovereigns' armour scheme was similar to that of the Trafalgars, as the waterline belt of compound armour only protected the area between the barbettes. The 14–18-inch (356–457 mm) belt and transverse bulkheads 14–16 inches (356–406 mm) thick closed off the ends of the belt. Above the belt was a strake of 4-inch (102 mm)[2] Harvey armour closed off by 3-inch (76 mm) oblique bulkheads. The barbettes were protected by compound armour, ranging in thickness from 11 to 17 inches (279 to 432 mm) and the casemates for the 6-inch guns were protected by an equal thickness of armour. The thicknesses of the armour deck ranged from 2.5 to 3 inches (64 to 76 mm). The walls of the forward conning tower were 12–14 inches (305–356 mm) thick and the aft conning tower was protected by 3-inch plates

Note the bit I put in bold, and also it's worth comparing these values generally with what we see in the game.

The habit of pre-dreadnoughts having major ammo explosions due to penetrating hits from bow or stern, or even through the supposed bow or stern extended deck/belt zones, is a consequence of the armour model being incomplete. It shouldn't happen as it does because the whole point was to put the most vital (and thus dangerous for the ship, I might add) things WITHIN the spaces defined by the armour. Sure, there were developments in armour technology and also layouts (Bismarck wasn't using the 'all or nothing' armour schemes of more modern designs, for example, something that had benefits and costs although most would conclude the costs were too high for the supposed benefits).

The devs know all this of course, so we'll just have to wait for them to start to implement changes as they get to them which is perfectly fine. It does, however, mean we're seeing results we ought not expect to see in more advanced versions. I would expect, for example, to see the damage control abilities be tied to class of ship, number of crew and nature of armour scheme COMBINED. It makes no sense for a CL to be more durable than a pre-dread BB, but that's exactly what happens now in the 'Armoured Convoy' mission.

Cheers

[Ruan]

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 11:28 PM, Steeltrap said:

All of the above highlight why the "bulkheads status" of minimum through maximum has such a ridiculously powerful effect on survivability. Almost everything in the damage model is tied to it, including damage control for fires and flooding.

As I've said many times, you can kill a minimum bulkhead pre-dread BB in the 'Armed Convoy' mission with a bow and stern penetration where both cause flooding but a merchant with maximum bulkheads you pretty much have to shoot until it sinks because it is capable of repairing from crazily low floatation levels if you don't.

I believe the problem is with a visualization and compartment sizing. First compartments are one size and one size only or at least that's what they appear to be on the damage display. This is obviously a problem as compartments vary in size depending on what was placed within them and the number of bulkheads the ship contained. Having a cargo hold or boiler compartment flood is going to be more troublesome than a couple of bunk compartments. This change alone could fix the problem you mentioned with merchants.

Second is visual. The damage display doesn't show a different number of compartments when the bulkheads increase or decrease. Nor does it show left or right side of the ship. So when I see the entire bow section of the ship flooded I wonder why he isn't nose diving into the ocean. When in actuality, what I suspect is happening is, only a couple of compartments are flooded. This makes it difficult to imagine what the actual damage is. 

Quote

Could bulkheads be gated by technology? I seem to remember that when secondaries were in the superstructure, the interior would be open or have thin, lightly armoured partitions.

Would this make any sense? Bulkheads are pretty much just big armored walls. The only limitation was weight and space.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Ruan
Added stuff

[akd]

10 hours ago, Ruan said:

Would this make any sense? Bulkheads are pretty much just big armored walls. The only limitation was weight and space.

Bulkheads aren’t armored walls.  Armored bulkheads are.  There were advances in design that could contribute to the effectiveness of compartmentalization beyond just increasing or decreasing numbers of bulkheads. A few off the top of my head:

• longitudinal bulkheads (improved protection for machinery from damage by gunfire, but greatly increased the danger of underwater damage)
• unpierced bulkheads (greatly improved watertight integrity and resistance to damage, but crew would have to move up and over through the ship to access lower compartments)
• machinery unitization (decreased the chance that damage to machinery spaces would lead to total loss of power and improved compartmentalization)

Edited January 16, 2020 by akd

[RAMJB]

59 minutes ago, akd said:

longitudinal bulkheads (improved protection for machinery from damage by gunfire, but greatly increased the danger of underwater damage)

Not really. Longitudinal bulkheads were used to contain flooding, same as any other bulkhead. The idea was that just because you have a hole in one side that's flooding that side's boiler, or engine, room, it doesn't mean the flooding has to spread evenly and also affect the boilers, or engines, on the other side. By putting a longitudinal bulkhead right down the middle of the ship you'd hold that flooding in that particular side of the ship, compartimentalizing the damage and potentially saving a big chunk of your machinery from potential flooding.

