>>>Combat Feedback<<<

[shieldy44]

4 hours ago, DougToss said:

I appreciate your honesty. If anything, I think you're selling yourself a little short as that was a very thoughtful post. 

What UI or AI improvements would let you have fun, with everything "behind the scenes" being rigidly accurate? 

What I mean is, how could the meaning of gunnery tables be communicated to you in a fun and accessible way without you having to do,  or really even understand, the math? 

Would it help if the pointer was colour coded based on the estimated hit rate? 

Something like this?

a color coded pointer on hit rate i guess would be fine, i mean i understand percentages i can see the percentages and know my likely hood of hitting something, i dont know all the factors involved but i still dont think the accuracy is realistic, for example i have been stuck on a the navel academy mission where it is one BB against 4 torpedo boats. I get it would be very unlikely to get one of the big guns to hit a small fast moving target but i have been able to doge or absorb all their torpedo's so they are out and even when they are so close I could spit on them nothing will hit them. If thats realistic they why make something impossible a mission. I know that doesnt answer anything lol, but i guess what is the point of you are relying on pure RNG to get extremely lucky to hit something. 

[madham82]

10 hours ago, shieldy44 said:

a color coded pointer on hit rate i guess would be fine, i mean i understand percentages i can see the percentages and know my likely hood of hitting something, i dont know all the factors involved but i still dont think the accuracy is realistic, for example i have been stuck on a the navel academy mission where it is one BB against 4 torpedo boats. I get it would be very unlikely to get one of the big guns to hit a small fast moving target but i have been able to doge or absorb all their torpedo's so they are out and even when they are so close I could spit on them nothing will hit them. If thats realistic they why make something impossible a mission. I know that doesnt answer anything lol, but i guess what is the point of you are relying on pure RNG to get extremely lucky to hit something. 

The game currently gives several penalties to small, fast ships like TBs and DDs. That's why you are having trouble. The reality is the speed penalty is unrealistic. Accurately calculating your targets speed is the only factor that should impact it. Also the maneuvering penalty is based apparently on the target's rudder position, not the fact it is turning sharply. Another unrealistic issue. We are hoping at some point the devs will re-balance these issues. It should be easy for small ships to avoid fire at long ranges, but at close ranges like you mention should be suicidal for them.

Also IMO many of the NA missions are poorly balanced, putting you in situations that no naval commander would ever find themselves in. There have been some recent fixes to these, so things are getting better. My advice, play small scale custom battles to see how the game's core components work. Then try NA when you specifically want a challenge in design/command. 

Edited June 17, 2020 by madham82

[Cptbarney]

45 minutes ago, madham82 said:

The game currently gives several penalties to small, fast ships like TBs and DDs. That's why you are having trouble. The reality is the speed penalty is unrealistic. Accurately calculating your targets speed is the only factor that should impact it. Also the maneuvering penalty is based apparently on the target's rudder position, not the fact it is turning sharply. Another unrealistic issue. We are hoping at some point the devs will re-balance these issues. It should be easy for small ships to avoid fire at long ranges, but at close ranges like you mention should be suicidal for them.

Also IMO many of the NA missions are poorly balanced, putting you in situations that no naval commander would ever find themselves in. There have been some recent fixes to these, so things are getting better. My advice, play small scale custom battles to see how the game's core components work. Then try NA when you specifically want a challenge in design/command. 

NA? I think the ships velocity (speed and direction) should be taken into consideration along with size, that should give more realistic gun hits as changing direction often should have the biggest impact, rather than speed going in a straight which should make hits more consistent as staying on the same course make it easier to narrow down where to shoot and lead targets.

[madham82]

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

NA? I think the ships velocity (speed and direction) should be taken into consideration along with size, that should give more realistic gun hits as changing direction often should have the biggest impact, rather than speed going in a straight which should make hits more consistent as staying on the same course make it easier to narrow down where to shoot and lead targets.

NA=Naval Academy

Yea that's what I am saying. Changing speed and direction in between salvos is what should affect accuracy, not simply how fast it is going or if the rudder is hard over (remember the 1kt example Steeltrap shared). This would make designing maneuverable and light ships effective at evading long range fire, because they can change their bearing, course, and speed rapidly. Versus a fast BC, that is still a large target and unable change speed or course quickly. 

