Missions and Challenges - Community Feedback

[death1881]

DO you think it would be possible to make a campaign where you build a ship and try to survive multiple missions. Kinda like silent hunter 3 where you would take command off a sub and try to survive as many missions as possible while sinking as many ships as possible. You could have after action reports where you inspect battle damage pay for repairs upgrade's ore even redesign your ship with science and money you earn from completing mission's and sinking ships. It could add allot to the game also could you make it so the player can end the match instead off auto kicking the player that would be nice.

Thanks. JS

[Latur Husky]

On 3/29/2020 at 9:22 PM, EVIL_IRISH said:

I dont know what to do but I'm quite frustrated with these new missions like the german raiders or us super bb but the ai seems crazy accurate.  I the super battleship mission I have radar and cant seem to hit anything with it while the ai with obsolete tech keeps dropping rounds with a far greater degree of accuracy.  I dont know if this is a bug but it seems that the ai shouldn't be more accurate than a ship with radar.

I have similar feeling in few of the missions. AI seems to have god-like gunners while player gets bunch of blind people on board xD 

Prove your might seems to have that issue for example. 

[Steeltrap]

On 4/11/2020 at 4:43 AM, Latur Husky said:

I have similar feeling in few of the missions. AI seems to have god-like gunners while player gets bunch of blind people on board xD 

Prove your might seems to have that issue for example. 

The biggest problem with "Prove your might" (the rough recreation of the Battle of the Denmark Strait, right?) is the crazy speed and manoeuvrability of HMS Hood (36 knots when I played) and how the gunnery model rewards that.

At 36 knots I was getting a -90% penalty in the gunnery modifiers. She danced around doing crazy pirouettes, barely dropping speed. While doing so, of course, a "target ship manoeuvre" penalty of up to -40% from memory was also applied.

Thus the BEST you could hope for was -90% being applied to counter whatever bonuses you might have from your techs/towers. It could be higher than that, based on the trade off between outright speed penalty and the manoeuvre penalty.

Meanwhile MY ship was in fact something relatively sane for the period. Given I didn't have the benefit of speed over 29 knots, and I assume I was also giving them a pretty large "target ship size" bonus, I was an easier target.

Net effect of this was I was being hit AT LEAST ONCE every 1-2 salvoes, often more than once. In the first 10 minutes since opening fire, I HAD NOT HIT HOOD ONCE.

I quit the mission in bemused disgust, LOL, and haven't gone back to it.

Why would I? I'm aware of what I'm going to see, and I believe it to be pretty damn ridiculous. I also don't want to redesign my own ship to 'exploit' current game state issues that cannot possibly make it to the release version (at least not if the game wants to be true to its claim of as much realism as is reasonable to hope for).

'German Raiders' is another I've not succeeded with. Again, I think it's a problem of these missions pushing you to build ships that suit the peculiarities of the mechanics rather than the mechanics reflecting well how realistic ship builds ought to perform. I also found the massed gunnery of the transports themselves to be superior to my own, LOL I suspect the best answer would be massed torpedo spam from range, but that's another case of building a 'ridiculous' design to cope with various dubious mechanics etc. The other issue with that scenario is a German raider squadron would simply not engage at all when the escort is superior (the CA) in every respect that matters, let alone a BC known to be in the area. No, they'd run like hell, exactly as Scharnhorst and Gneisenau did in WW2 when encountering convoys escorted by the Revenge class BB HMS Ramillies in one case and the Queen Elizabeth class BB HMS Malaya in another. They'd already been on the receiving end of those 15" guns when encountering HMS Renown during the Norway campaign, suffered significant damage from a few hits each, and rightly had no intention of repeating the experience.

[be interested to know what people did with the Raiders mission in particular. Get enough TR with 'maximum' bulkheads and festooned with 4" guns and good luck with it, LOL]

I'm not going to bash my head against certain currently poor mechanics as I don't find that remotely enjoyable or rewarding. I don't play "to puzzle solve", I play to see how "proper" designs perform in this game platform. The more 'ridiculous' I consider my designs to be, especially if they "need" to be to succeed, the less happy I am about it.

It's also why I don't favour missions that put you in circumstances where the 'sensible, prudent, realistic' option would be to refuse combat at all. I'd prefer to be testing the sorts of battles I would in fact fight were I playing a campaign. I assume and accept the point of needing to test how the differences in tech can affect performance and just how much current mechanics can allow one or two powerful ships to demolish a whole bunch of enemies while taking little damage.

I simply raise the points wherever in the forum and move on.

[Latur Husky]

On 4/15/2020 at 7:37 AM, Steeltrap said:

The biggest problem with "Prove your might" (the rough recreation of the Battle of the Denmark Strait, right?) is the crazy speed and manoeuvrability of HMS Hood (36 knots when I played) and how the gunnery model rewards that.

At 36 knots I was getting a -90% penalty in the gunnery modifiers. She danced around doing crazy pirouettes, barely dropping speed. While doing so, of course, a "target ship manoeuvre" penalty of up to -40% from memory was also applied.

Thus the BEST you could hope for was -90% being applied to counter whatever bonuses you might have from your techs/towers. It could be higher than that, based on the trade off between outright speed penalty and the manoeuvre penalty.

Meanwhile MY ship was in fact something relatively sane for the period. Given I didn't have the benefit of speed over 29 knots, and I assume I was also giving them a pretty large "target ship size" bonus, I was an easier target.

Net effect of this was I was being hit AT LEAST ONCE every 1-2 salvoes, often more than once. In the first 10 minutes since opening fire, I HAD NOT HIT HOOD ONCE.

I quit the mission in bemused disgust, LOL, and haven't gone back to it.

Why would I? I'm aware of what I'm going to see, and I believe it to be pretty damn ridiculous. I also don't want to redesign my own ship to 'exploit' current game state issues that cannot possibly make it to the release version (at least not if the game wants to be true to its claim of as much realism as is reasonable to hope for).

