Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Don’t change torps


Lobokai
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Christian so you want historical damage to do ahistorical attacks?  This is my problem.  We keep seeing requests for idealized ww2 torps in a pre-ww1 to before ww2 game.

MacDuff says it well here

2 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

In reality, ship to ship torpedo sinkings were very rare and if you took out the Japanese Long Lance torpedo, they were almost non-existent.  This is a ship v ship game and torpedoes should play a very minor part if you want anything close to historic Dreadnought battles.

And you went exactly where I know people want to go... you want to use weapons in a completely ahistorical method and cherry pick 1944 tech and drop it into a 1890-1940 game. No BB was sunk by close in DD torpedo attacks... never did a DD put point blank torp shots into a battleship, but you want to create a paradigm where this would be a viable and even devastating attack.  The closest thing would be Fuso, and it took 67 DDs and TBs to pull that off.  If the loud minority gets their weird unicorn torpedoes then banzai DDs (which are not ever a thing) become a pretty easy norm.

As far as reloads, most RN Destroyers carried a reload per tube,

Rivers kept them on deck... they were the first one I checked, Admiralty class Destroyers were the same, also Acorn... so first three looked at, I'm not page by paging my way through Conways... there's even articles discussing reload trolleys and how well they did/didn't work underway

Lets look at USN classes (I'm just randomly picking prolific WW1 or WW2 ships)... Fletcher, Bainbridge, and Smith classes first ones I looked up, 4 reloads (stored behind the aft rack if curious)

German S138s, V1s, and V25s carried on deck reloads...

French Durandal carried on deck reloads, as did Arquebuse and Branlebas classes (no data on Branlebas, but I found a photo with 2 reloads on deck)

I'm stopping, 11 for 11 on the ones I checked... stop using random websites and pick up an actual naval guide

1 hour ago, Christian said:

in total the us lost 8 heavy cruisers during the war 5 of them were sunk to ship-borne torpedoes

Only 3 of them were sunk in combat, 1 of which was already dead in the water... so you found 2 1944 instances and even of these only 1 was not a ship already torn to shreds... I think you're providing evidence for the wrong side of the argument here... and youre using night action fights from the wrong era.  So thank you, yes, clearly UA:D should not have this happening within its scope.

 

Edited by Lobokai
adding more on deck reloads data, which is silly, as all ww1 destroyers I look at have them
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would give them somekind rng to see if they might be duds or low yield while also increasing overall damage.

Or increase reload times and ammo capacity if your going to keep the damage the same.

Mind you it depends what the devs have in mind. Makes me wonder when the next patch will drop too be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Christian said:

dosent really make sense to take out the long lance torpedo just because it performs better than all other nations in surface torpedo sinkings combined does it ?

 

 

I'm not saying take it out.  Are we going to give every ship from before 1900 a Long Lance capability?  It is really the only successful ship launched torpedo and it had limited success in one theatre.  The people in this thread are trotting out statistics that "prove" torpedo usage and capability was decisive in ship to ship engagements when in fact that is completely untrue.  Most torpedo damage to surface combatants was caused by subs or aircraft.  In the era of Dreadnoughts, the only truly effective torpedo shows up in the very late stages....pretty much when the Dreadnought was proven to be obsolete.  The game we are looking at now celebrates the Dreadnought at it's height and shouldn't be tarnished by a late stage weapon that wasn't a true factor.  I'm not saying NO torpedoes...i'm just saying they should be wildly inaccurate and severely flawed.  If you're playing an encounter in the pacific, in 1943, then sure, you better watch out for a long range, extremely deadly torpedo.....Change course a few times....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torpedoes would be fine as they are if only flooding would be more dangerous IMHO. In some configurations it takes a bit too short to stop flooding after multiple torpedo hits. And sometimes multiple torpedo hits that happen consecutively are too easy for target to be ignored/repaired. 

What should be done with torpedo damage is that if one torpedo hits it puts a buff to another torpedo strike in same compartment/vicinity for period of like 5 to 10 seconds, significantly increasing damage/effect of next hit.  Let the effect stack and BB eating 6 torpedoes in 5- 6 seconds of time would be at least seriously damaged and crippled.

Edited by Asthaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be very interested to see how torps and secondaries (common complaints) do once damage control/mitigation on small vessels and transports is toned down.  I think a better balance on how close DDs and TBs can get before they die needs to be found before we start tweaking torpedoes... which probably need a bit more range and damage once DDs and TBs are dying as fast as they should... but who knows... balance one wildly tipping scale before upsetting another

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lobokai said:

@Christian so you want historical damage to do ahistorical attacks?  This is my problem.  We keep seeing requests for idealized ww2 torps in a pre-ww1 to before ww2 game.