Conversely, if you are weaving and changing speed frequently, your own accuracy is negatively impacted as well. Meaning a DD doing this is either trying to escape or trying to get within torpedo range, not plinking away with guns with impunity. 

Edited June 17, 2020 by madham82

[akd]

2 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

NA? I think the ships velocity (speed and direction) should be taken into consideration along with size, that should give more realistic gun hits as changing direction often should have the biggest impact, rather than speed going in a straight which should make hits more consistent as staying on the same course make it easier to narrow down where to shoot and lead targets.

That’s not entirely correct.  What really drives the equation is relative movement.  Two ships sailing on a parallel course at 30kn is a completely different gunnery problem than the same ships on steeply converging courses.  But yes, relative to a constant course, adding changes to course and speed would increase the problem.  But speed itself not as dominant a factor as the game portrays.

[Cptbarney]

2 minutes ago, akd said:

That’s not entirely correct.  What really drives the equation is relative movement.  Two ships sailing on a parallel course at 30kn is a completely different gunnery problem than the same ships on steeply converging courses.  But yes, relative to a constant course, adding changes to course and speed would increase the problem.  But speed itself not as dominant a factor as the game portrays.

Its the same thing, going in a straight line while your enemy is doing the same with similarish ships is far easier to track your guns on, than a smaller target that keeps changing speed and direction and even distance.

Same with distance really, if both ships are parallel at a similar speed then aiming will take awhile if further away, compared to closer. The game doesn't take into consideration the ships velocity (Speed and direction) as much as it should, with direction (so manuvouring) being the dominant factor as sudden changes to course will throw anyone off.

[shieldy44]

5 hours ago, madham82 said:

The game currently gives several penalties to small, fast ships like TBs and DDs. That's why you are having trouble. The reality is the speed penalty is unrealistic. Accurately calculating your targets speed is the only factor that should impact it. Also the maneuvering penalty is based apparently on the target's rudder position, not the fact it is turning sharply. Another unrealistic issue. We are hoping at some point the devs will re-balance these issues. It should be easy for small ships to avoid fire at long ranges, but at close ranges like you mention should be suicidal for them.

Also IMO many of the NA missions are poorly balanced, putting you in situations that no naval commander would ever find themselves in. There have been some recent fixes to these, so things are getting better. My advice, play small scale custom battles to see how the game's core components work. Then try NA when you specifically want a challenge in design/command. 

thank you for that info, and I guess im a sucker for punishment lol, I am still over halfway done with the NA battles. But yea its mostly just pure RNG hell to finish some of them

[madham82]

1 hour ago, shieldy44 said:

thank you for that info, and I guess im a sucker for punishment lol, I am still over halfway done with the NA battles. But yea its mostly just pure RNG hell to finish some of them

No problem. Yea don't get too frustrated with them as they will continue to be tweaked. Look at them as missions from the devs to find what is broken. At least that's how I look at it. I play custom battles for fun factor. 

[DougToss]

“The range rate
Successful gunnery required that the position of the target be projected ahead, ultimately to the moment at which a shell might be expected to hit. To do that, the shooter had to calculate the rates at which the range and bearing of the target changed; they were usually called the range and bearing rates. Calculation was difficult because neither was constant, and because each depended on the other. Alternatively, one might think in terms of the vector (magnitude and direction) pointing from shooter to target. The change in this vector was another vector which might be called the rate vector. It could be expressed as two components, one along the line of fire and one across it. The rate along was usually called the range rate. The rate across was usually called deflection. Its magnitude was the bearing rate multiplied by the range.”

Excerpt From: Norman Friedman. “Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era.” Apple Books.

[Steeltrap]

11 hours ago, shieldy44 said:

thank you for that info, and I guess im a sucker for punishment lol, I am still over halfway done with the NA battles. But yea its mostly just pure RNG hell to finish some of them

I've been here since about October last year I believe. I've done 20 of the 47 NA battles, and I hardly play at all.

Why?

Because many of those missions I consider to be nonsense AND arguably push you to "problem solve" for a specific set of circumstances.

