Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Nick Thomadis

>>>Combat Feedback<<<

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the heading of a selected ship, and its current speed. Pretty essential data, to my mind.

I'd also like more than 'smoke to the West'. I assume somebody has seen it, so if I received that report on my bridge, I'd be tracking down the person who saw it and asking them to point to WHERE it was, because 'West' is not good enough. We're not in the stone age: Give me an approximate bearing.

While we're at it, a quick intercept calculator that I could hit a F-key and bring up would be great: I know their bearing and speed and my own speed, so quickly plot me an intercept bearing, rather than making me have to work it out on the back of a cigarette packet.

An easy way for me to tell which batteries are engaged, short of zooming in and looking for muzzle flash. When I am in pursuit, I want to be able to take a bearing which engages rear turrets in a quick and easy fashion.

I'm not sure if it already does it, and have not really done much examination, but an adjustable level of initiative for gunners who have alternative targets. ie: If my main target is at extended range on the port bow, do more close ranged batteries fire at other targets of opportunity, either  closer in the same quadrant, or in other quadrants. I would not be a happy captain to have directed fire at a BB, only for gun crews on the other side of the ship to be sat on deckchairs watching another BB and doing nothing because it was not my primary nominated target. Appreciate that there are perhaps fire control limitations, but when it's 1km away there's no excuse for those gunners not putting some steel downrange.

Is there a mechanical representation for reduced accuracy when multiple ships are firing on one target? If not, perhaps there should be, as it's 'a thing'.

Ramming and collision damage, as appropriate. Mostly for the 'blue on blue' fender-benders, but if a DD sits broadside in front of my BB, I want the option of cutting it in half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand the armor amd how much defence it offers. Guns seem capable of busting trough feets of the stuff at 30k ranges, meanwhile armor doesn’t show what defense it offers with selected tech and thickness. I’d like to know what are my ships immunity zones to fire equivalent to my caliber guns similar to rule the waves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the big green @ symbols in the game are radar returns - either false or true? Is that correct?

This is not stated anywhere, and it can be luck if they are noticed or not.

Is this a placeholder mechanic?

Perhaps instead of a random character floating on the ocean, we could receive a notification message and a bearing of the returned signal?

Additionally, I note that once the game decides its going to give me a false return, it keeps doing so. Is there any way for our radar operators to figure out that they are chasing a ghosts?

***

Also: Smokescreens. What am I missing? I press F11 as per the shortcut menu, then the screen flickers grey, then the game continues, with no smoke. As a caveat, I have only tried this on coal vessels. Do I need oil or semi-oil fuel to create smokescreens?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think F11 is screenshot, not smokescreen. ¬†Only destroyers and light cruisers can produce smoke screens and the option is in the bottom of the screen commands. The mechanic is poorly connected to how things worked in reality and affect on tactics. It is really more of a per ship accuracy malus ‚Äúcloak‚ÄĚ on an arbitrary timer.


The green circles are radar spots, and I don’t believe there are any false returns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, akd said:

I think F11 is screenshot, not smokescreen.¬† Only destroyers and light cruisers can produce smoke screens and the option is in the bottom of the screen commands. The mechanic is poorly connected to how things worked in reality and affect on tactics. It is really more of a per ship accuracy malus ‚Äúcloak‚ÄĚ on an arbitrary timer.


The green circles are radar spots, and I don’t believe there are any false returns.

You are correct, and I need new glasses! :)

Thank-you.

Yes, I noticed that smoke only seems to penalise firing at an emitting ship, and that vessels whose LoS is blocked by a smokescreen do not seem to suffer any penalty. This seems odd, as I would like to be able to use my DDs to screen other vessels with their smoke.

I have definitely seen false returns on radar on a pursuit mission, where I had LoS to the fleeing vessel, but kept also receiving pings on a irrelevant bearing. Might have been a one-off issue, but I rather assumed false radar returns were programmed in. If not, then I'd like to put that forward as a suggestion: Some manner of error margin and red herrings with early radar equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no LOS effect from smoke.