'German Raiders' is another I've not succeeded with. Again, I think it's a problem of these missions pushing you to build ships that suit the peculiarities of the mechanics rather than the mechanics reflecting well how realistic ship builds ought to perform. I also found the massed gunnery of the transports themselves to be superior to my own, LOL I suspect the best answer would be massed torpedo spam from range, but that's another case of building a 'ridiculous' design to cope with various dubious mechanics etc. The other issue with that scenario is a German raider squadron would simply not engage at all when the escort is superior (the CA) in every respect that matters, let alone a BC known to be in the area. No, they'd run like hell, exactly as Scharnhorst and Gneisenau did in WW2 when encountering convoys escorted by the Revenge class BB HMS Ramillies in one case and the Queen Elizabeth class BB HMS Malaya in another. They'd already been on the receiving end of those 15" guns when encountering HMS Renown during the Norway campaign, suffered significant damage from a few hits each, and rightly had no intention of repeating the experience.

[be interested to know what people did with the Raiders mission in particular. Get enough TR with 'maximum' bulkheads and festooned with 4" guns and good luck with it, LOL]

I'm not going to bash my head against certain currently poor mechanics as I don't find that remotely enjoyable or rewarding. I don't play "to puzzle solve", I play to see how "proper" designs perform in this game platform. The more 'ridiculous' I consider my designs to be, especially if they "need" to be to succeed, the less happy I am about it.

It's also why I don't favour missions that put you in circumstances where the 'sensible, prudent, realistic' option would be to refuse combat at all. I'd prefer to be testing the sorts of battles I would in fact fight were I playing a campaign. I assume and accept the point of needing to test how the differences in tech can affect performance and just how much current mechanics can allow one or two powerful ships to demolish a whole bunch of enemies while taking little damage.

I simply raise the points wherever in the forum and move on.

 

[Steeltrap]

The 'bug' you encountered with the two cruisers is not really a bug as opposed to an unfortunate default. Fixing it would be useful, and I must confess I've never bothered to report it.

I've noticed when I detach ships I need to go to them and click on the 'steady' flag as they will often still be on guard or follow, but given they're now their own division they aren't following/guarding anything.

With that extra step you'll solve that problem. Surprised you've not encountered it before.

Conclusion about the mission?

Your design wasn't greatly different from mine. Can't help but feel that an awful lot of the success/failure of this mission comes down to outright luck in terms of the bulkhead status and armament of at least 12 of the TR fleet, plus where you spawn relative to the enemy CA (on one occasion it was directly between me and the TR, LOL).

I think at least one of my designs was VERY similar to yours. I only had two, however, although I did have some slight improvements over yours. I DID find it interesting seeing the totally different way in which we go about designing them. Not saying either is better/worse, merely significantly different (I don't put anything on the ship until I decide on the components I want, and I also chose different components over yours).

One thing that struck me with your victory was the TRs were unarmed; in my attempts they were festooned with 4" and/or 3" guns. I noticed on someone else's play through, who also lost but for different reasons, that their TR also were all but unarmed. Every time I'VE played, I've run into an absolute barrage of potentially 2-4 x 4" and/or 2-4 x 3" PER TR. Put 10+ of them in range and that's 20-40+ 4" / 20-40+ 3". They may have a low chance to hit, but that many of them? Well, as the saying goes, throw enough shit at something some of it will stick. I think THAT is a factor not to be downplayed. With the low armour of these ships, those 3" and 4" guns can do damage. I was suffering as much or more from the damned TR than the CA.

When facing all that fire from the TR fleet, your 'few' bulkhead CLs would've been torn to pieces. Mine had 'many' bulkheads and better armour and still were. I was in the ridiculous position of not being to engage TR ships because their combined firepower far exceeded that which my two "raiders" could produce, LOL.

In fact it just highlighted to me that the commander of that CL raider squadron ought never have been taking that fight at all, and, while I appreciate the desire to test things, I DO find being forced to take on missions you'd NEVER sensibly do were you playing the Campaign a bit irritating after a while. But perhaps that's just me; I certainly don't EXPECT missions to be built the way I want them to be.

I DID like your approach of trying to lure the CA away, although the tactical layout was such that it wasn't particularly achievable. Of course one would hope the AI would recognise its mission and not be lured away, ESPECIALLY if it knows there's a BC on the way.

You had the same problem I also did, with the MAX bulkhead TRs being absurdly durable.

ALL THREE of the first ones you engaged were MAX bulkheads, and that means their ability to control fires below the top deck, plus flooding, is insane. Add the fact that small calibre guns (6" and lower) appear to be significantly less likely to cause flooding, and any TR with MAX is pretty much a waste of time for your guns. I've been saying for a LONG time that I think, given the current version of the damage control system etc, TR ships should not be allowed more than Standard bulkheads. Anything further is hugely unrealistic as merchant ships are built with ONE consideration above all others, namely profitability. Greater subdivision is unnecessary AND gets in the way of cargo capacity. Furthermore, no transport ship has any sort of ARMOURED bulkheads. They're built principally with fire and flooding containment in mind. Shell fire and torpedoes? Nope. That's why most would take a single torp to sink (which does tend to happen in game), but also were not difficult to sink with 88mm/105mm on German or 4"/5" guns on USN subs, mainly the former however as the Japanese merchant fleet often had guns/escorts compared with the 'happy times' of 1939-40 in the Atlantic.

I've been banging on at poor Nick about this forever. He did alter them somewhat, although in some ways I think it was a worse change. Rather than simply preventing them from having bulkheads beyond 'Standard', he appears to have made them generally more fragile. Ironically, from what I've seen that has made the bulkhead status EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT, LOL. They'd have been fine as they were if the AI TR were simply not allowed to have more than standard bulkheads (and I hope to hell they can't have armoured bulkheads tech) until the damage and damage control models are improved significantly.

Cheers

Edited April 17, 2020 by Steeltrap

[DarkMaid]

At first blush I thought this one would be near impossible, too. First try using Extra Funds and a fleet of 4 CL gunboats (each with two 7" and four 3") and the defending CA was a real boss: 15,000 ton AC covered in triple 7" or 8" turrets (surprised it didn't roll over when firing a broadside lol). It drove me off, disabling one of my CL to half speed. I withdrew out of visual range, then turned around and closed the rear of the convoy again but not too long after that the BC showed up and it was game over. I think I sank maybe 5 TN's total. Pecking at the TN's from 5 km or more takes too long. Granted, a single 7" in chase mode wasn't very effective (on 3 ships plus the trailer).

