>>>Combat Feedback<<<

[Steeltrap]

15 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@Steeltrap
Didn't notice that! Oh, I think it is fair that you can see ship launching torp even if you do not see torp themself. I remember reading that it was something to look at during ww1. I do not remember exactly where I read that but it was clearly written that they failed to see the torpedo being launched and got hit because of that. I do not recall what was the range trough.

Close enough it might well make sense if someone was watching with appropriate vision equipment at the appropriate time. More difficult if there's gunfire and smoke etc, obviously.

The bigger issue I have with torps is that, other than the initial flashing warning when they're first spotted (and you need to be looking in the right direction at that exact moment), there's no easy way to go back to torps you may have spotted.

I can assure you no ship's captain or watch is going to lose track of hostile torpedoes once aware of them. I'd like to see some means of jumping to them, such as an icon somewhere on screen.

Cheers

[RedParadize]

@Steeltrap This will be much worst when people will manage full fleet and not a single super battleship.

[CybrSlydr]

So I'm playing "The Modern Battleship" academy mission and I'm seeing something I think quite odd...

I've built a nice ship with good secondaries to deal with those destroyers - but those secondaries can't hit the broad side of a barn if they tried.

I had DDs able to get within 3km and just endlessly dump torps despite specifically targeting them with the double-barrel 5" secondaries.  Accuracy was constantly down in the 1.6% or less zone. 

Why is this the case?  What can I do to increase the accuracy of the secondaries so I can actually get them to destroy the ships they were put there to destroy?

[RedParadize]

Looks like when AI get into ammo saving mode on main gun it is also applied to secondaries, even if there plenty of ammo left for them:


Edit:

15 minute and 600  15" round later he is now at 8 %. Even when saving shot for when pen is above 50% it still wont do it. Its all nice to say that Battleship were trough... But this is a game, I can't leave the battle and leave him to die, he would not... This is not fun.

Edited February 10, 2020 by RedParadize

[arkhangelsk]

The timer suggests this is a Custom Battle. This is what happens when you just crudely cut the Retreat option from the AI (in Alpha 3 this guy would have retreated about 40% Structure ago). And may I ask why you have disabled your Main Gun and torpedoes?

At only 2.3% hit chance and abysmal damage even if it does hit, the decision to not fire is defensible. On the other hand, since it is not allowed to retreat now it might as well fight to the last round, so the change to the AI should be to force Aggressive fires on all weapons when the old retreat threshold has passed.

[Steeltrap]

21 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@Steeltrap This will be much worst when people will manage full fleet and not a single super battleship.

Yes, one reason I included it in my feedback to the update when the feature was introduced.

Said it was a great idea, but being able to find those torps easily after the initial spotting was crucial and THAT is what they needed to do in the interests of 'realism'.

It shows up on the general combat log on the bottom left of screen "XYZ spotted torpedoes" but you can't click on that notice, and you don't see the warning flash on the screen unless you happen to be looking at that part of ocean at the time they're spotted.

If an icon popped up at the time of first spotting, you'd know to click on it no matter where you were looking at the time.

We need an individual icon for every separate spread that is spotted that is on screen from the moment any torp of that spread is spotted until the spread reaches the end of its range.

If that means the screen is half covered with icons, LOL, that would suggest a problem AND that perhaps a form of hiding them (collapsible notice area like the other ones) is called for.

Cheers

[arkhangelsk]

1 hour ago, Steeltrap said:

THAT is what they needed to do in the interests of 'realism'.

From the interests of realism, it's already holding your hand quite a bit that there is even a Triangle warning symbol that goes on for a few seconds. What do you think really happens if you are the fleet commander and a destroyer divisions half a fleet from your position detects torpedoes. Do you think they'll keep you updated? No. They'll give one report and you are supposed to act on that. The TBS circuit will not be jammed by constant updates like a submarine movie.

If you did not see the warning triangle and/or cannot find the torpedoes, do the realistic thing as a fleet commander. Either make a very sharp turn of all divisions likely to be affected, or let the Captains try to maneuver themselves out of trouble (read: Turn the AI on!) It works well enough people have been clamoring for it to be nerfed, you know.

[RedParadize]

11 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

The timer suggests this is a Custom Battle. This is what happens when you just crudely cut the Retreat option from the AI (in Alpha 3 this guy would have retreated about 40% Structure ago). And may I ask why you have disabled your Main Gun and torpedoes?