While that's fine if the idea is to do exactly that, I'd far prefer missions that specifically build, one after another, a player's understanding of the true underlying mechanics and the in-game design choices that affect them.

There's a great depth of detail in the ship builder that you'd never know if you didn't spend time holding your mouse over pretty much most of the statistics down the right side of the screen, for example. The interplay of funnel capacity and engine efficiency and related smoke interference and its potentially negative effects on gunnery accuracy are great examples.

Imagine this as one of many tutorials:

DESIGN CONCEPTS: Engine efficiency and smoke interference

(ship starts with speed slider, engine and boiler techs locked and main tower placed)

(Note that * means the item is highlighted exactly where it appears in the interface, and terms from the interface are shown in italics and underlined)

TIP: Hold your mouse over highlighted terms to see a pop-up giving more information.

TIP: If something is coloured RED, it is producing a negative effect. If GREEN, it's positive.

PART 1: Engine efficiency

- IF you want your ship to travel at the speed* you've chosen as its maximum, it will require a certain level of funnel capacity* to produce a decent engine efficiency* if you want to be able to reach that speed within battle conditions.

- The fuel you choose to be used to fire the boilers can affect smoke interference*, funnel capacity* or both.

- The boilers* (induced, forced etc) you choose will affect the funnel capacity* of any given funnel* you put on your ship.

CHALLENGE - put enough funnels* on your ship to reach 100% engine efficiency*.....(after player does so)....SUCCESS!!

PART 2: Smoke Interference

- Those funnels emit smoke from the boilers. Smoke can get in the way of your range finder* as it attempts to determine the range to your intended target. These things together are  shown as smoke interference* (in this case highlight the stat but ALSO the value on the funnel the player placed).

- Your main tower* reduces smoke interference* (show pop-up of main tower highlighting the smoke interference* value). In this case, the smoke interference* value is GREEN because it is making things better not worse.

- Your ship's total smoke interference* is shown here (highlight the value on the stat panel). If the number is greater than 0 then the smoke interference* will produce negative effects on your gunnery performance.

(bring up tooltip showing the smoke interference penalties; we know the value >0 because of the speed, funnels required to get 100% engine efficiency, and there's no secondary tower placed)

- Your ship needs a secondary tower*.

- Some secondary towers* also reduce smoke interference*.

CHALLENGE - place a secondary tower* that reduces smoke interference*.....(after player does so)....SUCCESS!!

....I'd continue by illustrating how you're in a struggle between maximising engine efficiency and speed yet minimising smoke interference. Also illustrate how you don't need 100% engine efficiency (I hope not, as almost nothing I design has it, lol) and the like. As an aside, I know I gave feedback that the whole issue of engine efficiency ought to be reflected in the TOP part of the stats, and potentially even be a "rejected build" trigger if below a certain percentage. As it is, it's right at the very bottom of the scrolling stats.

Point is there's a TON of important stuff that a newbie won't realise or understand. I know because I had to figure it out myself, and I'm something of a "I want to understand how this works before I DO anything with it" type and thus read all the tool-tips etc etc and the game won't tell them very clearly. I asked questions, too, and others who knew various things already were happy to explain/discuss.

I've suggested to the devs at some point they might want to draw on the community to design a FAQ/Concepts companion for the game simply because of the danger of people getting really frustrated as to why their ship "looks good" but performs like a floating turd because of all the penalties it has from smoke interference, pitch/roll, and all sorts of other things that new player has no idea about.

None of which is intended to be critical of how things are. Of course we don't have this sort of material as yet, nor do I expect we ought to.

I'm old enough to regret the fact that game companies these days don't make decent manuals, because it's "easier" to shove a game out and let the community work it out. Back in the days when dial up was the best available, game companies (and war games in particular) produced gorgeous, detailed manuals because they had to and they were expected to.

Anyway, enough rambling from me, lol.

Cheers

Edited June 18, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Hangar18]

On 6/16/2020 at 3:59 PM, shieldy44 said:

make the game accessible to more then just the people that can understand gunnery tables and all the other technical stuff.

You don't need to be an expert.

penetration is pretty simple: vertical is the side of the ship, horizontal is the deck. Look at the tool tip for your guns, compare that to the targets armor, and you know what ranges you need to be at to penetrate. In short, make your numbers bigger than theirs. If you are really struggling, the in game targeting tool-tip tells you your odds to penetrate. Make that number go up, and it'll tell you your penetration v their armor value as well, no need for a chart just look at that.

