Don’t change torps

[Lobokai]

2 hours ago, Mycophobia said:

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...

I could see all of those working. But really would like to see smaller craft damage worked out. The domino effect could be strong

[Ishtar]

On the topic of Surigao Strait, Fuso never even made it to the American battleline and succumbed to two torpedoes, probably on account of her old age. If we're interested in ship sinkings in the era of this game, 22 September 1914 saw the sinking of three armored cruisers from 1-2 torpedoes each fired from a single submarine. Predreadnought Pommern took one to two torpedoes and sank, a French armored cruiser took two submarine torpedoes and sank, predreadnought Suffren sank from a magazine hit, armored cruiser Pallada sank from a magazine hit, predreadnought Goliath capsized from two torpedo hits, predreadnought Formidable sank from flooding from two torpedo hits (though the first set her low in the water and caused an abandon ship order), and an Ottoman predreadnought sank from a single torpedo hit.

It seems to be that torpedoes are primarily limited by the extremely effective bulkhead system when in reality their ability to cause progressive flooding doomed ships that didn't immediately sink. If ships in UAD didn't stop flooding after a single compartment, the torpedo modeling would be much more accurate without needing to increase the damage of torpedoes. 

[Lobokai]

3 hours ago, Ishtar said:

Fuso never even made it to the American battleline and succumbed to two torpedoes, probably on account of her old age

Was hit by a 2 Squadron bombing run and naval gunnery and was limping without steering when struck 

 

3 hours ago, Ishtar said:

Predreadnought Pommern

Yes, an outdated/hated “5 minute ship” after repeated gunnery hits and disengaging was struck at 3 in the morning. Not in combat 

3 hours ago, Ishtar said:

predreadnought Suffren

Sub kills, not what anyone is talking about, not in combat

3 hours ago, Ishtar said:

armored cruiser Pallada

Same as above

3 hours ago, Ishtar said:

predreadnought Goliath

Another night action, this time against a ship not under way 

3 hours ago, Ishtar said:

predreadnought Formidable

A uboat and a night attack? 

We’re discussing engagement use of DD torps 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Lobokai

[Mycophobia]

2 hours ago, Lobokai said:

Was hit by a 2 Squadron bombing run and naval gunnery and was limping without steering when struck 

 

Yes, an outdated/hated “5 minute ship” after repeated gunnery hits and disengaging was struck at 3 in the morning. Not in combat 

Sub kills, not what anyone is talking about, not in combat

Same as above

Another night action, this time against a ship not under way 

A uboat and a night attack? 

We’re discussing engagement use of DD torps 

I think he replies with regards to torpedo damage, not torpedo effectiveness overall. As far as damage is concerned, submarine torpedo hits are just as viable source of information. How torpedo hits are best achieved and how that should be balanced is more complex of course. But like you said, some change to the current bulkhead system/dmg to small ships could already make significant change to remedy the problem, we will just wait and see.

[Ishtar]

7 hours ago, Lobokai said:

Was hit by a 2 Squadron bombing run and naval gunnery and was limping without steering when struck 

 

Yes, an outdated/hated “5 minute ship” after repeated gunnery hits and disengaging was struck at 3 in the morning. Not in combat 

Sub kills, not what anyone is talking about, not in combat

Same as above

Another night action, this time against a ship not under way 

A uboat and a night attack? 

We’re discussing engagement use of DD torps 

I assume submarine torpedoes are even weaker than destroyer torpedoes. You're not discussing engagement, you're discussing damage.

[Lobokai]

48 minutes ago, Ishtar said:

I assume submarine torpedoes are even weaker than destroyer torpedoes. You're not discussing engagement, you're discussing damage.