MacDuff says it well here

And you went exactly where I know people want to go... you want to use weapons in a completely ahistorical method and cherry pick 1944 tech and drop it into a 1890-1940 game. No BB was sunk by close in DD torpedo attacks... never did a DD put point blank torp shots into a battleship, but you want to create a paradigm where this would be a viable and even devastating attack.  The closest thing would be Fuso, and it took 67 DDs and TBs to pull that off.  If the loud minority gets their weird unicorn torpedoes then banzai DDs (which are not ever a thing) become a pretty easy norm.

As far as reloads, most RN Destroyers carried a reload per tube,

Rivers kept them on deck... they were the first one I checked, Admiralty class Destroyers were the same... so first two did, I'm not page by paging my way through Conways... there's even articles discussing reload trolleys and how well they did/didn't work underway

Lets look at USN classes (I'm just randomly picking prolific WW1 or WW2 ships)... Fletcher, first one I looked up, 4 reloads (stored behind the aft rack if curious)

German V1s, carried on deck reloads... I'm stopping, 4 for 4 on the ones I checked... stop using random websites and pick up an actual naval guide

Only 3 of them were sunk in combat, 1 of which was already dead in the water... so you found 2 1944 instances and even of these only 1 was not a ship already torn to shreds... I think you're providing evidence for the wrong side of the argument here... and youre using night action fights from the wrong era.  So thank you, yes, clearly UA:D should not have this happening within its scope.

 

Quote

you want to use weapons in a completely ahistorical method and cherry pick 1944 tech and drop it into a 1890-1940 game.

the type 93 long lance is from 1933 and entered service in 1935

calling it 1944 tech is stupid

mod 2 of the long lance came out in 1936

the only type of long lance which came out in the 40s was the mod 3 which came out in 1944 and all it changed was a 780kg warhead instead of a 490kg warhead and worse range by more than 20%

Quote

No BB was sunk by close in DD torpedo attacks

fuso and yamashiro were sunk at decently close range

uss laffey sailed right past IJN Hiei at around 20 meters distance during the battle of guadacanal 

Quote

never did a DD put point blank torp shots into a battleship

fuso/yamashiro again

also yeah technically correct but the ranges at which torpedoes were fired during the guadacanal battle with Hiei and the range of the battle at surigao strait it is almost point blank

also yes hiei is a battlecruiser but my point remains

Quote

but you want to create a paradigm where this would be a viable and even devastating attack.

battle of Surigao strait close range engagement

battle of guadacanal with destroyers getting within 100 meters of battleship (its a battlecruiser but still)

Quote

And you went exactly where I know people want to go... you want to use weapons in a completely ahistorical method and cherry pick 1944 tech and drop it into a 1890-1940 game.

and you are cherry picking tech because you assume destroyers cant get within a 2km of a battleship in the middle of the night in 1935

fun fact in 1940 radar was HORRIBLE which allowed for ships to close within 100 meters before spotting eachother in battle as seen with uss laffey and IJN hiei

example of shitty radar and night spottinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal

and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Matapan

whats this a sub 6km engagement

also as can be seen with radar it only detected the italian ships once 6km away 

and this was in 1941

https://www.britishbattles.com/first-world-war/the-battle-of-jutland-part-iv-the-night-action-31st-may-to-1st-june-1916/

night engagement sub 1km range during the battle of jutland HMS black prince gets pummeled by german battleships

Quote

The closest thing would be Fuso, and it took 67 DDs and TBs to pull that off.

There were six battleships: West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, Tennessee, California, and Pennsylvania. All but Mississippi (which had been in Iceland on convoy-escort duty at the time) had been sunk or damaged in the attack on Pearl Harbor and repaired, Tennessee, California, and West Virginia having been rebuilt. Four heavy cruisers (USS Louisville (flagship), Portland, Minneapolis, and HMAS Shropshire) carried 35 8-inch (203 mm) guns, and 54 6-inch (152 mm) guns were mounted by four light cruisers (Denver, Columbia, Phoenix, and Boise). Added to this were the smaller guns and torpedoes of 28 destroyers and 39 motor torpedo boats

 

it took 28 destroyers and 39 motor torpedo boats to pull it off

and im sorry you can say 67 destroyers but that number includes torpedo boats so saying 67 destroyers is a lie you very well should have known about

800px-Surigao_straight.jpg

here is the battle map

only 20 destroyers actively engaged the japanese ships to point blank distances

Quote

If the loud minority gets their weird unicorn torpedoes then banzai DDs (which are not ever a thing) become a pretty easy norm.

banzai dds are not a thing ????