If you are talking about the green line extending from your ship, that is radio-direction finding and should show the bearing to the nearest enemy ship.

 

Distant radar contacts beyond vision are shown as intermittent green circles at their  actual location.  Unfortunately, radar also modifies visual sight distance, so this can all be a bit confusing.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Managing multiple ships is too hard as it is now, and simply handing over control to the AI is not conducive to success when you can't even make a battleplan or give generalized ideas, such as stay back, rush in for torpedos, screen me etc. Also when ships are in a group giving order to the group should apply it to the entire group, such as hold fire, use HE or AP etc. Just found out you have to individually order each ship one at a time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, akd said:

If you are talking about the green line extending from your ship, that is radio-direction finding and should show the bearing to the nearest enemy ship.

Distant radar contacts beyond vision are shown as intermittent green circles at their  actual location.  Unfortunately, radar also modifies visual sight distance, so this can all be a bit confusing.


This was a big green '@' which flashes up on the sea. Will capture next time I observe.

A green line from the ship for bearing of radar contacts would also be a welcome addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about manual torpedo aiming? At this moment ships automatically shoots torpedoes at place where they(torps) should meet with the target, but as we know - the target will try to avoid them as soon he sees them. It would be very usefull if player could force ship to launch torpedoes in direction of his choose - for example - we have 2 destroyers and we are attacking one battleship - we can more or less predict how the BB will change his course when he sees that we launched torps on him. We allow our first DD launch torpedoes automatically and then we choose second one and we manually sets the dicetion where we want him to shoot. When BB sees first salwo he will immediately try to dodge them, but when he do this he will run staight into salwo from second destroyer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can ships that are so heavily damaged and flooded on one side that their surface starts dipping under the sea considered lost and sunk? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seydlitz made it home, if barely. 

1024px-Seydlitz_badly_damaged.jpg

Quote

By 15:30 on 1 June, Seydlitz was in critical condition; the bow was nearly completely submerged, and the only buoyancy that remained in the forward section of the ship was the broadside torpedo room. Preparations were being made to evacuate the wounded crew when a pair of pump steamers arrived on the scene. The ships were able to stabilize Seydlitz's flooding, and the ship managed to limp back to port. She reached the outer Jade river on the morning of 2 June, and on 3 June the ship entered Entrance III of the Wilhelmshaven Lock. At most, Seydlitz had been flooded by 5,308 tonnes (5,224 long tons) of water.[52]

But certainly ships in such a state should be much more crippled.

Edited by akd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need manual torpedo aim and also an armour viewer so we can understand better how armour interacts with shells. Maybe when you hover over a section it shows either how well it does against your own guns or if you select another caliber how well it does against that?

I think both would be good ideas to implement once alpha 4 and maybe 5 gets released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2020 at 7:14 AM, Cptbarney said:

Maybe when you hover over a section it shows either how well it does against your own guns or if you select another caliber how well it does against that?

 

Given that the lack of such information caused IRL naval loses due to the wrong ammo being fired, I'm not wholly convinced that this should be 'player viewable' info during the battle itself. Perhaps an option on a 'realism' menu which we can toggle?

At any rate, I believe that a little more transparency in the way accuracy and damage works would be good, even if it was an after-action report. Looking at some of the other feedback, I think we're at the stage where those playing it would be really interested to get a view of some of the mechanics and modifiers behind the game. Any chance of being provided with such a pen and paper overview?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Siranui said:

Given that the lack of such information caused IRL naval loses due to the wrong ammo being fired, I'm not wholly convinced that this should be 'player viewable' info during the battle itself. Perhaps an option on a 'realism' menu which we can toggle?

At any rate, I believe that a little more transparency in the way accuracy and damage works would be good, even if it was an after-action report. Looking at some of the other feedback, I think we're at the stage where those playing it would be really interested to get a view of some of the mechanics and modifiers behind the game. Any chance of being provided with such a pen and paper overview?.

Im talking about in dock fam, where it makes sense to have that sort of thing like world of warships. So you will basically have to remember key info when in battle.