Second try I went with the Shells and Torps option for just two CL each armed with eight 4", four 3" and a 5 tube launcher amidship. These CL's weren't any faster and only had Standard bulkheads (ie. they weren't any better defensively than the four CL's previously). I thought I'd try anyway just to see how one multi torp launcher per ship would fare. I expected to lose one or both CL's way before tallying 12 TN but I wanted to practice my torpedo firing on a real convoy and also to see if a mostly guns and one quintuple torp launcher ship would fare (ie. a CL that made sense historically rather some torpedo only fantasy design).

The torps were a big difference. The TN's are so bunched that every volley got at least one ship. Even just the one launcher (for two total launchers). I used every reload, too, so the TN kills and near-kills by torps really added up (and my guns were doing damage as well). If the player had the ability to set the spread of the torps to a wider arc I could see nailing 2 or 3 ships per volley. The CA also seems quick to turn away whenever there are torps in the water (even though I only targeted the cruiser once) so it never closed to effective range and was constantly circling around instead. That was probably the biggest factor. Although some of the TN's had guns, they never did much damage to me. I won: it was still tough and I felt that any minute my whole fleet could be vaporized if the ai decided to actually get serious.

Like you mentioned, no real life commander would take on an AC like that using tinfoil CL's other than maybe to launch a one spread of torps (spray and pray) and withdraw. He'd be rushing down to the boiler room to help his firemen shovel coal faster before his command got turned into giant cheese graters. If a human played the CA it would be no problem to wipe out the German CL's before losing 12 TN's. Certainly not in daylight. There's no way a human with a 15,000 ton AC and all those guns would allow 2 tinfoil CL's to survive long enough to reload torps 3 or 4 times like I was able to. The only difference seemed to be the torps in the water cowing the escort from getting too close.

I did go back and try to win the mission with gun-only ships (better load outs with smaller guns instead of single 7 inchers). The closest I came to beating it was using 2 of the larger CL hulls (better towers), and mass 5" guns. The CA escort sank one of my 2 ships actually fairly early but somehow my remaining ship was able to keep whittling down the convoy. It even ran out of 3" ammo (I went with reduced ammo). Again, I was saved by the escort ai not closing to just blow me away. I was looking at the TN list and thought I was on the last TN when over-the-horizon shots from the BC started arcing in. My ship was down to 4 kts and under 40% in both float and struct. The last TN was 3 kts and burning stem to stern but wouldn't die. It was a race to see if I could kill that last TN before getting sunk myself. It took forever but I finally sank the TN but it turned out my math was off by one ship. The rest of the convoy was already out of sight and the escorts were content to keep escorting rather than finish me off. My battered ship turned for home and a lengthy stay in drydock. Failed the mission but left me with the impression that it's not impossible with guns only.

I had one mission where all 3 of my CL were sunk before the 24 min mark (it took at least 10 mins before shots were fired). Ammo detonations were brutal. Another mission I happened to approach the convoy while they were heading toward me. When the TN's turned away at least 2 got rammed by other TN's. I was wondering what those loud noises were. Might want to tweak the ai pathing a bit because TN's were turning in all sorts of directions. If I'd had torps it would have been a turkey shoot.

Inspecting the TN's they do come in a variety of designs and mix of bulkhead loadouts which was nice to see. I agree that the max bulk ones are real damage sponges.

With a near perfect optimized fleet composition, practice, luck, and a squeamish ai I think a pure gunboat strat is definitely possible but it's nowhere near as effective as even having one torp launcher available is. Well, maybe that's one of the points to learn anyway: if short on time, ships and the enemy has two monster escorts on hand or on the way then guns alone are too slow. I will win that mission yet, though (without torps)

Edit: Tried again with 4 CL using Extra Funds. 12x6", 4x3". No torps. Failed almost same way: the escort sank 3 of my 4 ships then sort of got bored with me and let my last damaged cruiser pick off about 4 more TN. My speed was too slow (11 kts due to a damaged (more like destroyed) engine) to catch up with the undamaged TN's which were out of sight by now.

I had the perfect start: I came up the convoy from behind with the escort on the other end. Quickly sank 4 TN's and then the AC starting wrecking my ships one at a time despite making it switch targets, etc. One thing I learned though: rather than destroying the TN's in turn, instead try to slow down the twelve you need first that way even if you have a mangled attack force near the end you can possibly mop up later. The escort seems to stick with the undamaged portion of the convoy so if you can avoid a few mortal blows from the AC or the BC you might be able to pull it off. Going to try that idea next.

Edited April 17, 2020 by DarkMaid

[Latur Husky]

Been bored few hours ago, so I gave it a shot.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Latur Husky

[Galis]

I've got a small question / feedback / rant 
What's up with AI and its armor fetish? I just gave a shot to the US Super Battleship mission, everything seems to go well. Except the enemy battleships that were supposed to be obsolete had over 600mm of belt armor. My 457mm guns weren't able to penetrate them at range but I somehow managed, thanks to radar and technology I had quite good chance to hit so I just pummeled them into submission.

Then comes the Japanese Super Battleship. Over 700mm of armor, guns as large as mine (but much more accurate), 10 knots faster than myself. Naturally, I wasn't able to penetrate her in the slightest so my shells only shattered or ricocheted off. I could get closer, but the enemy had screening force of eight destroyers with a lot of torpedoes. 

Wouldn't it be good to put some kind of limitations on the AI and how much armor they can strap on their vessels? I want to just remind everyone that USS Montana project assumed that the ship would have 400mm of belt armor (as much as I strapped to my own Super Battleship), Yamato had 410mm and Bismarck 320mm. Over 600 or 700 milimeters of belt armor isn't just borderline unplayable to fight against, it's also borderline impossible. Ships like that would have to be extremely heavy. And I forgot to mention that the Japanese Super Battleship was 40 thousand tonnes lighter than my own. With nearly twice as much armor, 10 knots more on the clock, the same 457mm guns, more secondaries and more ammo onboard. 

Idk, have anyone got similar experiences or am I just salty? 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Galis

[Latur Husky]

AI is not limited to put that operational range slider fully down so it might be able to make lighter ships. There might also be difference in modules that AI was using. And finally Armor that is described in the game on enemy card refers to highest and lowest value among all armor zones not only Belt. AI might have taken high turret armor, but his belt is thin. If you hoover your mouse over the target it will show you effective armor based on thickness and angle so values can go even higher. 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Latur Husky

[DarkMaid]

1 hour ago, Latur Husky said:

Been bored few hours ago, so I gave it a shot.