Some time around 23:15,[5] the Allied ships were sighted by the patrolling Fubuki, which followed them surreptitiously. At 23:06, when they were about halfway across the mouth of Bantam Bay, Perth sighted a ship about 5 mi (4.3 nmi; 8.0 km) ahead, near Saint Nicolaas Point. It was thought at first that the ship was an Australian corvette, but when challenged, she made an unintelligible reply, with a lamp which was the wrong color, fired her nine Long Lance (Type 93) torpedoes from about 3,000 yards (2,700 m) and then turned away, making smoke. The ship was soon identified as a Japanese destroyer (probably Harukaze). Waller reported the contact and ordered his forward turrets to open fire.[6]

 

what about the battle of samar where american destroyers charged head first into heavy cruisers to make torpedo attack and came within 5km of the ijn cruisers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_(DE-413)#The_Battle_off_Samar

Quote

As far as reloads, most RN Destroyers carried a reload per tube,

first of all no they did not have torpedo reloads

see http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/uk_torpedoships.htm

according to you every navy has torpedo reloads ive proven that wrong until now please source your claims its annoying to go debunk everything you say

Quote

Rivers kept them on deck... they were the first one I checked, Admiralty class Destroyers were the same... so first two did, I'm not page by paging my way through Conways... there's even articles discussing reload trolleys and how well they did/didn't work underway

which of conways books he has a few

Quote

secondly there's even articles discussing reload trolleys and how well they did/didn't work underway

give me an excerpt from the book a picture would be nice i dont believe you otherwise after everything you have said so far i have no trust in your words

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/"W"_Class_Destroyer_(1917)

no spare torpedoes go check navypedia also

Admiralty_M_class_destroyer_aerial_view_1918.jpg

no spare deck torpedoes or mounts for them

201408101129430.C%20Admiralty%20M%20Class%20General%20Arrangement.JPG

again no mention of torpedoes outside of the tubes

Quote

Lets look at USN classes (I'm just randomly picking prolific WW1 or WW2 ships)... Fletcher, first one I looked up, 4 reloads (stored behind the aft rack if curious)

what fletcher are you looking at

the fletcher does not have reloads for its torpedo tubes

here are the deck plans

http://abbot.us/dd502/index.shtml?img=plate04

allen m sumner destroyer for good measure too

http://www.dd-692.com/shipyard.htm

neither has reload

 

https://archive.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/ddtubes/index.htm#pg8

this here explains the torpedo loading procedure

image.png.e599326dc88d8d89d18f6e6fe5d8ffaa.png

note this is not torpedo loading gear or torpedo storage bins but the loading mechanic is for a 5 inch practice loader

234cd9c488fc9cb323daefff478b51a2.jpg

as mentioned in this

Quote

stop using random websites and pick up an actual naval guide

what is according to you "an actual naval guide" i can provide plenty of statements from books problem is you wont believe shit from them

i cant just throw the book over at you and say THIS IS CORRECT YET I HAVE NOTHING TO BACK IT UP EXCEPT I READ THIS BOOK THAT SAID IT

when you actually require the book to confirm if that is written or not

 

you are challenging the trustworthiness of my sources now id like you to provide a source or reason why they are untrustworthy

heres one of the sites reference links

http://www.german-navy.de/information/references/index.html

Quote

German V1s, carried on deck reloads... I'm stopping, 4 for 4 on the ones I checked... stop using random websites and pick up an actual naval guide

the german v1 destroyer carried a single torpedo for reloading its center torpedo launcher

Quote

Only 3 of them were sunk in combat, 1 of which was already dead in the water... so you found 2 1944 instances and even of these only 1 was not a ship already torn to shreds... I think you're providing evidence for the wrong side of the argument here... and youre using night action fights from the wrong era.  So thank you, yes, clearly UA:D should not have this happening within its scope.

problem is providing night engagements from an era filled with american radar yet we have examples of 3km fighting and points where dds were close to ramming battleships ONLY PROVES MY POINT FURTHER 

it only proves that very close range night engagements are not impossible unlike what you claimed

Quote

Only 3 of them were sunk in combat,

all 8 were sunk in combat how else would they sink do you think a storm came and put 2 torpedo holes in them ?

Quote

1 of which was already dead in the water

none of them were dead in the water prior to torpedo impacts

Quote

so you found 2 1944 instances and even of these only 1 was not a ship already torn to shreds

so before it was 1 which was already dead in the water

aka 4 outta the 5 ships were still sailing

now you say 4 out of 5 were torn to shreds 

can you decide on which one is true ?