At only 2.3% hit chance and abysmal damage even if it does hit, the decision to not fire is defensible. On the other hand, since it is not allowed to retreat now it might as well fight to the last round, so the change to the AI should be to force Aggressive fires on all weapons when the old retreat threshold has passed.

The reason why AI doesn't on that picture is that main battery is low on ammo, not the 2.3% hit chance on secondary. When AI is put on ammo saving mode, it does it for all caliber. I think that is wrong.

As I said in the previous post, I disabled guns to save them for the moment I have high pen. As for torpedo, well, that ship have no hull left. The 25x24" torpedo would only do minimal damage against already destroyed compartment, so I am saving them for the other ship that still have some hull left. The only way I could have finished that ship is by a lucky ammo hit, wish is more likely at close range, or by going back to the 12km in hope to do some damage to its mostly intact deck and superstructure. I tried both, still ran out of ammo.

Now think about this, what does it mean for campaign? Sure, enemy would have retreated, that only make it worst. This match was already 45 mins long, if the enemy would have retreated it would have taken forever for that ship to reach map border at 7knot. To make it worst, it would have got repaired and I would have to do it all over again, knowing that I would certainly dominate.

This is a recipe for boring repetitive battle.

 

[Magmaral]

Some problems I encounter:

I seem to able to do infinite damage to a ship without sinking it.
(18 inch guns hitting a BC with 12% structural integrity hitting for 400+ damage and it stays at 12%. And this time and time again)

When I double click on my ship icon to go back to my own vessels the game crashes and a window appears with the message 'to many threads'
 

[Steeltrap]

On 2/11/2020 at 12:27 AM, arkhangelsk said:

From the interests of realism, it's already holding your hand quite a bit that there is even a Triangle warning symbol that goes on for a few seconds. What do you think really happens if you are the fleet commander and a destroyer divisions half a fleet from your position detects torpedoes. Do you think they'll keep you updated? No. They'll give one report and you are supposed to act on that. The TBS circuit will not be jammed by constant updates like a submarine movie.

If you did not see the warning triangle and/or cannot find the torpedoes, do the realistic thing as a fleet commander. Either make a very sharp turn of all divisions likely to be affected, or let the Captains try to maneuver themselves out of trouble (read: Turn the AI on!) It works well enough people have been clamoring for it to be nerfed, you know.

First if all I recognise the warning triangle was an improvement. Might be worth remembering the devs included it due to people saying they were struggling to find the torps, however.

I personally don't have a problem with torps, am very rarely hit by them.

My point is that ships, especially capital ships, run plots in combat.

It is entirely possible, and I've seen it many times on YT channels, for people not to know they have torps inbound.

Regardless of whether you agree with me about having a means to find the torps once spotted, I would think we can agree on the following at least:

If lookouts report torpedoes inbound there's no way the crew on the bridge, let alone the officer holding the conn, doesn't know about that report and doesn't give it their complete and immediate attention (unless perhaps they've suffered as Prince of Wales' bridge crew did against Bismarck, but that's an entirely new problem to consider once crew is introduced).

As things are now, it's entirely possible to miss it, yet, given torpedoes proved THE most deadly threat to a capital ship, and I think we both know that isn't a satisfactory state of affairs.

As an aside, it's an interesting thing to contemplate that if the AI is effective at avoiding torps precisely because it never doesn't notice the report or know where the torps are, it strikes me as a bit odd for players to have a warning system that is still so prone to failure given it requires the person to be looking in the right place or notice a single line entry in the log that has no greater prominence than any other. Were I the Fleet Admiral, you can be damn sure I'd be rectifying that problem immediately.

We certainly can discuss how to address that. Maybe not do what I suggested, but perhaps have the "ship xyz spots torpedoes" message ought to be splashed on the screen REALLY OBVIOUSLY. Be nice if that report could also include bearing from reporting ship so we'd know where to look.

I agree we are responsible for handling our ships. Some things, however, are really basic, and making sure the command staff know about incoming torpedoes is just as basic as damage control putting out fires and controlling flooding as far as I'm concerned (the fact the damage control model is a placeholder in terms of complexity is beside the point).

If you have the APPROPRIATE level of warning and still choose to ignore it, well that's on you, I agree.