You don't need to sit there and plot out immunity zones for each ship. i wouldnt doubt if some people are doing that, but iitbh, i aint got time fo' dat.

 

What does make it more difficult is the way they have done different armor qualities. I'm not a huge fan of the way thats done, as it shows the thickness value of the base "iron" in the armor type. so when you look at guns and armor values it's iron rather than any armor + citadel upgrades.

On 6/18/2020 at 3:20 AM, Steeltrap said:

Anyway, enough rambling from me, lol.

Cheers

the tool tips are nice, but unless your attention is drawn towards the important information, you wont even get the tip.

[Steeltrap]

23 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

the tool tips are nice, but unless your attention is drawn towards the important information, you wont even get the tip.

Which is why I was suggesting tutorial missions to educate players as to the various info, what it means and how it interacts. The idea would be to have a sequence that more or less teaches someone how to design a ship from start and let them make informed decisions as they make the many choices necessary to arrive at a complete design.

[EDIT]

Thinking further, one significant element entirely uncommented upon is the potential to upgrade things via refits. Think of the spectacular career of HMS Warspite with multiple refits and changes, including entirely new superstructure (or Main Tower in the game), engines/boilers, TDS, elevation of main guns (started with 20 degrees, altered to 30) and so on. I for one think it's rather important to understand if/how things might be upgraded, and whether that might be a relevant question as you design a ship. In some instances about the only limiting factors were the base hull (although even that could be lengthened, for example) and budget. If displacement is an important limitation for upgrading, it might be worth having a larger displacement than might be optimal when the ship is built IF you are thinking significant upgrades can save you major costs, time and dockyard space in future.

The more we know about all this the more there is to consider when making designs.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Steeltrap

[shieldy44]

On 6/18/2020 at 12:20 AM, Steeltrap said:

I've been here since about October last year I believe. I've done 20 of the 47 NA battles, and I hardly play at all.

Why?

Because many of those missions I consider to be nonsense AND arguably push you to "problem solve" for a specific set of circumstances.

 

I have been here a week or two and only have 17 out of 40 left so idk like i said maybe im just a sucker for punishment, edit i have 30 out of 47 done so i have 17 left but still

Edited June 20, 2020 by shieldy44

[GDFKTT]

I've seen a lot of discussion here about the current way that rudders hard over and speed are affecting accuracy angainst smaller ships disproportionately and how to (for game purposes) most accurately model the effect of evasive tactics without giving them too much combat weight.

I want to provide Fighting Steel as an example of a game that I think elegantly handled this mechanic (to be fair I think actually Fighting Steel Project modded it in later after the developer abandoned it).  There was an "evasive manuevers" checkbox for each ship.  If you clicked it, although you could not see it in 3d combat it was assumed that the ship was undertaking slight jukes to it's course left and right for the purpose of evading incoming fire.  If it was checked, the ship recieved an accuracy penalty as well as a fire evasion bonus.  When the box was unchecked, the ship slowly came off of the "evasive" condition and the modifiers reverted to normal.  This prevented abusive micromanagement of the mechanic in between salvos.

Smaller ships I think got a slightly larger bonus and respective penalty as they were less stable but more manueverable platforms and took longer to come off the evasive condition.  Speed as far as I know did not play into that part of the evasion formula, rather it was covered in a different part of the overall accuracy calculations for the guns.

Something UAD might want to look at and consider.  Having to / even being able to micro juke and jive every ship to abuse the rudder hard over condition I think is a bad design decision.

Edited June 23, 2020 by GDFKTT

[Xenol]

Why is the friendly AI so broken 😭 does anyone else get issues of ships just randomly leaving formation to do a random loop? Then all the ships behind it in the squadron following it until what was originally a nice straight line becomes a complete mess?

[Hangar18]

7 hours ago, Xenol said:

Why is the friendly AI so broken 😭 does anyone else get issues of ships just randomly leaving formation to do a random loop? Then all the ships behind it in the squadron following it until what was originally a nice straight line becomes a complete mess?

Known bug.