The reverse side of the coin was that by localizing the flooding on one of the sides of the ship and holding it there you'd be causins a very severe case of uneven flooding making the ship far more prone to listing and capsizing than if whatever water entered the ship was able to spread evenly. As many other things in naval engineering it was a tradeoff, and different fleets went with different approaches to this idea. Some used longitudinal bulkheads, others ran away from them as if they were poison. 

In general I tend to favor the later. Saving a couple boiler or engine rooms is of no good if your ship capsizes anyway. Besides, once machinery spaces got to be smaller (Specially because of boiler technological improvements in size and power output), machinery dispersal design principles tended to achieve the same result without the extra risk of longitudinal bulkheads.

[akd]

1 hour ago, RAMJB said:

Not really. Longitudinal bulkheads were used to contain flooding, same as any other bulkhead. The idea was that just because you have a hole in one side that's flooding that side's boiler, or engine, room, it doesn't mean the flooding has to spread evenly and also affect the boilers, or engines, on the other side. By putting a longitudinal bulkhead right down the middle of the ship you'd hold that flooding in that particular side of the ship, compartimentalizing the damage and potentially saving a big chunk of your machinery from potential flooding.

You are correct, the goal is compartmentalization either way, but since many of these designs were calculated to be able to withstand a single compartment with centerline bulkhead flooding, then the assumption must have been that would be the typical result.  Underwater explosions tend to damage to a much larger area than a gunfire hit and so multiple compartments flooding simultaneously and quickly is the likely outcome.

Or it was just outright stupidity.

[Steeltrap]

17 hours ago, Ruan said:

I believe the problem is with a visualization and compartment sizing. First compartments are one size and one size only or at least that's what they appear to be on the damage display. This is obviously a problem as compartments vary in size depending on what was placed within them and the number of bulkheads the ship contained. Having a cargo hold or boiler compartment flood is going to be more troublesome than a couple of bunk compartments. This change alone could fix the problem you mentioned with merchants.

Second is visual. The damage display doesn't show a different number of compartments when the bulkheads increase or decrease. Nor does it show left or right side of the ship. So when I see the entire bow section of the ship flooded I wonder why he isn't nose diving into the ocean. When in actuality, what I suspect is happening is, only a couple of compartments are flooded. This makes it difficult to imagine what the actual damage is. 

The one good thing we know is the damage model, including the whole armour scheme re citadel etc, not to mention damage control and crew resources etc, are all either missing or rudimentary.

I had fun the other day using a BC in the 'Armed Convoy' mission I used to test various ideas. It has a fore and aft mounted 2x9" turret, then another fore and aft 2x8", and another 2x8" in each wing turret position broadside for a total of 4x9" and 6x8". I built it as part of experiments on what the recent changes to 'secondary' guns can have at certain periods of tech in the game.

Anyway, I hit a Transport (11,000t) with 14x9" and 22x8" HE rounds in the space of about 90 seconds. It had maximum bulkheads. It got down to about 6% floatation and had loads of fires. 

I stopped firing to confirm what I suspected. Sure enough, it survived.

Same battle I sank a pre-dreadnought BB with 3 penetrating hits that caused flooding. I had a few other 9" and 8" bounce, sure. Thing is, it sank in less than 3 minutes from the time I fired on it from about 6.5km.

At least we and the devs all know it's bonkers.

I had written somewhere, possibly even in this thread, that I think bulkheads ought to have certain restrictions when it comes to the AI. It ought NOT allow the AI to build BBs with lower than "standard" bulkheads, for example. The difference it makes is HUGE at present, let alone if a BB has 'many' or, lord forbid, "maximum".

I also believe there need to be a clear difference between the consequences of a high bulkhead count on a Transport and a warship and also BETWEEN various warship classes.

Merchant ships up to and including WW2 had relatively little compartmentalisation, with tankers proving the most durable as their tanks worked as compartments. For tankers, their cargo was less dense than water which also helped, although of course this assumes the tanker didn't explode in a mass of burning fuel, or go off like a giant bomb if carrying aviation fuel. Merchants are not built in the expectation of explosive munitions hitting them, warships are.