But that's NOT the same as a warning system that is too prone to failure given the potential consequences (being crippled or sunk outright) of that failure.

I will confess my own professional experience of designing processes and controls etc as a contract business consultant specialising in such things will be affecting my view. You want to design your controls based on a defined failure's likelihood of occurrence AND severity of consequence. Which brings me back to the point about how every single ship in every navy knew being hit by a torpedo was as severe a problem as any they might experience.

I suspect all we really ought to try to work out is what we think is a reasonable solution. My initial one, admittedly, is intended to make sure that anyone surprised by torpedoes hitting their ship(s) either doesn't yet know what the things on screen are, makes poor choices trying to evade, or is an idiot lol. So perhaps we can dial that back a bit.

Something splashing on screen regardless of where you're looking would be enough, as nobody could sensibly claim not to have seen the warning. Altering the nature of the report in the log, be it in font, colour or even blinking, would be not as good but still reasonable. Being able to click on that report in the log and taken to the torps to which it relates would be nice, or the icons I mentioned earlier, but they aren't directly relevant to the problem of the report being too easily overlooked which is the absolute basic issue I have with the current system.

Then again, if you feel differently I know you'll tell me, which I very much welcome (in case there was any doubt).

It's also true the devs likely don't see this as a priority. My own training causes me to dislike strongly what are often termed as 'quick fixes' or 'stopgaps' because too often I've seen them put in place and a better, more complete solution is never devised, or not implemented even if it has been worked out. I'd rather do it properly first time around, but then I'm paid to do exactly that to the extent possible based on the time and resources the company paying me chooses to give me.

Cheers

Edited February 12, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Tlmitf]

I think the font on this damage text needs some work, it is a bit low res and makes it hard to read rapidly.

[Teckelmaster]

@Tlmitf damn, what did you do to that thing? 

[Tlmitf]

On 2/19/2020 at 7:43 AM, Teckelmaster said:

@Tlmitf damn, what did you do to that thing? 

I shot it with everything at very close range, and some time acceleration as well.



Not sure if someone has mentioned this before, but the top info panel ends up behind the lower report, and you cant read what your shot chance is on all your guns.

[angriff]

Ok I was in the Battleship vs BattleCruiser mission and I built my BC for long range battle.  I fought to about 15 min left in the scenario and had managed to hit both gun control towers with about 60% superstructure damage.  Despite having had the ship to 50 flooding they managed to pump it all out and were back to 100% (Louisiana was the BB)

The question I have is how many redundant fire systems do they have?  I hit both towers and the enemy ship stopped firing even with its secondary guns.  Almost every naval gun has manual targeting local to the turret and would have manual methods to aim.  The secondary 4" would have complete manual.  I dont know why the ship just stopped firing back at me?  I was able to close to less than a km in the last 15 minutes and sink the ship but it never fired back with anything.  The first salvo close in killed both engines so I dont think it was simulation of lost power.

 

 

 

 

[AML]

3 hours ago, angriff said:

The question I have is how many redundant fire systems do they have?  I hit both towers and the enemy ship stopped firing even with its secondary guns.  Almost every naval gun has manual targeting local to the turret and would have manual methods to aim.  The secondary 4" would have complete manual.  I dont know why the ship just stopped firing back at me?  I was able to close to less than a km in the last 15 minutes and sink the ship but it never fired back with anything.  The first salvo close in killed both engines so I dont think it was simulation of lost power.

Sounds like the AI's ammo saving kicking in. Once the shells get down to certain point, not sure on the specifics of what that point actually is, the AI will halt all firing and in my experience isn't very reliable about resuming fire. Sometimes the shooting resumes as I close in but other times you can be in close enough to board and not a shot will be fired.

 

[angriff]

20 hours ago, AML said:

Sounds like the AI's ammo saving kicking in. Once the shells get down to certain point, not sure on the specifics of what that point actually is, the AI will halt all firing and in my experience isn't very reliable about resuming fire. Sometimes the shooting resumes as I close in but other times you can be in close enough to board and not a shot will be fired.

 

Well since I am not totally sure what I was looking at when I focused on the ship but it appears to have had plenty of ammo.  It never opened back up even though I was really close.