Often submarines and DDs used the same torps, so they typically are just as strong... though as a delivery vehicle, submarines are much more focused and efficient in torpedo warfare than DDs

Not really discussing damage, we're discussing effectiveness, and its migrated to specifically DD torp effectiveness (as subs are abstracted anyway, so not really relevant)... in fact my OP references a U-boat attack right off the bat, not to show how many hits it took to sink a ship (I think we all agree that one well placed one can do it) but to show how many shots it takes to get that well placed hit.  Both Surigao Strait and Jutland effectively illustrate the massive amount of destroyer torps fired in real combat engagements to generate even a few effective hits, as even the ones that do strike home are often less than ideally placed and more readily controlled than would otherwise be true (and at Jutland, came at horrible cost to the firing ships).  A ship, at stations, under power, in combat, is far more effective at damage control/mitigation, than one suddenly hit midship by an unexpected attack.  Historically U-Boats and submarines were far more successful per torp hit for many reasons (more precise depth settings, both a less dynamic launch platform and target, time to attempt a better placed shot and angle, more singular focus in training and at the moment of attack etc) but at moments in history were still hobbled by the unreliable nature of torpedoes.  That's why I'm so dismissive of U-Boat sunk ships, they're simply such a different moment as to not be applicable to destroyer warfare (which was quickly the focus of this thread, though not my initial thought).

I'm just against the calls for ideal conditions perceived damage from the most well placed torpedo shots, often from the peak platforms and weapons in torp warfare via a submarine ambush being applied to an ww1 destroyer making a crazy and chaotic run in the middle of combat.  That's as ignorant as using the damage and accuracy of a well placed 7.62 round fired from an experienced snipers rifle and applying it to all AK-47 7.62 rounds fired by general infantry in long bursts.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Lobokai

[Lobokai]

Due to repeated calls and then PMs for sources on reloads, though that is very tertiary to my point here...

even using the vaunted navypedia 🙄, which when there was multiple refits of a large class (tribals, fletchers, etc) does not list reloads, because they were all over the place for the variants so in the small list of subtypes simply skips reloads (which I get)... and those commissioned in the inter-war years typically didn't carry reloads (often didn't fill their racks) but would during wartime, so those are not listed at war armaments but initial instead... fine, but simplistic... but here's just a few that do have reloads listed... I got tired of cutting and pasting after awhile... But I get what happened, the poster most calling for sources apparently likes/thinks mainly/only of ww2, so they checked only ww2 DDs and maybe interwar, which due to so many refits or being under-armed (especially the inter-war ones that were hastily updated '41 ish and then later updated with new war tech and then late war don't carry reloads any more, because who would you be firing them at?) don't have their reloads listed... understood, innocent mistake, no worries

Now that I dug through navypedia, I see the potential for the misunderstanding... and I'm not saying all not listed did carry reloads (though many did)

So here are some "not IJN" destroyer classes that carried deck top reloads (most more than a single torp, btw) for mounts above the water line and actually had navypedia list this data.  List was even longer than I thought, ran out of time to keep listing them all... sigh

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_bainbridge.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_paul_jones.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_stewart.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_truxtun.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_hopkins.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_lawrence.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_porter.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_sims.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_dd_benson.htm even a nice mention here of reload delays due to gov messes... like I said.. and this could/should be repeated across several USN classes

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_havock.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_daring95.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_ardent95.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_janus.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_banshee.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_handy.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_rocket.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_haughty.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_salmon.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_opossum.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_sturgeon.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_swordfish.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_desperate.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_quail.htm

at this point its basically every RN class, getting silly... skipping ahead a few years and a dozen classes, just for variety's sake

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_star.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_brazen.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_erne.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_thorn.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_g_basilisk.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_acasta.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_j_k_n.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_dd_o_p.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_pierre_durand.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_buino.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_chastang.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_rageot_de_la_touche.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_amiral_senes.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/france/fr_dd_desaix.htm

okay, this is getting long... just looking at a few Italian and Germans at this point and I'm done

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_g108.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_s125.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_s113.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_g119.htm

you can see the numbers I'm skipping here

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_v116.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_s178.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_1942.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_1936.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_1934.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_dd_1934a.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_ardimentoso.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_prytkiy.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_prochnyy.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/turkey/tu_dd_muaveneti_milliye.htm

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/turkey/tu_dd_samsun.htm

Edited November 5, 2019 by Lobokai

[killjoy1941]

Another overblown argument all around.