Great video! Appreciate you making another one for the same mission but with guns only. Some observations:

1) I also noticed overpens for small damage while using 6" guns and this doesn't seem right if it's HE. I was noting the damage from those 4" guns and it was dwarfing anything I was doing using 6" HE. It's always been in my head that HE explodes after encountering something. AP, of course, is for getting past that something (armor) and hitting for less damage but in a more critical space (engineering, magazines, gun turrets. etc.) If HE has even minor armor piercing capability I'd like to find out what it is so I can make a more informed decision when I make the HE or AP choice while in combat. (Not addressed to you but to the game developer).

2) You verified the collisions that also occurred in one of my games when approaching the convoy when it is headed toward you. The ai then had the convoy turn away but the pathing is so bad that some of the ships ram their neighbors. The ai needs to have convoy maneuvers simplified so that all ships in the convoy do the same turn OR follow the ship ahead of them with the lead ships turning in unison. Or something. Someone with knowledge of convoy navigation practices in WWII would need to chime in.

3) I was also surprised at the number of hits you were getting at those ranges. Tower IV or V on the bigger hull really helped. Even so you just squeaked it through (the collisions helped). Really good job on avoiding damage and your range control. Something I have to work on myself. The BC didn't even find you (I guess it was hanging with its AC buddy way up at the van of the convoy).

I'm pretty confident now that just switching to 4" guns for this mission should make a massive difference. IMO overpens should not exist for HE ammunition -- as far as I'm concerned in land or sea or air the bigger the HE shell should always be more destructive than a smaller one (if it hits). Overpens with HE is completely counterintuitive at least to me. Overpens should only be a consideration for AP shells.

Gonna try again this evening  I'm actually enjoying these challenging missions more (as long as they aren't TOO luck dependant and actually possible.

Edited April 18, 2020 by DarkMaid

[Latur Husky]

Apparently HE shells can over penetrate. Fuses have their reaction time, even though it's shorter than the one in AP shells it's still there so if armor is super thin shell will just pass through and fuse won't make it to activate on time.

Path finding of ships in convoys is bad, because there is no correct formation programmed and AI get's confused. Instead of having correct box formation they got multiple line formations with screening order on lead ship/formation, so if one ship needs to turn, other line formations doesn't take that into account while performing their maneuvers. But on the other hand there were issues in the history where ships rammed each other because of poor communication/vision/navigation skills.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Latur Husky

[DarkMaid]

4 minutes ago, Latur Husky said:

Apparently HE shells can over penetrate. Fuses have their reaction time, even though it's shorter than the one in AP shells it's still there so if armor is super thin shell will just pass through and fuse won't make it to activate on time.

Makes sense but I also recall reading accounts of the British observer during the Battle of Tsushima who noted that the Japanese shells exploded after encountering even the slightest impediment. All my books are in storage but I did find this on Wikipedia:

"The Japanese also used mostly high-explosive shells with shimose (melinite), which was designed to explode on contact and wreck the upper structures of ships.^[44] The Russians used armour-piercing rounds with small guncotton bursting charges and unreliable fuses.^[45] Japanese hits caused more damage to Russian ships than Russian hits on Japanese ships, setting the superstructures, the paintwork and the large quantities of coal stored on the decks on fire."

Not being an ordnance expert I can only form an opinion and impression on what I've read over the years (well, decades)

[Latur Husky]

42 minutes ago, DarkMaid said:

Makes sense but I also recall reading accounts of the British observer during the Battle of Tsushima who noted that the Japanese shells exploded after encountering even the slightest impediment. All my books are in storage but I did find this on Wikipedia:

"The Japanese also used mostly high-explosive shells with shimose (melinite), which was designed to explode on contact and wreck the upper structures of ships.^[44] The Russians used armour-piercing rounds with small guncotton bursting charges and unreliable fuses.^[45] Japanese hits caused more damage to Russian ships than Russian hits on Japanese ships, setting the superstructures, the paintwork and the large quantities of coal stored on the decks on fire."

Not being an ordnance expert I can only form an opinion and impression on what I've read over the years (well, decades)

Shimose powder is upgraded Lyddite. Russians also used it in Russo-Japanese war, but shimose had higher burn temperature and was technically a bit more stable. And it is in your text xD 

So Japan used Lyddite or (Picric acid) in HE shells and Russians used Gun cotton and AP shells. When it comes to reliability of fuses it's not that hard, they require certain force to be activated, and they're hidden somewhere behind shell cap. If Armor is too thin, the cap will not deformate enough and won't activate the fuse, so shell won't explode. On the other hand if the fuse needs too much force or is faulty and just don't work it will also not activate even if armor is hard enough to cause the cap to deformate enough.

HE shells just have very thin cap compared to AP shells. But it also needs to be thick enough to survive the blast of shell being fired to prevent them being detonated before they leave gun barrel. That's why Higher caliber HE shells needs thicker Cap than lower caliber ones. Shock of firing that heavy shell is just too large to keep it too thin and thus those can still over penetrate.   Later on, cap shape changed to improve AP shell's performance but principle is the same.

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Latur Husky

[DarkMaid]

1 hour ago, Latur Husky said:

shimose is upgraded Lyddite. Russians also used it in Russo-Japanese war, but shimose had higher burn temperature and was technically a bit more stable. And it is in your text xD 

So Japan used Lyddite and HE shells and Russians used Guncotton and AP shells.

Thanks for expansion on that but my point was more about the shells exploding after encountering the slightest impediment (I'm quoting the British liason officer by memory here and it seems to me "slightest impediment" was what he used as a description). Or else my memory is off. As I mentioned I need to get my books out of storage for a proper reference.

Anyway, whatever the overpen is for HE for various calibers it's something I'll have to observe and adapt to. It's also possible that in-game calculations have to be simplified to some extent in order to have a working game using typical home computers.

Edit: Just won the mission using guns only. As suspected switching to 4" was the biggest factor. First TN went down at 4:54 and the last one at 35:15. As before I used Extra Funds for four ships only this time mounting 12 x 4" singles and 4 x 3" casements. I even went with Light Shells to further avoid Over Pens (though I kinda of missed losing 5% range). Going with the 4 inchers instead of the 6 inchers also allowed a 0.5 kt speed boost and various upgrades like Citadel II. All ships returned to port to navy bands celebrating their return.