Quote

and youre using night action fights from the wrong era.

again an era where night battles became longer and longer ranged

by providing examples of VERY close range battles in 1940 it only further adds to my point that a 1920s or 1910s battle in the middle of the night would be happening at below 2km distance

which is supported by 

https://www.britishbattles.com/first-world-war/the-battle-of-jutland-part-iv-the-night-action-31st-may-to-1st-june-1916/

Quote

So thank you, yes, clearly UA:D should not have this happening within its scope.

except the exact opposite it should be happening even more

night battles should basically make you blind

again

https://www.britishbattles.com/first-world-war/the-battle-of-jutland-part-iv-the-night-action-31st-may-to-1st-june-1916/

 

PS

this is a list of things id like you to source

spare torpedoes capable of being reloaded in battle being stored on the fletcher

spare torpedoes being stored on the admiralty class

Why? A typical destroyer would carry x2-3 its rack in reloads. 

15-22 on target launches sinks a ship in combat is probably about correct. It took well over 50 launched torps to take down Yamato in conjunction with nearly 100 bombs. The number of torps you need to fire is nearly spot on. 

 Also, the vast majority of US Pacific DDs did carry reloads when they were available

Mediterranean DDs on patrols sometimes did not have reloads, but that is an entirely different logistical situation

As far as reloads, most RN Destroyers carried a reload per tube,

Edited by Christian
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of round and round.  

Historically:

Torpedoes had pretty high miss/dud rate, yet did massive damage.  Very rare there is any account of a reload in combat happening in WWi through WWII for surface ships.  Most WWII subs could only reload once in combat (having to surface for several hours to remove deck plates to get additional torpedoes into the torpedo rooms).

Current in game:

Torpedos have a relatively high hit rate, zero dud rate with seriously toned down damage, multiple reloads within the span of an hour or two battle.

Conclusion:

Nerfed damage is due to higher prevalence of available torpedoes (thus chances) and the zero dud rate.  We hit more (and get hit more) but it hurts less per hit.  Overall nice "gamey" solution...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I'm not saying take it out.  Are we going to give every ship from before 1900 a Long Lance capability?  It is really the only successful ship launched torpedo and it had limited success in one theatre.  The people in this thread are trotting out statistics that "prove" torpedo usage and capability was decisive in ship to ship engagements when in fact that is completely untrue.  Most torpedo damage to surface combatants was caused by subs or aircraft.  In the era of Dreadnoughts, the only truly effective torpedo shows up in the very late stages....pretty much when the Dreadnought was proven to be obsolete.  The game we are looking at now celebrates the Dreadnought at it's height and shouldn't be tarnished by a late stage weapon that wasn't a true factor.  I'm not saying NO torpedoes...i'm just saying they should be wildly inaccurate and severely flawed.  If you're playing an encounter in the pacific, in 1943, then sure, you better watch out for a long range, extremely deadly torpedo.....Change course a few times....

of course long lance torpedoes should not be in the game in 1900 but the torpedo is one from 1933 is not exactly late ww2 tech we are speaking about

the british too developed a torpedo with similar performance (granted quite a few knots slower but around same range) here http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_PreWWII.php

and this is from 1925

 

also even without these good torpedoes torpedoes still had amazing success even with their limited performance

this can not be seen any better than at the battle of tsushima where Japanese destroyers and torpedo boats performed excellent and the whitehead torpedoes came into their own 

 

there are several instances of torpedoes being used to deadly effect WHEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY USED even if they arent the super performing long lances

a good example is surigao strait and the battle of samar 

and the night battle of tsushima

 

though surface torpedoes were never gonna be as effective as bombs or aerial torpedoes simply because they required to be within gunrange (some far within some outside) to launch them this is especially true for german and british ships who had abysmal torpedo range

Quote

.i'm just saying they should be wildly inaccurate and severely flawed.

it should take significant effort to use them properly it shouldnt just be launch torpedoes and wait for results you need to set up proper torpedo attacks or the enemy will just dodge the torpedoes

kinda like in rtw if you have played it if you make a super obvious torpedo run the AI dodges nearly every single time but if you properly set up a torpedo attack you can get devastating results

on top of that single torpedo hits are unlikely to sink ships but will cripple them and reduce their speed significantly rendering them a hindrance to the enemy battle line due to low speed

 

making the enemy dodge more also makes for the skillfull use of torpedoes to force the enemy to turn away or turn in 

also currently torpedo accuracy is wayyyy too high there needs to be an angle error when launching torpedoes this would also help make long range torpedoes less homing and more spread and hope 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Lobokai said:

I'd be very interested to see how torps and secondaries (common complaints) do once damage control/mitigation on small vessels and transports is toned down.  I think a better balance on how close DDs and TBs can get before they die needs to be found before we start tweaking torpedoes... which probably need a bit more range and damage once DDs and TBs are dying as fast as they should... but who knows... balance one wildly tipping scale before upsetting another

This game is not an simulator and for @Christan to recite history doesn’t contribute to testing feedback in an alpha game. "Gameplay" is the most important application here, not historical reloading.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

This game is not an simulator and for @Christan to recite history doesn’t contribute to testing feedback in an alpha game. "Gameplay" is the most important application here, not historical reloading.