Torpedoes need to accomplish three things: They need to be fun as well as achieve a balance between usefulness and atmosphere. If they're not fun, players won't use torpedo-equipped ships. If they're over or under-powered, players will min/max to exclude them or will use them exclusively. Atmosphere is the hardest to achieve because it's by far the most subjective, but the devs have a track record of delivering, so I'm content to see how they develop what is still a very early alpha.

[Lobokai]

8 minutes ago, killjoy1941 said:

Another overblown argument all around.

Meh. How I spend time when I have 5 minutes here and there to burn. To me, forums are buffets... if a thread doesn’t look appetizing, don’t put it on your plate  

agreed on your balance and atmosphere points.  

[ColonelHenry]

Which is another problem with this game. Min/Maxing. Right now, it's literally the name of the game. AI doesn't build ships with weakness. With every situation involving anything other than CL/DD/TB, the AI will build BC/BB with 20+ inches of armor (more than the f**king Yamato) and 17 or 18 inches batteries. Right now, the game concept is good but the execution is anything but enjoyable. If you build anything other than min/maxing the effectiveness of your ship, you are f**ked. Try building anything other than a Yamato and you lose. I tried 3 Fuso class battleships, can't pen 2 20+ inches belt armor BB in the build a dreadnought WIP mission. Like WTF? This game should strive toward realism and torpedo damage and effectiveness are two of those. I have asked for torpedo to have a manual mode while the AI launch torpedo should be much more inaccurate and should only be effective to scatter the enemy formation. Along side torpedo load and reload nerf, torpedo damage increase 10 times as of now would result in a good torpedo gameplay.

[Steeltrap]

Torpedoes at Jutland were still a relatively 'new' weapon and it wasn't at all clear what they'd achieve.

http://www.jutland1916.com/tactics-and-technologies-4/torpedoes-2/

I've no idea how accurate that info is, but I found it an interesting view. It reinforces the view that they were more effective psychologically and tactically than in terms of the damage they did. At the same time, however, we probably don't want them to become largely meaningless.

I think the real challenge here is how to approach a weapon that was, by most measures across the majority of the period the game covered, dreadfully unreliable BUT also pretty much the worst single weapon by which to be hit for the majority of ships.

If they hit once in a blue moon but sink DDs and CLs while crippling CAs and pre-dreadnoughts and even early BBs then that somewhat sucks for a few reasons. First of all, you'd feel pretty damn unlucky, and secondly because anything that unreliable will quickly come to be viewed as 'wasted tonnage and money' and thus not used.

If they hit very often, including DDs and CLs (neither of which really have any business being hit except from ambush, and that would tend to mean submarines although not exclusively so), but aren't much of threat in terms of their resulting damage, the same applies.

My own view is that the devs could do worse than consider to what they want torps to be a threat such that the player ignores them to their peril, then try to tweak the game mechanics so that's what happens without unintentional consequences.

We've seen the "BB eats half a dozen torps, doesn't seem too concerned" and not been happy with it. Not happy because the damage seems ineffectual, but also because hitting a BB with 6 torps itself also seems unreasonable.

(As an aside, I think we all can agree that transports ought not to be able to take more than 1 torp and not sink, can't we? That happened to me on a "Armed Convoy" play, lol)

They're all linked, namely the damage models including flooding mechanics and means of mitigation for which the player can pay but obviously with an opportunity cost, and the associated issues of effectiveness of secondary gunfire v primary guns in defending against DDs.

As things stand, I don't worry about torpedo mitigation in my ship designs because I almost never get hit by them and I find improved bulkheads and anti-flood better investments. In some respects that's fine, yet on the other hand it does nag at me that navies did spend an awful lot of time and money on worrying about providing effective protection in the case of a hit by one.