Battle-wise the escorting AC sported 6 x 9" fore and aft and no less than 30 x 7" arrayed in 10(!) triple turrets (five per side). 23 kts. A broadside of six 9" and 15 7". It also kept itself in the fight often right in the middle of the convoy so I really had to peck away at near maximum 4" range. Ended up having one CL attack one side of the convoy, two on the other and the most damaged CL directly behind. No collisions by the convoy though there were a couple of close calls.

As a result of the operation a couple ships had a damaged engine, one had 65% float, the rest were all above 80% in float and structure. And Wilhelmshaven ran out of Iron Crosses

Edited April 18, 2020 by DarkMaid

[Angrygenius]

I think my least favorite missions right now is the one where you have to fight the semi-dreadnaught and the one where you have to protect your transports from three heavy cruisers.

 

With the semi-dreadnaught, you cant really get guns big enough to do reliable damage, but it can do big damage back. I suppose the answer might be secondaries and armor, but it's cruiser escort makes getting close a pain. Also, the random dropping of the ships into battle means that your cruiser escort may be in a position where they can't help you (or die immediately to the dreadnaught). This may just be down to my ship building skills though. It would be helpful if they had a pre-dreadnaught model where you could put a 13-inch gun at the front W/O getting in the way of the mast though.

The raiders mission, however, is even harder. Basically, what happens (in a period of less that 5 minutes usually) Is that the cruisers spawn close enough to spot the transports, ignore my BBs, and kill a transport and make me fail the mission (sometimes before I can even do damage). I actually don't think i can complete this mission within the parameters it currently has. It would probably be easier if there were more transports and the win condition wasn't so draconic (maybe something like '60% of TR's must survive').

Other than those two, i actually really like the later missions, especially the one where you build the H-class. I have an infatuation with the H-class plans just for the idea of a ship that big with that much firepower existing, and this game not only brought it to life, it let me make it!

 

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

Mission: Rise of the Heavy Cruiser

Description: Fight three reconstructed armored cruisers.

With that description, I kinda expect to fight something with at least _some_ resemblance to , well, armored cruisers.

Instead, I run into this. 

3 x 3  11-inch guns, 27.5 knots, up to 15 inches of armor.

I mean sure, they are _reconstructed_ but come on, this is just ridiculous!

 

Suggestion: 

For the scenarios, how about locking down the AI's designs to be used to a couple of at least _somewhat_ realistic ones?

 

[Steeltrap]

[I'll add my frequent statement of intent etc that criticisms of the existing systems are intended as constructive and also fully acknowledging we're in developing Alpha builds, so things aren't going to be as good as we might hope,  and of course I don't expect them to be]

@DarkMaid and @Latur Husky

Thanks for the discussions, and especially thanks for the additional video effort.

Yet again, notice how the transports you faced either were unarmed or minimally so? You could shoot at them while they could not shoot back. That's simply HUGE, because your ships aren't really able to shrug off repeated 4" rounds.

While I like the reasoning initially for spreading your two ships, one minor quibble is that 'Test 1' was taking a -15% penalty for "far from flagship". As things stand, there's not much incentive for any significant separation of units. Ideally I'd have the 'flag' bonus configurable, or alter it entirely, so it works somewhat like a slider, which is to say you can choose the maximum BONUS you can get from being in flag range, but that also immediately attracts a PENALTY when you get outside it (which is how the system works now). On the other end of the scale, however, you could elect to have NO bonus when close, but that also gives you no penalty when further apart. It's more important for a fleet to have fairly close cohesion than a pair of raiders, but I realise I'm straying well into the "nice to have some time way off in the future".

When it comes to over-pen with HE, I have submitted screen shots of cases where an over-pen makes no sense for small calibre (think 6" or lower) guns. How, for example, would you over-pen any target where the shell trajectory and the location hit means that shell MUST have continued into a substantial extent of the hull? It's somewhat OK to say even 6" shells might go through the funnel without exploding, but the hull? No. Any HE shell of those calibres penetrating the hull from virtually ANY angle, with the possible exception of the narrowest taper at bow/stern from an angle where a through-and-through might be possible, would explode. Watching 5" HE shells getting over-pens of centre belt with a striking angle of 45 degrees off the perpendicular is not right.

Another important factor I've not seen ANYONE mention as yet is the last update appears to have frozen the weather in scenarios. If someone else wants to check, just open a scenario a few times in a row, noting the weather then leaving the battle.

When I played this mission the weather appeared to be fixed as REALLY POOR. The trouble with that was it pushed everything into the WORST possible conditions for my ships. Visibility was bad, so I had to be MUCH closer before spotting them. It also meant I couldn't hit them unless being even closer. Trouble with THAT was it meant the transports, covered with 3"-4" guns, could hit ME, and my ships couldn't take that massed fire.

Which also brings up another thing I'll have to list somewhere (I've mentioned it before), which is the spotting system. More precisely, the ability of ships to fire at a target THEY CAN'T SEE. In the case of this particular scenario, it means EVERY TR with guns with enough range can shoot at you. It also means the CA can and, eventually, the BC, even if the ONLY ships that can see you directly are a few TR.

Indirect fire control wasn't really a thing, sure as hell not between a merchant ship and naval vessel. Yet for now that's what we get.

I realise all this might sound like me making excuses for why I kept losing. In one sense it is, but for the purpose of trying to make some points I made earlier, which add up to the degree to which the same scenario USED to be able to vary so wildly compared with what I've seen lately. With the weather locked in a setting advantageous to our raiders, TR apparently restricted in their armament, and an escort AI that, face it, is very much not up to scratch AS YET, it's a different beast. I might have to re-run it to see if I get the same.

As an aside, I did run the scenario prior to the recent April 1st small update (which I believe is where the 'weather lock' came in) with the smaller CLs that could have deck mounted torpedoes. I had 1x3 and 1x2, yet that was back when the weather was dreadful and the TR were all armed to the teeth. I got torps off, even sank several TR with them, but the visibility meant I had to get close enough that the instant massed fire from everything all but trashed whichever of my ships was first spotted.

I think you can see why I kept finding this mission hugely frustrating, LOL.