 

The other thing of a different note is that seems the secondary guns on the Port and Starboard side are not independently targeted.  You select port side secondary guns fire and the stbd side turns into the superstructure and will not fire at a ship that is alongside.  This is particularly acute in the 10 TB and 2 CA against the BB and 2 destroyer scenario.  I had two TB alonside my BB that had fired their torps off and missed they just moved in close with guns.  When I targeted one the opposite side stopped fireing.

[VarangianGarde]

On 2/18/2020 at 12:20 AM, Tlmitf said:

I think the font on this damage text needs some work, it is a bit low res and makes it hard to read rapidly.

@Tlmitf deals text wall of damage. Это супер эффективно!

[Mooncatt]

Might be a little late in the day and might have been mentioned before (not gonna read through 20+ pages)

here are my thoughts...

the newest academy missions are not too hard, what is hard and utterly ridiculous are the enemy ships turning and running. even though they are undamaged. this wouldn't be an issue IF the retreating ships were sinkable. but they are not. not in the slightest, as soon as an enemy ship turns and runs you may as well just go back to shipyard and do something else. this in my opinion (and im sure others too) is BIG game breaker in alpha. I would understand this if it was campaign, there would be an advantage of "fight another day" but in academy there isn't, so why not make ALL academy missions "no retreat"?

on to my next issue. the "random A.I ships" need to change. in the latest patch there seems to be one ship that you need to kill that's always faster than you. for example. "design the H class" I set my max speed to 25knts. the A,I always seem to run away but have a speed for 28knots. I go back to the ship yard and design a ship with 28.5knots and HEY-PRESTO the a.i now have 30knots top speed and they always seem to have just as large calibre guns and the same armour as they did before u left the battle. again, this is a game breaker and needs to change drastically or the campaign is gonna FLOP big time coz people will wise up to this and stop playing faster than a boy racer seeing a speed camera. I understand the need to make the game a challenge, I really do and its a good thing, but there is a line when the game becomes frustrating and disappointing. all of the above points to this. there is no reason in the academy that BBs OR target ships should be retreating, its the academy nothing more.

next on the agenda is AP vs HE. let me start buy saying my ol`man is a navy vet. having served on the HMS Fearless (frigate) HMS Decoy and the HMS Juno (destroyers) the armour on these ships are very very small. most of us might know why this is, for those that don't its basically this..... a large calibre AP shell would pass through the thin armour of a destroyer without causing TOO much damage. the HE shells in the game work well for destroyers and are much much better than AP. however I STILL see better results from HE at distance over AP against bigger ships like BBs. not sure what you guys think?

I still think we need better control over torpedo launching. perhaps maybe add a (im gonna get slaughtered for this I know) add a "world of warship" torpedo aiming system, where you get a cone of fire for the trajectory of torps to intercept an enemy ship. restrict it though...…..i.e cone fades the longer the distance? but above all torps need a manual fire system in place. as it stands torps are hard to use...….near impossible because they never launch when you want them to. I am the human player here, not the A.I, ill decide when I want my torps to launch.

this brings me on nicely to my last whine about the game. …… STOP switching targets!!! I don't care what A.I thinks I should be shooting at!! I want to shoot at whatever I want to shoot at. if that's my downfall so be it, im ok with that! what I don't want to be my downfall is switching to another target causing me to lose all my accuracy on the afore mentioned ship! its infuriating and numerous times its cost me the game!

hope this is treated as constructive! 

 

 

[cipher315]

Having now played through all the academy missions I have one big complaint and a few smaller ones.

 

The big one: being at an angle of 90 degrees should not make a ship invincible. When an enemy starts to run I end up in a stern chase. The idea that ANY level of armor let alone 4-5in will deflect an 18in shell at 1km is ridiculous. It's like watching someone use karate chops to deflect 50 cal bullets. I can fire 100+ 18in shells into a running BC at ranges less then 5km and literally do 1% structural damage.

Smaller ones.

I would like a bit more control over when I launch torpedoes.

As of right now oil may need a buff or semi oil may need a nerf. I almost never use oil as the cost dose not give me enough benefit to make it worth it over semi oil. This was obviously not true in the real world.

[eraserr83]

Battlecruisers should be really fixed, because of their reduced chance to hit really makes them fcking undying. While a battleship around 10km away have a chance to hit around 20-30%, Battlecruisers have only 0.7-1.5%. Their profile wasn't that small, and the difference between the hit chances is utterly unrealistic.

[SonicSuicide]

Hi there!