There's also another point I think we tend to overlook, and this applies pretty much to everything. It's one thing to design a system with which we players are happy, but the devs have also to build AI that can use that system effectively, too. I suspect that's why the ship designer is as constrained as it is, for example. I've mentioned it before, but one need only look to Total War: Empire as almost the poster child of "nice systems, shame your own game can't use them", especially at launch.

Cheers

[Lobokai]

7 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:

I have asked for torpedo to have a manual mode

I like this idea, but only if we don't increase damage... you can give me a x2 damage torp platform with manual launch after 4 5" guns really worry any DD as they should... for those who play tank games, a 5" gun is roughly a 125mm tank round screaming at you... it needs to have a bit more teeth than it does now.

[AnonymousPepper]

I think the thing that needs to be remembered first and foremost is that this is a game. Realism is important, yes, but it should take a back seat to enjoyment of the game. Completely disregarding whether it's realistic or not: would you have fun controlling a torpedo squadron that only got one shot? For about 95% of people, the answer to that is no. Likewise, I've seen people suggesting implementing realistic dud rates instead. Would they enjoy only landing one torpedo and having it be a dud? Or worse yet, having a USS Tang experience and getting themselves wrecked by a circular run? There's so many little facets to torpedo performance, and I think the important issue of enjoyment factor needs to be overlooked a lot less in the process.

If torps are in any way not worth the effort to use them, people are just gonna fall back to the big gun meta.

Edited November 6, 2019 by AnonymousPepper

[ColonelHenry]

Yea which is exactly what is the current meta??? I am serious. Look at what AIs are building. Anything BC/BB has 17-18 inches batteries. There is no torpedo meta because it is completely useless. If I build anything other than a BB that isn't carrying 18 inches batteries, the enemy 22, 23, 24, 25 inches armor belt will stop my AP rounds. So what's the point of building ships with compromises? Anti-torp II is enough, anything above it is useless because torp isn't even a threat in this game.

Also, the problem with big gun meta is that small guns are still completely useless. They can't hit for shit and when they do, the damage is delegated to RNJesus who either make half the ship in red and the other half on fire or one compartment is slightly damage and flooded.

[ThatZenoGuy]

On 11/5/2019 at 6:03 AM, Angus MacDuff said:

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.....

If Long Lance is available, i fail to see why it'd be the only choice to make.

Firstly they're heavier, 24 inch torps compared to 21 of most navies, so you cannot fit as many on.

And secondly they're a hazard to the ship carrying them. A DD taking a torpedo hit might survive. A DD taking a Long Lance hit might well split in half.

[khang36]

On 11/5/2019 at 12:42 AM, Lobokai said:

Was hit by a 2 Squadron bombing run and naval gunnery and was limping without steering when struck 

 

Yes, an outdated/hated “5 minute ship” after repeated gunnery hits and disengaging was struck at 3 in the morning. Not in combat 

Sub kills, not what anyone is talking about, not in combat

Same as above

Another night action, this time against a ship not under way 

A uboat and a night attack? 

We’re discussing engagement use of DD torps 

Every website i have seen said the Pommern was only hit by one 12 inch shell which had no apparent effect on her performance and was sunk at 2 or 3 am(some sites cited 2:10 or 3:10) with all hand from a torpedoe hit launched by the HMS Onslaught.

[Angus MacDuff]

12 minutes ago, khang36 said:

Every website i have seen said the Pommern was only hit by one 12 inch shell which had no apparent effect on her performance and was sunk at 2 or 3 am(some sites cited 2:10 or 3:10) with all hand from a torpedoe hit launched by the HMS Onslaught.

It's certainly true that anything can happen in a battle.  If a destroyer can manage to sneak in close and launch torpedoes that manage to hit their target, then yes...It's something that should be taken into account.  That doesn't mean it should happen in every engagement.  Even at Savo Sound, It was more of an accident that the US and Aussie cruisers were hit.  The Japanese launched at night, at long range, in a narrow engagement area with the hopes of doing some mischief.  The yanks didn't even realise that they were being attacked by ships.