After battle reports of everything from, shell spent, hits (minimal, light, medium, heavy), accuracy per ship gun etc. can be done as well like anyother leaderboard table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2020 at 10:19 PM, Siranui said:

1. Given that the lack of such information caused IRL naval loses due to the wrong ammo being fired, I'm not wholly convinced that this should be 'player viewable' info during the battle itself. Perhaps an option on a 'realism' menu which we can toggle?

2. At any rate, I believe that a little more transparency in the way accuracy and damage works would be good, even if it was an after-action report. Looking at some of the other feedback, I think we're at the stage where those playing it would be really interested to get a view of some of the mechanics and modifiers behind the game. Any chance of being provided with such a pen and paper overview?.

1. I for one hope we get a proper "fog of war" option. I don't see why I should have that level of detail. You can click on an unidentified ship and see all its weapons via their range circles painted on the ocean. You can also see when a ship launches torps even when you can't see the torps.

While important and useful for testing, I wouldn't want those things to be hard baked into the default game. At least make them a player selectable option.

2. Been saying that for a LONG time. We DID get a thread on the gunnery model somewhere in the general discussion; probably easiest to use search to find it.

I have been calling for very specific info on the "do damage" process of tactical combat as a result of this update. While it's a good thing the big gun capital ships have become much more durable, I have some concerns over HOW that was done and potentially unintended consequences. I just posted something about that in the Update Feedback thread.

Cheers

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me make a pitch in the other direction here. First, do you notice how long it takes to "identify" the ship? Ships have literally been sunk before they have been identified, sometimes when they are still "Warship". I think the term "identified" is a bit of a misnomer.
It is the time it takes before a warship is identified not by class, but by name, so someone was taking note of all the little details that differentiate it from its sisters. Further, someone has clearly been timing the firing cycles and looking up intelligence reports. It might even be possible to detect a probable torpedo launch by the motion of the launchers and the ship taking pre-launch maneuvers.
On the left side, after decades of Navy-life your brain is thinking things like "Darn it. I hate triples and their increased dispersion. And isn't the wind strong today. The engine vibration is killing my rangefinders." and you will also have a sense of the magnitude of each of these effects. All these are senses, instincts and information the average player will never acquire and these details of the situation are entirely lost on him even if this game is "full-dive VR".

From this point of view, the bountiful information we get is not such a great exaggeration. It's not what you are seeing. It is what you are thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warfare doesn’t work like that.  Imperfect information is the norm, and dealing with it is part of tactics (and should be part of a wargame).

Puzzle games give you complete information then ask you to find the perfect solution.

On the specific issue of omniscient knowledge of enemy weapon status, it is particularly harmful to making a good wargame because it is information only the player can use.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the norm is imperfect information, but there is a gap between that and perfect information. But there is also one between that and no information, not even educated guess, at all, which is also unrealistic.

Let's say the information we get now is 100. I agree, it is too much. But I'll suggest if you are an experienced commander with a good crew and staff, you can realistically get to about 70 or 80. If you take away all the displays and force the player to gather information from the visuals alone, he'll be lucky to get 20 because the visuals don't contain all the information that would be available to a on-scene commander, he doesn't have the education or experience to correctly interpret what he does see, and he is one man doing the job of dozens of captains, a score of staff and hundreds of officers.

When viewed in this light, what we are seeing now is a closer approximation of the real amount of information than some "fog of war" setting taking away all those displays is all I am suggesting.