 

of course its not a simulator but the way its done right now is far from the best way it could be done

but pointing out history can contribute to feedback on the game

 

pointing out the historical reason for AP usage and the historical AP performance helps bring the game away from the HE slugfest it is currently

there should be more focus on angling and proper armoring and design of a ship right now its just HE meta with he shells being flung everywhere

 

games like rtw and rtw 2 nail the torpedo gameplay while they dont have super torpedoes like the long lance their torpedoes are roughly on par with the american mark 15

the torpedoes are extremely potent late game but its also easy to see when an enemy lines them up to fire at you it also forces you out of a close range yolo brawl 

its also more skill based as you cant just launch torpedoes and expect a hit you need to set up proper attacks with your ships against the enemy ships or they will all miss when the enemy ships dodge them because they see the obvious attempt at a torpedo attack

having them be a skillful inconsistent weapon which delivers large damage when it hits feels alot more rewarding (in my oppinion) than just sailing broadside to a group of enemy ships and waiting until they finally hit and just doing that over and over again

 

also i believe torpedoes in game already have far too much range i havent done any tests but it feels like they have 15+ km range in 1920

 

also yeah sure it dosent need to be a simulator but there is no reason to make it an arcade shooter like wows or have blatantly unrealistic things in game (like the current torpedoes) i think the game should strive to be as realistic as possible while also having good gameplay (huh this reminds me alot of rtw for some reason) 

as long as features are not prohibiting fun and good gameplay i dont see a reason why we cant have it be as realistic as possible 

also the long lance made the tradeoff in firepower by having it basically be a bomb on the ships it was mounted on i see no reason as to why this tradeoff could not be in game

as shown by the uss white plains a single 5 inch hit could cripple a japanese cruiser if it hit the torpedoes because they were so volatile

 

 

also yes sometimes it does

pointing out the historical reason for AP usage and the historical AP performance helps bring the game away from the HE slugfest it is currently

there should be more focus on angling and proper armoring and design of a ship right now its just HE meta with he shells being flung everywhere

Quote

"Gameplay" is the most important application here,

when is gameplay not the most important factor for a game?

i fully believe the current torpedo system is not only less realistic but also alot less rewarding and fun 

Edited by Christian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, WafflesToo said:

Its not?  What is it supposed to be then?

On topic of reloading, simulation would be for TBs and Destroyers to return to port to reload torpedo's, current gameplay reloads in combat, therefore this game is not an "actual simulator”, as far as PC simulators goes.

But I guess “what is a simulator” is a matter of opinion as per your objection.   

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

On topic of reloading, simulation would be for TBs and Destroyers to return to port to reload torpedo's, current gameplay reloads in combat, therefore this game is not an "actual simulator”, as far as PC simulators goes.

But I guess “what is a simulator” is a matter of opinion as per your objection.   

they wouldnt neccesarily have to return to port just need a munitions vessel to resupply them

once the campaign comes out there should be no need to send them all the way back just to get new torps they should just only get 1 set when in battle between battles they then restock

in case of extra torpedo reloads they would have x amount spare torpedoes that would take 5-30 minutes to reload 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Christian said:

also yeah sure it dosent need to be a simulator but there is no reason to make it an arcade shooter like wows or have blatantly unrealistic things in game (like the current torpedoes) i think the game should strive to be as realistic as possible while also having good gameplay (huh this reminds me alot of rtw for some reason) 

WOWS also suffered from balancing one class at a time, corrupting others as they did so.

I’m just saying there a bigger picture here, things like…

 

35 minutes ago, Christian said:

they wouldnt neccesarily have to return to port just need a munitions vessel to resupply them

once the campaign comes out there should be no need

Some good questions in there though, how big is the campaign combat arena going to be, could this arena support supply vessel? Speculating I not!