[RedParadize]

17 hours ago, Lobokai said:

Meh. How I spend time when I have 5 minutes here and there to burn. To me, forums are buffets... if a thread doesn’t look appetizing, don’t put it on your plate  

agreed on your balance and atmosphere points.  

Thanks, you confirmed what my 5 minute research suggested. I was interested but unwilling to spend more time on that. It does make sense to have reload instead of all in launcher. Deck space is precious. It need to be kept as unobstructed as possible for safety reasons. And if you want to do convoy raids with DDs better have more torpedo if possible.

 

About unreliability. Yes Torpedo were  highly unreliable. But also way too effective to ignore. As a corollary, ICBM are just as unreliable, yet it would be ridiculous to ignore them.

Torpedo needs to give that feeling.

 

[Angus MacDuff]

2 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

About unreliability. Yes Torpedo were  highly unreliable. But also way too effective to ignore. As a corollary, ICBM are just as unreliable, yet it would be ridiculous to ignore them.

Torpedo needs to give that feeling.

Alter course often....

[RedParadize]

Just now, Angus MacDuff said:

Alter course often....

With big ship its not that easy. And for big ship in formation it might not even matter.

 

In terms of balance, I would say that a single unescorted BB should have a decent chance of being owned by a DD group of equivalent cost.

 

[Angus MacDuff]

3 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

terms of balance, I would say that a single unescorted BB should have a decent chance of being owned by a DD group of equivalent cost.

Yeah, it's an interesting tactical problem that I would enjoy gaming out.  Quality of guns/fire control would play a big part.  It's really a function of the secondaries to control the water space close to a BB, so their ability to engage multiple targets would matter the most.  Can the BB comb the torpedo spreads until it cripples all the DDs?  DD torpedo aiming was never exceptional, so they have to get into knife range.  I think I would still bet on the BB as long as it has speed.

[RedParadize]

If you factor in accuracy, by the time of ww1 torpedo outranged secondary battery. That is a historical fact. (Or at least what most people of that era trough)

Best tool to discard DD would be the main battery. And DDs are hard to hit and very maneuverable.

 

What they need to do is make the torpedo spotting harder, make the BB more sluggish to turn and make the torpedo more devastating. I would also make them unreliable. But only if it hit much harder.

[Lobokai]

4 hours ago, khang36 said:

Pommern was only hit by one 12 inch shell which had no apparent effect on her performance

Okay, I teach Jutland, so all of this is in my head, when I find the time I'll cite something from somewhere... but Pommern was hit by smaller fire and a 12" during the night engagement that did enough to her to slow her down and forced her to divert from the battle line (can't tell you exactly what it did, I'll look up sometime) and in the middle of the night she got torpedoed (I want to say 2am?) while alone, so 4-6 hours after it was in combat... so kinda hard to say that's an engagement kill.. and she's one of the antiquated pre-dreads that was obsolete before she was wet (why they were called 5 minute ships)...

edit: see all I said earlier on why sub kills are so different to "in combat" destroyer torp attacks...  many of those things apply to the Pommern

Edited November 6, 2019 by Lobokai

[Angus MacDuff]

2 hours ago, RedParadize said:

If you factor in accuracy, by the time of ww1 torpedo outranged secondary battery. That is a historical fact. (Or at least what most people of that era trough)

Best tool to discard DD would be the main battery. And DDs are hard to hit and very maneuverable.

 

What they need to do is make the torpedo spotting harder, make the BB more sluggish to turn and make the torpedo more devastating. I would also make them unreliable. But only if it hit much harder.

If you are close enough to see the torpedo launch, turn immediately.  If you are not that close, alter every ten minutes or so.

[Fishyfish]

I just played the Torpedo the Dreadnought mission. 

I got 14 torpedo hits on the Dreadnought with 18" fast torpedoes, with the optimized torpedo propulsion tech, from a total of 24 launched. 3 destroyers with 4 tubes each. 

The Dreadnought never dropped below 61% flooding and 65% structure.. 

 

This.. huh. How good are the torpedoes in this game again?