As an aside, Tsushima resulted in navies, the RN especially, drawing what proved to be INCORRECT lessons initially. By the time Jellicoe became C-in-C Grand Fleet, one thing he did was give clear expressions of expected gunnery doctrine. It was interesting in that it stressed careful, DELIBERATE fire at long ranges, shifting to full RoF only once good solutions had been achieved as verified by fall of shot. He also very clearly expected the highly damaging, telling fire to occur at ranges of 10,000 yards /9.1km where APC ammo was expected to be able to penetrate armour. He even went so far as to set a time limit on how long the fleet could stay in line ahead for purposes of engaging with all guns based on the time it would take for torpedoes to cross the intervening space, so conscious was he of the danger of massed torpedo spreads at a battle line. Point is he did NOT expect longer range HE fire to do anything much other than create potential incidental damage to fire control systems, upper works, plus fires and general morale effects.

As I said, and you @DarkMaid also commented on, it's a scenario no sane raider squadron commander would take on unless there were some bizarrely significant strategic conditions (think of them being a mass of troop landing ships near Leyte Gulf as a good parallel, the nature of the combat ships not being relevant).

Cheers

Edited April 20, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Steeltrap]

Just played Raiders, first time since the 'locked weather' (gives you a net effect of +2.5% accuracy).

2 CLs with 28 knots speed, 4 centreline 5" plus 2-3 x 4" depending on bearing to target. Armoured to withstand 4" guns at any range, and larger at various ranges depending on angle (much as I dislike that particular mechanic).

Result?

I bounced some 9" rounds at range. Most damage came from a deck pen that damaged the rear tower. No other damage to speak of.

Total cake walk. Was allowed to chew up the formation from astern. Biggest irritation remains the damage model, frankly.

Mission went from being a nightmare, all but impossible in the initial iteration with VERY bad weather and a convoy full of transports with half your own armament on each, to a doddle.

Pretty remarkable illustration of:

- the (unjustifiably) high levels of immunity offered by sheer, straight line speed.

- the critical importance of the weather. If you can't see far, and can't hit until you get even closer, and EVERYTHING can shoot at you even when they can't see you, that can be VERY telling for the outnumbered and outgunned side unless their few ships are vastly superior.

- continued, all but exponential importance of bulkhead status. I encountered NO Bismarck-like MAX bulkhead TR. Only 3 of them had 4" guns, too. Even so, the usual issues with the damage model persist as expected.

- the significant issues remaining with the AI. I SAW the CA only twice. It stayed at the head of the formation, shooting uselessly, while I demolished the TR it was meant to protect. If the BC made it anywhere near the battle I wasn't aware of it. Didn't appear to be shooting at me by the time I killed the last required TR. I'm sure this will be fixed eventually. If there's one thing we know Nick has a lot of experience in addressing it's AI.

Interesting.

Cheers

Edited April 20, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Cptbarney]

@Steeltrap I assumed weather has always been fluid so far in the game? if it wasn't should be changed back, we need the seas to either get rougher or calmer in general and maybe the flags blowing in the direction of the sea and sometimes big sea waves.

I think the problem with surviability is tied to the module rather than hull, since all ships get the same type of bulkheads, torpedo belts and hull thickness (Not armour actual hull). so that will need to be addressed at somepoint as well.

For flagships instead of a nerf, you can either just get a buff or nothing depending how close you are to her in-general. Maybe a nerf if she dies since most peeps won't be to energetic to see their commanding officer, plus flagship blow up and sink.

The problem with that mission is that your own ships seem to be blind as hell wihle the transports can hide themselves into other dimensions in-general which causes problem since you have to get too close to them, while the BC (sometimes supercruiser) plus the CA just dumps on your light cruisers while they try to take down the transports.

I think the locked weather system might be a bug (i hope it is) and if so needs to be fixed asap since a dynamic weather system not only adds points to the games realism chart but makes every battle unique and allows for cool visuals as well.

I can understand some HE shells not penning ships (since tech back then wasn't reliable enough half the time untill a certain point, but most hits should be a pen on ships with no armour if not doing large amounts of inside damage to said ship even with max bulkheads).

I also like the idea of limiting rate of fire atm, its full or not. You could even have accuracy and aim time bonuses as ships fire a few rounds to judge distance, speed, length, lead etc. allowing for full salvoes to be alot more accurate (or as accurate as they could be). Things like the sun being behind you or opposite could give both buff and nerfs, same with lots of clouds or fog.

You could set how many ranging shots you want so we would need a seperate windows for naval doctrine which before any battle the fleets would follow to a T (or as best as they could in various themes and battles) and this would allow for also different types of fighting as well.

I predict we may see the first nibbles of the campaign and i predict again maybe next week lol.

 

[Latur Husky]

2 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

The problem with that mission is that your own ships seem to be blind as hell wihle the transports can hide themselves into other dimensions in-general which causes problem since you have to get too close to them, while the BC (sometimes supercruiser) plus the CA just dumps on your light cruisers while they try to take down the transports.

I wouldn't be surprised if enemy CA and BC had radar in this mission, and the main purpose of it is to extend visibility range and allow for firing at targets hidden in smoke or fog. 

Flagship bonus was not worth the risk in this case, my strategy was based on the fact that even if enemy would decide to chase me, having two targets in two different places means that you need significantly more time to deal with them. So expectations were to let only one CL to harass/kill Tr's while other one would delay enemy and keep them engaged in a firefight. Unfortunately escorts were not too eager to get involved in a chase so I just took my chances. Same goes to accuracy bonus you get from cruising speed. not worth making myself easier target, so I haven't used it that much.

As for 4" guns, they seemed to have a good balance between damage, rate of fire, and accuracy for this job. They also reduced a chance for over pens because of smaller caliber. Their main downside was that it would be nearly impossible for me to stand a chance in a gunfight with enemy escorts. 

I won't be commenting on a weather conditions, because I haven't played this mission before A5 was released. My first attempt was in A5 - v70 and second was in A5 - v71 which you can see on the videos. I was also never even bothered to really pay attention to the weather to be honest xD (If you look carefully though, in a first vid I've been getting -10% Accuracy for cloudy weather - 2.5 for gentle breeze, -4.7 for Smooth sea waves, and in the second one I got +3.5% for Clear Weather and - 3.9% for smooth sea waves)

And that's why I like this game and some missions for, there are few different approaches you can take, and especially in convoy missions, you don't have to fight  to sink everything on the map. In some cases you don't have to sink anything at all in fact. (Prove your might, Sink the Raiders, Defend your Convoy) 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Latur Husky

[Cptbarney]

51 minutes ago, Latur Husky said:

I wouldn't be surprised if enemy CA and BC had radar in this mission, and the main purpose of it is to extend visibility range and allow for firing at targets hidden in smoke or fog.