 

 

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Christian said:

calling it 1944 tech is stupid

the entire package, ships, radar, night fighting training, academy techniques, etc cannot be separated out one from the other... a 1944 IJN destroyer or cruiser attacking a US ship is a sum of its 1944 parts (both in manpower/doctrine and in hardware/manufacturing/materiale)

50 minutes ago, Christian said:

guadacanal battle with Hiei

who's point are you arguing with this example?  So many close in runs that cannot sink a BC, in a very WW2 style night fight, where torps still failed to be decisive (none believed to have damaged Hei from a USN DD) because that's not a thing.  Gunnery from San Fran and gunnery from Laffey (who fought like a boss) and the other vessels are what took out Hiei's steering.  Again, no DD torp wins here and its aircraft that sink Hiei... all from a fight that is anathema to a game with UA:D's focus

1 hour ago, Christian said:

fuso and yamashiro were sunk at decently close range

A massive line of battleships puts sustained fire on Yamashiro for 18 minutes... pretty sure that's what did the work here... then she took 6 torp hits to the stern quarter while moving in a straight line at 15 knots.  This was after she survived a massive set of torp runs (from your map, see its there?) again proving pretty decisively the INEFFECTIVENESS of torp work in combat against a BB not the other way around.  1 hit after all of that?!  All the other came from after a half dozen battle ships crossed Yamashiro's T.  Your examples keep proving my point. Fuso was ravaged by the same battle line before they fired at Yamashiro and the work of 67 (DDs and TBs)... which is what you know I meant, don't be pedantic... it weathers most of this, and is then hit by aircraft... only after its flooding and gutted does a US destroyer put in the ultimate kill shots.  Clearly Surigao Strait shows the mass FAILURE of ship fired torpedoes in taking down large ships, 67 torpedo craft make runs that fire shots and its only after they finish their runs and the Pearl BBs have a perfect "penny in slot" kill zone barrage with heavy air attacks that destroyers come in and finish them off.  So EVEN when leaving the realm of UA:D your best example shows how underwhelming "IRL" torps were.

 

1 hour ago, Christian said:

only 20 destroyers actively engaged the japanese ships to point blank distances

Only?! and they still failed... have you switched positions and I missed it? Apologies if so

1 hour ago, Christian said:

banzai dds are not a thing ????

Yes, and just lol. 2-3 mile launches make my point not yours, I'm not going through this yet again

As far as sources... navypedia? it's got super simplified basic data. Reloads are not even in the scope of half of that data, of course it doesn't mention it, why would it.  I'd be a moron to claim reloads when they don't exist on a www forum with plenty of naval warfare fans/fellow professionals on it.  Every ship I stated as having reloads did. Sometime when I want to spend forever digging out books I will but feel free to check out lowly wikipedia which actually lists the relevant Conways (they're by years, so whichever one is the relevant years) as a source.  Both the RN and USN designs used trolleys while at sea to reload, I'm sorry random navypedia doesn't have pictures of a trolley and the equipment cranes in use, but then again it has almost nothing, so why would it? I'm confident the devs already know these things as will fellow posters here and feel no need to cite it all for you.  Maybe some kind soul will find you the Admiralty House work ups on the logistic issues with reloads and what not, but I'm not spending that time now.

Jutland?!?!?! Seriously? The RN empties the racks on half of its DDs and puts a ridiculous amount of fish in the water to finish off a damaged BB and possibly get credit for 1... with 78 DDs!! and almost traditional longer range shots, not the crazy point blank ones you were advocating and those same RN DDs took the worst losses of all classes on either side for their uninspired performance.

1 hour ago, Christian said:

spare torpedoes capable of being reloaded in battle being stored on the fletcher

never said this, talked about it not being the case, not sure what you're reading... you can read your USN cruiser accounts as well as anyone else.  Not only are they not relevant but there are considerably more than ship fired torps in those cases.  Houston makes the case that Japanese night fighting was awesome early WW2... not relevant to UA:D, but whatever... but yes, in all the wars and all the attacks here's the 1 time the thing youre thinking should be common and reliable happened.  North Hampton escapes under her own steam and 3 hours later is abandoned... but again, we're down to cruisers because you have no real BB examples. Quincy takes sustained fire from 4 CRs, has its bridge knocked out during a night action and is then torped.  Vincennes is a wretched, torn, flaming mess with no bridge or command that has its engine room trying to make blind turns when destroyer hit it.  None of these really make your point at all.

Stop using WW2 nonsense that doesn't help you anyway to make arguments about a 1890-1940 game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lobokai

as far as i see it you have nothing to back up your claims or sources to tell me where you got said claims from

if you do you are just extremely hesitant on sharing them

 

if you dont wanna back up your claims i suggest we finish this conversation 

il send a response to each of your point in PM as to not clog up the chat

i request we continue in PMs as again we clog the chat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way. If your recreated all your example scenarios in this game’s mission format, would DDs and torps end up under performing or out performing the historical impact DDs did? I’m supremely confident UA:D torp warfare is more lethal than the historical and any reasonable player here would have to agree when looking at the numbers involved. If that’s so, why would/should torpedoes impact on the game be increased?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lobokai said:

Let me put it this way. If your recreated all your example scenarios in this game’s mission format, would DDs and torps end up under performing or out performing the historical impact DDs did? I’m supremely confident UA:D torp warfare is more lethal than the historical and any reasonable player here would have to agree when looking at the numbers involved. If that’s so, why would/should torpedoes impact on the game be increased?  

torpedoes are too consistent and easy to use

they are too good in ease of use but they underperform in damage

 

making them more historical would make them more challenging to use but would give a better payoff when you do have that opportunity

thus when you set up a nice attack you get rewarded and it feels nice where as now it really dosent do much

 

it will also makes subs not useless when they come into the game

because 6 torpedoes and a reload long enough to get run down and rammed is not fun the 6 sticks wont sink anything except destroyers and small cruisers 

 

Edited by Christian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you have some way of stopping ahistorical use of a devastating weapon when it worked, the game will suffer   Of course the devs did figure out a way already 

 

Subs should not show up in any active battle. Especially 1940 and before, but really not ever. At best they’d have some turn based effect on spotting, shipping, and hunt down crippled ships. Maybe with the right tech, raid harbors 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lobokai said:

Unless you have some way of stopping ahistorical use of a devastating weapon when it worked, the game will suffer   Of course the devs did figure out a way already 

 

Subs should not show up in any active battle. Especially 1940 and before, but really not ever. At best they’d have some turn based effect on spotting, shipping, and hunt down crippled ships. Maybe with the right tech, raid harbors 

i mean you do

oxygen torpedoes had a tendency to combust the second they were hit and explode

look at chokai for example she was crippled by a single 5 inch hit to the torpedoes

and the fact you would only have a 5-10% hitrate at best depending on year this would make it alot easier to dodge as the torpedoes are less likely to be in a super tight spread right on your ships

Quote

Subs should not show up in any active battle. Especially 1940 and before, but really not ever. At best they’d have some turn based effect on spotting, shipping, and hunt down crippled ships. Maybe with the right tech, raid harbors 

i mean british did develop fleet submarines like the M class and so on which were a thing in ww1 although their succes was not good

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading this thread I could swear I was reading about a WWII naval combat game. @Christian yes I know some of those torps were developed in the 30s or late 20s but all the combat examples refer to WWII. 

TBF it is not just this thread but others with posts about WWII aircraft carriers and submarines. I guess the gilded age of pre-dreads and dreadnoughts is just not that glamourous compared to sinking a BB with torps from a fast WWII DD (hello WoWs). To think I thought this game was going to be about the age of dreadnoughts, where I got that idea I don't know, silly notion. I mean let's just add in harpoons and exocets now and be done with it. Oh and let's model the HMS Queen Elizabeth too. 🙄

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, if you make something like the Long Lance available, everyone will use it all of the time, because it is in fact decisive.  In a game like this, where you are choosing your weapons, why would you pick anything else?  Yes, it was available during the late stages of the game's existence, but it doesn't mean it should be universally available.  A flotilla of destroyers equipped with these would make a joke of a supposed Dreadnought fight.  The atom bomb was also used in WWII....That would come in handy against a fleet.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to again restate the need to see torpedo's need to change, lets look at current state in game. Because the "giving torpedo historical damage in the current environment will make them game breaking" seems to be main argument against it. 

Currently:

  1. DDs are impossible to stop with secondary fire, and very difficult to stop with other DDs because these low caliber gun either do not do enough damage/ or small vessel's bulkhead are to effective in isolating these damage. 
  2. Torpedos are very reliable and accurate provided the DDs can get close, because player controlled DD will fearlessly close range to 2-3km, meanwhile AI usually fails to turn away until the actual torpedo are spotted.
  3. Torpedo damage are low, it takes far more than the usual historical number of torpedo hits to sink a ship. (For this purpose I believe hit from submarine and aircraft are usuable data as well). This is likely due to the issue with the lack of progressive flooding into additional bulkheads, inability to cause meaningful damage when hitting a damaged bulkhead.
  4.  Torpedo reloads very quickly, allowing DD to essentially "cycle charge" their opponent.

SO currently, DD can easily approach their target, Torpedo hits are easily achieved when DD gets close to their target, their damage are fairly mediocre, and they can come around for another pass. From a game balance perspective, this is not imbalanced but very bland. Further, the most effective counter now seems to be targeting the DDs with your main battery, since one hit can destroy most DDs, and the accuracy is almost always better than your secondary, despite poor rate of fire. 

There is little tactic and strategy involved beside sending your dds in again and again, with some micro to make sure they do not launch to early, and at least attempt to get infront of the enemy ships for a better launch angle. Torpedo are not a high risk weapon, nor is it particularly rewarding to set up a good torpedo attack. This "Feels" very off from how they performed historically, and this also does not make for interesting gameplay.