Equally, you can build a 'relatively durable'  CL but there's no way you can make one that will soak the sort of punishment that a pre-dread BB, or even a proper armoured cruiser, can take.

Right now the bulkheads are a blunt instrument that affect degree and spread of flooding, controlling of flooding, and the same for fires. I would expect a more developed system, including addressing the things you've said, ought to correct this. Most ships, including warships, will be compartmentalised to the extent that is warranted by their anticipated use. Battleships have high levels of compartmentalisation in part because of their sheer size and that they, more than any other warship, were expected to dish out and receive hits from the most potent naval weapons available.

Lighter warships still seal off engine spaces, boiler rooms, magazines etc at least to some extent. They're more easily holed as the protection is far less than a BB, and they also have much lower buoyancy reserves, yet they still have certain basic compartmentalisation requirements.

Meanwhile, as @RAMJB and @akd are discussing, bulkheads and damage control are interesting topics. I know the USN in WW2 very quickly communicated their lessons from early Pacific battles, one of which pertained to flooding. They made very clear that the most dangerous period for any ship that was holed in any way was the first 10 minutes and, most specifically, maintaining lateral stability as best as possible. This meant as much focus needed to be put into counterflooding to the degree the ship could do so and the damage allowed as containing the flooding itself. To paraphrase our friends' discussion, the best compartmentalisation means diddly squat if you capsize, lol.

Anyway, I'm sure it will improve. Right now, however, it does result in some rather daft results, lol.

[Steeltrap]

Someone added screenshots of the damage and damage control models from Great Naval Battles (not sure which one).

I've said many times it had the best systems for those things I've ever seen. The "GNB of the North Atlantic: 1939-43" also had a "shell tracker" so you could trace the progress of a hit on an enemy. If it went though armour you could see it go into a number of compartments before exploding and causing fires, or if it was a hit that included holing the target on the waterline you could see it start flooding.

For your own ships you had limited crew resources to allocate when it came to stopping flooding or stopping fires. You also had limited pumping capacity, and you could also counterflood. It really focussed your mind on what was THE most critical thing to address.

Included multiple decks and an entire armour v penetration system etc. You can see the location of various vital systems, too.

"GNB NA 39-43" was released in 1990. Contemplate that for a minute, lol.

========================================================================================

I want this:

Advanced damage control system.

[Shaftoe]

Combat Feedback: issue with combat maneuvering of units assigned to divisions

Currently, ships assigned to divisions are extremely vulnerable to torpedo attacks, because instead of evading torpedoes properly (which they have spotted well in advance), they are more concerned with maintaining formation, and thus 2nd or 3rd ship in a line very often ends up being torpedoed. Even worse, in order to restore formation they would sometimes deliberately place themselves in the path of a detected incoming torpedo, or even ram such torpedo outright - that happened to me more than once. Sure, somebody could blame or other new players for "mismanaging assets", but that would hardly be a good solution to a pretty real problem.

Destroyers tasked with providing a screen to larger capital ships are extremely vulnerable to that problem, because they only need 1 torpedo to go down. And they are usually closest to the enemy, thus being well in range of enemy torpedo tubes. 

I think AI of ships in formations needs to be adjusted and torpedo evasion should have much higher priority, and at that individual ships should readily break formation in order to avoid an incoming spread of torpedoes. Otherwise, I'd rather not have all my DDs assigned to divisions just to watch them die, because they won't bother evading an obvious threat. Thus, need in divisions fades - which is not good, too. 

+Suggestion: minimal activation distance to torpedoes

Add minimal activation distance to torpedoes. For example, if a torpedo has not traveled 50-75-100 meters from launch, it won't detonate, even if it hits something. That would make some admittedly rash (but pretty epic!) tactics viable, and help to prevent accidents in friendly fleets.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Shaftoe

[Shaftoe]

Combat Feedback: effects of fires on highly damaged ships

I think fires on ships that sustained a lot of combat damage are very underwhelming. If the ship has sustained grave structural damage, then it is likely that most of its crew is already dead or incapacitated, and most of its survivability and damage control systems are either gone and can no longer perform adequately. Therefore, the ship must go down, as it happened so many times throughout history - heavily damaged ships with serious fires and (or floodings) often were simply abandoned, because the outcome was already known and the struggle wasn't worth the lives of the crew.

I think ships with very low amount of HPs should receive a lot of extra structural damage from fire and be finished by it. It's fairly anticlimactic to see an enemy ship with only 5% HPs left running away, shrugging off fires as if they are nothing.