P.S. Besides, I think your wish is already granted. Anyone that really wants to try "going it alone" only needs to click on the area shown in below photo

UAD_20200203_224531.thumb.jpg.09790d74b8bd42028aa44846ea9d32dd.jpg

Edited by arkhangelsk
Postscript

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on an enormous amount of first hand accounts of battle, complete fog of war on the enemy beyond the basics of position, class and easily observable conditions (think ‚Äúon fire‚ÄĚ or ‚Äúsinking‚ÄĚ)¬†would be much closer to the type of information feed tactical decisions were made on, but I agree various different sources of information could come together to provide knowledge¬†that was less than none, but nowhere near perfect, and would generally be offset with a large amount of completely wrong information.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Let me make a pitch in the other direction here. First, do you notice how long it takes to "identify" the ship? Ships have literally been sunk before they have been identified, sometimes when they are still "Warship". I think the term "identified" is a bit of a misnomer.
It is the time it takes before a warship is identified not by class, but by name, so someone was taking note of all the little details that differentiate it from its sisters. Further, someone has clearly been timing the firing cycles and looking up intelligence reports. It might even be possible to detect a probable torpedo launch by the motion of the launchers and the ship taking pre-launch maneuvers.
On the left side, after decades of Navy-life your brain is thinking things like "Darn it. I hate triples and their increased dispersion. And isn't the wind strong today. The engine vibration is killing my rangefinders." and you will also have a sense of the magnitude of each of these effects. All these are senses, instincts and information the average player will never acquire and these details of the situation are entirely lost on him even if this game is "full-dive VR".

From this point of view, the bountiful information we get is not such a great exaggeration. It's not what you are seeing. It is what you are thinking.

I don't really have an issue with the info we get regarding our own gunnery. As you point out, we'd be aware of most if not all of it, just not so exactly.

Wile you can hide the info of the ship re weapons etc, I don't regard that as very practical because I for one tend to use it quite a bit for my own ship/s, and I don't want to have to keep clicking on it any time I'm going to mouse over the enemy (which at times you have to if selecting a target, or checking to see what its angling might be so you could choose between HE and AP).

Having said that, it is true navies spent a lot of time on intelligence gathering about each other. Of course there was "Jane's Fighting Ships" from 1898 to present, too. We know there's quite a bit known about enemy vessels and navies published enemy recognition manuals etc. The "Silent Hunter" games implemented them quite well in 3 and 4, and I've certainly read 1st hand accounts of them being used (per Dick O'Kane of USS Wahoo and USS Tang fame, for example).

So I do agree some levels of intel ought to be available. When it comes to testing, it's probably even a good thing we have more than is realistic as it can help with testing.

Pus, yes, I don't have to use it all, or even any of it.

I'd still eventually like to be able to turn off enemy details without having to intervene manually. or inadvertently learn something I ought not know, but perhaps I'm peculiar in that respect. It's certainly not a priority.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, you can know what weapon a ship have before identifying it. If you click on it the range circle of each weapon will be displayed, revealing the caliber and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rangefinders doesn't seem to work properly. Especially stereoscopic ones. They just don't give bonuses at long range rendering them useless, while Coincidence are not giving enough bonus... or I'm doing something wrong here...

No Rangefinder

MHc1ooZ.jpg

Coincidence I (Base acc)
h8R11hZ.jpg

Stereoscopic I (long range)

E5Nvmy3.jpg

Coincidence II (Base acc)

GPEHNta.jpg

Stereoscopic II (long range)

rLEwhQo.jpg

Coincidence III (Base acc)

TyZlXAs.jpg

Stereoscopic III (Long range)

vOp8Mn5.jpg

Coincidence IV (Base acc)

LS9MR6c.jpg

Stereoscopic IV (long range)

h9snjbE.jpg

Coincidence V (Base acc)

YbSQSOc.jpg

Stereoscopic V (Long range)

toFwY7z.jpg

According to gun values changing rangefinders is giving you some accuracy bonuses in low - mid range, but Stereoscopic one should give better bonuses at long range while Coincidence should give higher bonuses short range. Unfortunately there is almost no difference between the two, apart from one or two values that changes by 0.1%

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Btw, you can know what weapon a ship have before identifying it. If you click on it the range circle of each weapon will be displayed, revealing the caliber and all.

 

On 2/7/2020 at 1:29 PM, Steeltrap said:

1. I for one hope we get a proper "fog of war" option. I don't see why I should have that level of detail. You can click on an unidentified ship and see all its weapons via their range circles painted on the ocean. You can also see when a ship launches torps even when you can't see the torps.

ūüėé

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...