Flagship bonus was not worth the risk in this case, my strategy was based on the fact that even if enemy would decide to chase me, having two targets in two different places means that you need significantly more time to deal with them. So expectations were to let only one CL to harass/kill Tr's while other one would delay enemy and keep them engaged in a firefight. Unfortunately escorts were not too eager to get involved in a chase so I just took my chances. Same goes to accuracy bonus you get from cruising speed. not worth making myself easier target, so I haven't used it that much.

As for 4" guns, they seemed to have a good balance between damage, rate of fire, and accuracy for this job. They also reduced a chance for over pens because of smaller caliber. Their main downside was that it would be nearly impossible for me to stand a chance in a gunfight with enemy escorts. 

I won't be commenting on a weather conditions, because I haven't played this mission before A5 was released. My first attempt was in A5 - v70 and second was in A5 - v71 which you can see on the videos. I was also never even bothered to really pay attention to the weather to be honest xD (If you look carefully though, in a first vid I've been getting -10% Accuracy for cloudy weather, and in the second one I got +3.5% for Clear Weather)

And that's why I like this game and some missions for, there are few different approaches you can take, and especially in convoy missions, you don't have to fight  to sink everything on the map. In some cases you don't have to sink anything at all in fact. (Prove your might, Sink the Raiders, Defend your Convoy) 

 

Oh i've been playing since alpha1 a lot has changed i can tell you, we had massive HE spam, really, really accurate 18inch guns, invincible or near invincible ships and torpedoes that did nothing (My Super BB Aki took over 60 23 inch torpdeos lol nevermind the bloody gunfire in general).

Should of mentioned most of my comments were suggestions really, weather does has some unique properties doe, hope they expand upon that at some point. We could use terrain as well, but thats for another time.

[Steeltrap]

There is some level of "sun glare" already implemented. In some missions if you're looking "into" the sun you get a penalty. "Minor sun glare" I think it something like -15%, but that's from memory. I checked, it's -5%. Haven't seen anything beyond "minor" in any scenario I've played.

I think they may have decided to standardise the weather so as to lock down one variable which is important if you're trying to test a particular aspect. I did ask in the technical issues forum, got a reply, answered that, but am yet to hear anything further. I did a repair/reinstall of the game just in case it was a peculiarity with my own installation, but it still seems to be fixed at 0, 0, +5 and -2.5 (or perhaps the last two are the other way around). Anyway, it's a net +2.5% in every mission I play now.

I'm not sure what data the "anonymous reporting" (or whatever the option is) sends the dev team. I did ask, but was never answered. Regardless, by locking the weather you remove a factor and that makes the analysis of whatever else you're looking at simpler (fixing other variables ought to make whatever differences result from changes you've made more visible).

As I said, I found the mission went from extreme nightmare to very simple. On reflection I've realised the weather was perhaps the most significant of all, as it was previously REALLY bad when I played, having to close to 4-5km just to spot the TR and then I couldn't hit them.

I suppose it's feasible for radar controlled fire to be able to engage effectively ships outside of visibility, but it's pretty clear to me at present that's not required for a ship to be able to do that. ANYTHING can fire at you provided YOU can be seen by even just ONE of the enemy. Firing your guns appears not to make much/any difference to the ability of the ship that fires to BE seen, which seems pretty off. Yes, there was "flashless powder", but that was pretty limited in application from what I remember (the IJN had it and used it).

Seems to me there's a 'hive mind" spotting regime. In the case of this scenario, I believe the tech levels are too low for any combatants to be using radar. I accept I could be mistaken, but I've had ships firing at me from ranges OUTSIDE what I believe the visibility of my own ship + their likely max tower bonus would say is the range from which they can see me. Granted, it's a bit sketchy. Would be nice if we could include visibility/tower bonuses on the "ship data card" in the top right of screen in combat.

Cheers

Edited April 23, 2020 by Steeltrap
Correct "minor sun glare" penalty provided

[Steeltrap]

[Incoming wall of text. Something to do while "staying at home", LOL]

Played it again to see if it remained simple.

Nope, not at all.

What was different?

Deployment. I started in a position where the first thing I spotted was the CA, at something a bit over 7km I think. Fortunately, it couldn't see my CLs until I closed to perhaps 6km (both those ranges may have been a bit longer). I wasn't going to waste my time shooting at it, and I certainly didn't want it shooting at me. It was coming directly at me, so I turned away ASAP. It DID get within spotting range and opened fire, which is why I was able to get a fix on the range at which it could see me (if you include "low" details on the 'report' part of the interface you get info on what has spotted/lost sight of what.

As an aside, I don't accept that it's at all realistic for you to know when the ENEMY spots YOU. I made that exact same point during both the tank and ship games we don't talk about when they introduced a "crew skill" that told you the same via an on screen symbol. I was one of the few to object, mind you, which I suppose illustrates the difference between a gamer who looks to the utility of something vs a "reasonable approximator" who accepts some compromises on historical fidelity in the interests of game play. Some argued about hearing radio chatter etc, but unless it's in plain language (that you understand), radio chatter is exactly that. You MIGHT get some sort of bearing and indication of signal strength, but that doesn't tell you anything other than there's something emitting down that line of bearing/arc at a certain strength which could approximate a range depending on source. Perhaps it's there because the devs capture it as part of data reporting. Yes, someone could tell me to turn off the "low" level reporting, but it contains things I'd like to know about my OWN ship/s. Be nice if eventually we can toggle the reporting about ENEMY ships to "realistic", which is to say limited to the sorts of things you could detect from whatever range you are at. But I digress, LOL.