Why Would Changes Help:

To clarify, the issue at stake here is more than "how torpedo can be changed" alone, but rather the entire game environment around torpedo warfare should change to make for a more interesting and realistic use of these weapons. 

As I've said before, torpedo use are not limited to fleet salvos to disrupt formation(which in of itself can have many use, from covering a retreat like in Jutland, to disruption during a fleet engagement) , they can be used to finish off damaged ships with the support of other battleships. As I don't believe the game will be limited to perfect weathered day time engagements, they can make night time attacks on a retreating enemy like the aftermath of tsushima or the night action at Guadalcanal.(Even if we overlook the unsuccessful torpedo attack on Hiei, which seems to be due to USN torpedo+far too close range, many USN cruisers were indeed sunk by IJN torpedo attacks, with good accuracy). 

Thus those should be their uses in game, but ultimately it will be up to the player how exactly they should be used, and they shouldn't necessarily be limited to the few instances we've seen in real life. We only had Jutland as a example of a large battleship fleet action, but in a UAD game, the player are likely to see many more, and through the differing circumstances, weather, force composition and technology, I don't see why more historical and potentially more difficult to use torpedo will necessarily be ineffective in all those battles. 

So here are some of the changes I see that can be of use in making the environment for torpedo warfare more realistic and interesting:

  1.  Secondary fire accuracy against small vessel, and their damage(or smaller vessel's resistance to damage) tweaked to make secondary fire a viable defense against DDs attempting to close range. 2-3km torp launch should be difficult to achieve outside of night actions, but should be deadly if achieved.  - The danger of carrying torpedo reload can likewise be simulating, but to be honest just a improvement in dmg model for small vessel could well be enough to stop the DD from free reign. 
  2.  AI be made more responsive to torpedo attacks rather than sitting in their line until the torpedo show up.
  3. Adjusting torpedo damage make taking multiple a risky proposition for any ship, but these weapons are fairly easy to avoid if used merely for a disruption purpose 
  4.  Torpedo reload be made much slower, we can, perhaps for gameplay purpose assume all vessel that carried spare can perform some form of reload in combat (at least when shells aren't directly exploding on deck), even though I highly doubt this is the case for most in reality. However, the time it take must be much slower than what is currently possible. This should make launching torpedo less "brain dead" and require more careful decision making.

Bottom line is, I believe in UAD we use "historical" technology to fight "ahistorical" battles. Battles like Jutland, Guadalcanal, Narvik, etc are good indicator of the technical aspect of how torpedo worked in combat, what should be likely result if they are used in a certain way. It does not limit us to fight "template" battles that necessarily ends in a certain way.

Perhaps, with some luck and support, a player's destroyer can pull off a Taffy-3 style charge and sink a somewhat poorly escorted battleship.Perhaps, using the night as cover, player DDs can surprise a enemy battle fleet and get off multiple torpedo hits, or the AI could do the same to player. Perhaps, as was the case with many real world battles, the DDs simply couldn't get a good opportunity, and sit back providing support and perhaps launch disruptive value to cover a retreat if things turn out poorly. 

Again apologies for the long post again, but I do wish to try my best to lay out the changes that IMHO, will take the game in a better direction. We are still early in Alpha, thus we don't have to take other aspect of the game as given, and be overtly concerned with how torpedo change will "break" the game. In fact, for my 4 points above, with the exception of reload, the torpedo themselves may not needs to be changed at all. I am not overtly concerned with the game necessarily simulate every aspect of torpedo warfare "exactly, and by the number", but the overall experience player has with torpedo warfare should be realistic. 

 

Edited by Mycophobia
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites


@ThatZenoGuy About these DD, they all have extra torpedo stored somewhere. If you want my source its simple, I did it in 5 min on wikipedia. Look at these dds and check the what is written under armament. I only picked the one that specifically said reload, some RN description were unclear about it trough. Again, its a 5 min search.

If you do not trust Wikipedia... well then you should not trust WarThunder too!

@Christan @sRuLe I did not mention "combat reload", just reload. The DDs I mentioned have spare torp, regardless of how they will reload them it will have to be done at sea. Crew might not get to chose if its in combat condition or not.




As for what it mean for UA:D, well... Like most game  UA:D is time compressed to make it more enjoyable. In term of sequence of event it is pretty close. DDs shoot their torp, get away and come back when reloaded. This is a good approximation of reality, regardless if it have a reload system or not. Now you may think its too quick, but for a game its relatively long.

Anyways, I don't think it matter. In this game you get to built your own ship the way you want. Weapons you can add or not is not restricted by the nation you picked.

Edited by RedParadize
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...