I like most of the naval academy scenarios altough I didn´t suceeded at all yet. What I found irritating was, that in some scenarios (f.e. dreadnought against modern cruisers) the enemy seems to hit almost always with the first and gets quickly to 40% hit chance, while my ship with radar and best rangefinder stays at around 1.5% for way too long. Ot did I do something wrong there?

Also I would like to see more pre- to early dreadnought scenarions.

[arkhangelsk]

The mission Cruisers Needed was a lot of fun. That is to say, it was easy. All I did was take these:

And hit him with them using mostly automatic control. He died quickly and scored maybe one hit on these wonderful large cruisers

[Masonator]

Torpedoes detonating magazines is the dumbest addition to this game yet. I can go into custom battles, set myself up with 4 maxed-out super-battleships at 130,000 tonnes displacement, Anti-Torp V torpedo belts, bristling with guns, and face off against nothing but 6 destroyers. The destroyer squadron will win 10 times out of 10 because the AI will always default to 24" torps as soon as they're available, which are practically guaranteed to detonate magazines and one-shot whatever ship they hit, every time. It completely ruins the pace of the game and is positively infuriating to try and deal with.

 

For reference, here's a picture of a custom battle I set up where a Dreadnought battleship, one heavy cruiser, one light cruiser, five destroyers, and a recreation of HMS Hood engaged a German transport fleet escorted by two heavy cruisers, one light cruiser, a Dreadnought battleship, and 6 destroyers. Literally one single  torpedo hit from a destroyer struck Hood on the hello kittying rudder, somehow magically detonated her magazines, and sunk her in one hit. Minutes later the exact same thing happened to my battleship, then again to my heavy cruiser. It's complete and utter bullshit.

[arkhangelsk]

Related to this:

Here are the latest batch of results.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/74WcFGd1Uu8xHVXZA

This time, it is one Japanese destroyer facing off 4 British battleships, 1 light cruiser and 1 destroyer.

First, when the battleships are normal sized rather than a 100,000 ton monster, destroyers don't spot them before being counterdetected by the battleship.

Second, my attempt to escort the enemy and give them hydroacoustic support did not seem to work, with the torpedoes of the first wave (20 of them) being detected extremely late, leading to the unjustified loss of British battleship. AI either needs to learn to install hydrophones when the opportunity is present or maneuver ships out of harm's ways based on hydrophonic detections.

Third, 24 inch torpedo waves are indeed lethal against battleship.

Fourth, without a spotter (like a battleship), one has to keep his destroyer close to guarantee constant contact, which means it gets snuffed before it can reload and shoot.

[madham82]

On 3/31/2020 at 10:56 PM, Masonator said:

Torpedoes detonating magazines is the dumbest addition to this game yet. I can go into custom battles, set myself up with 4 maxed-out super-battleships at 130,000 tonnes displacement, Anti-Torp V torpedo belts, bristling with guns, and face off against nothing but 6 destroyers. The destroyer squadron will win 10 times out of 10 because the AI will always default to 24" torps as soon as they're available, which are practically guaranteed to detonate magazines and one-shot whatever ship they hit, every time. It completely ruins the pace of the game and is positively infuriating to try and deal with.

 

For reference, here's a picture of a custom battle I set up where a Dreadnought battleship, one heavy cruiser, one light cruiser, five destroyers, and a recreation of HMS Hood engaged a German transport fleet escorted by two heavy cruisers, one light cruiser, a Dreadnought battleship, and 6 destroyers. Literally one single  torpedo hit from a destroyer struck Hood on the hello kittying rudder, somehow magically detonated her magazines, and sunk her in one hit. Minutes later the exact same thing happened to my battleship, then again to my heavy cruiser. It's complete and utter bullshit.

If you have had a ammo detonation with Anti-torp V and a capital ship sunk from a single hit, then it is definitely broke. We broke it out in another thread, and there is no record of any capital ship (i.e. actually has some kind of torpedo protection) being sunk because of a torpedo ammo detonation. There really isn't any proof any type of ship with a good torpedo bulge /protection ship having it occur either. They should definitely be able to cause it to DDs and most CL/CAs, and there are multiple examples of it. By a large margin, there are more examples of ammo detonations occuring because of fire than any single factor, but this isn't modeled yet. 

I personally have only had it happen in game on ships without any torpedo protection.