Position of TR fleet. It would appear I had spawned ahead of the convoy. Ironically, given the AI of the CA escort and TR, this is the WORST possible scenario. The TR will remain in line ahead and start to turn to place you astern. On the one hand that's fair enough, yet they ought to shift to line abreast. Remaining line ahead means other TR are continuing to head TOWARDS you, which isn't smart at all. Mind you, they're so poor at manoeuvring at present that it all breaks down to a total Charlie Fox, including TR that come to a complete halt. If there's ONE thing I would change about the AI, it would be "thou shalt NEVER decrease your speed below HALF your maximum". Another horror from that game we don't mention is seeing BBs floating in the open ocean going gently ahead then astern, back and forth, while under fire; NO, JUST NO, ALL BUT NEVER, EVER is this acceptable. Very low speed/being stationary greatly simplified the gunnery solution of anything shooting AT you. Even the worst gunners in the world will manage to correct their fire to where you are when you're more or less in exactly the same place. It's like playing that old "battleships" game where you guess the location and your opponent tells you if you hit. Imagine playing it if your enemy could move ALL their ships one space in any direction while YOU could not. Anyone want to give me odds on who's going to win?

Type of CA. A 15,500t ship with a speed of 20 knots, up to 16" of armour, and a broadside of 6 x 9" and 15 x 7". Yes, it had 5 triple 7" mounts on EACH side. Plus a few 5" and 4" guns. They were all mk 3 guns using Tube powder. Yeah, OK, that's a complete non-starter for my ships to be ANYWHERE near.

The types of TR. Almost ALL of them had 2-4 x 4" guns. Of the 9 I saw first, 4 had MAX bulkheads, 3 had STD, and 2 were MIN. Both the MIN were unarmed. The rest were ALL armed. With 5" and 4" guns of my own, that made killing the majority of them a rather terrible prospect once they turn to put you astern of them (for those with an aft and midships superstructure, it's interesting to note  their aft superstructure apparently doesn't block the field of fire of 4" guns mounted on the midships superstructure). A MAX bulkhead TR showing you its stern can soak up UNBELIEVABLE quantities of 4" and 5" shells. You are very unlikely to get flooding with hits from that angle other than perhaps the rear 2-3 compartments, and the MAX bulkhead means it can control that flooding and fires remarkably effectively. Just ONE of them soaked up more than 40 HITS and still hadn't sunk.

If it's not clear, the problems of the number of hits and the resulting interactions of the damage/armour/damage control systems are what cause me to have little interest in playing other than the temporary interest in testing this scenario once again.

[I do play the "Armed Convoy" mission as a reminder of how pretty the game is plus mindless fun where I win more or less whenever I like depending on the ship I'm using (I've got it down to 8.5 minutes I think with NO DAMAGE received AT ALL using one design that utilises current imbalances in mechanics, primarily the grossly inflated speed penalty at 35 knots). That scenario is also interesting for testing differences in powders (it's not clear to me why I'd ever use Cordite I over Lyddite II if I want HE performance or White Powder if I want AP; Cordite seems a grossly over-priced midpoint that commits one of the cardinal sins in gunnery performance, namely reduces your range) and other tech. I use it as a baseline every time an update drops]

What it came down to was this. I had to remain in the window where I could spot a target without BEING spotted. Even so, the CA eventually got lucky (with 15 x 7" guns firing when able to use the full broadside, my 28 knot speed even with smoke would eventually run out of luck). Even before that, the sheer volume of fire coming from the TR fleet, even IF I couldn't SEE any but 1-2 of them, was impressive and could damage my upper funnels/towers, the latter seemingly the most hit objects on the ship. As an aside, I'd say I got proof of the "hive mind" targeting system as far as I am concerned; when I wasn't visible, nothing fired at me. Soon as ONE ship spotted me, ANYTHING with the range fired at me without revealing their OWN position, even if it were a TR (so no possibility of RADAR explaining it. This is something else that needs be altered IMO. No way can a ship that cannot see you directly fire at you unless it has at least 2nd gen radar, PERIOD. No exceptions. I hope the ONLY reason it's like this is because the placeholder AI can't cope if it isn't.

Could I have managed "to win"? Questionable, frankly. With the TR all bunched up and the CA close by, my ability to play the vision game to pick off one or two at a time would become more difficult. One of my ships had already been reduced to a top speed of 21 knots, so I couldn't afford to be using it to spot. The BC presumably would show up, too. With so many TR having MAX bulkheads (I'd only seen a total of 12, and 6 were MAX, 4 STD and 2 MIN) and thus ridiculous damage sponges, I suspect I'd run out of ammo OR eventually get spotted and hit.

Could I be bothered? No, not at all. Fact is I think it's such a silly mission in the context of the forces you have vs your opposition that I object to doing it. That hit that reduced one of my CLs to 21 knots in reality would doom it. We're relying solely on a currently very basic (and tactically poor) AI to make the mission viable at all. I find it beyond my capacity for suspending disbelief. Didn't like it when I first tested it (it was MUCH harder), still don't like it.

It's not that I object to the enemies changing in nature and deployment. I DO however object to TR with anything beyond STD bulkheads, let alone being festooned with 4" guns that NO amount of fire EVER knocks out (what's with that? How does a TR get hit 30+ times and STILL have all its basic shield mount 4" guns operating? How DO you KO those guns? Anyone managed it?). I suppose there could be value for the devs somehow in terms of whatever data they get from "anonymous reporting" (still want to know; tempted to turn off if I can't), too.

No, I think my biggest issue with this mission is it highlights just about every issue I have with the state of the game, and all in a scenario where those issues work against you. I simply find massed damage sponge TRs armed to the teeth, crazy powerful CA design, 'hive mind' gunnery and a placeholder AI too much to swallow when ALL crammed in a scenario in which your CLs ought to be running away ASAP.

Perhaps I'm just peculiar when it comes to these things.

Cheers

Edited April 23, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Cptbarney]

i wonder if the mission is deliberately unwinnable to showcase a potential no-win scenario or how to deal something and then retreat.

although bulkheads need checking and TR's seem to have good camo meaning CL's need to be pretty close just to spot them.

[Latur Husky]

I don't know, for me that mission seems fine, and definitely It places you in a situation where you can't win against escort if you engage them in direct combat. Transports even if they have max bulkheads are not an issue, they got no armor after all, so anything that hits, does damage. However it is also one of those missions where apart from good and adequate build, player needs to improve or have skills in maneuvering and distance control, you can't get too close or you'll beg wasted, you can't be too far or you won't make it in time and you have to outrun and outmaneuver the escorts. Player also needs to be able to quickly weight the odds and make the right decision to push or fall back a bit at the right moment. That mission would be a huge issue if transports would have like 2 -3" armor but now it's doable in my opinion.