balance Small vessels underpowered.

[Spitfire109]

So I've noticed that Cruisers, destroyers, and etc. are faaaaar too weak. Their guns dont nearly deal the damage or have the accuracy they should. I feel Cruisers and Destoyers need a massive buff, because a battleship of practically any kind is worth almost a fleet of smaller vessels, where in reality it wasn't this severe.

Advanced battleships also are a bit too extreme compared to dreadnoughts. It makes sense for Dreadnought vs Pre-dreadnaught but I feel it's a little bit extreme with Dreadnought vs WW2 era Battleship. 

[Jay Gatsby]

3 hours ago, Spitfire109 said:

So I've noticed that Cruisers, destroyers, and etc. are faaaaar too weak. Their guns dont nearly deal the damage or have the accuracy they should. I feel Cruisers and Destoyers need a massive buff, because a battleship of practically any kind is worth almost a fleet of smaller vessels, where in reality it wasn't this severe.

Advanced battleships also are a bit too extreme compared to dreadnoughts. It makes sense for Dreadnought vs Pre-dreadnaught but I feel it's a little bit extreme with Dreadnought vs WW2 era Battleship. 

No sorry, this is a realistic game, if you want unrealistic buffs or nerfs to make cruisers or destroyers at the same level of a battleship you should play at World of Warships, in real life a cruiser or a destroyer are inferior to a battleship, the game is called "UA: Dreadnought" for a reason, the other types of ships are secondary, moreover, a WW2 battleship has a superior accuracy than an old Dreadnought thanks to the radar and the modern Fire Control System, which is correct and this must not change.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Jay Gatsby

[uwu]

Not trying to be mean, I think you are just being a noob, at first it seem that way until you figure out a good build, the mission against modern battleship was so easy, i had 4 ships all decked out with the latest gears and pwned the modern battleship easily, You need to take a look at the stats such as armor, range finders , towers, gun size, shell types etc, it all have pretty detailed stats  I bet you didn't know you can set how thick the armor be across the ship, go down to bottom u should see a bunch of numbers you can increase or decrease armors as you see fit. I had four battleships but they all had decent armor and guns! didn't even bring the heaviest guns, just 5 triple 14inch with super heavy shells. while they aren't as advance or as long range as the modern battleship, it doesn't matter, i have 4 relative modern ship vs just 1 ai build dumb ship and i didn't even lose a single ship,  the challenge is also angling your ships as well, they can take a lot of beating before go down if you angle correctly the AI modern battleship was broadsiding entire time so my 14 inch was more than enough. Pening it left and right, but man that ship can take a beating. 

[Spitfire109]

26 minutes ago, Jay Gatsby said:

No sorry, this is a realistic game, if you want unrealistic buffs or nerfs to make cruisers or destroyers at the same level of a battleship you should play at World of Warships, in real life a cruiser or a destroyer are inferior to a battleship, the game is called "UA: Dreadnought" for a reason, the other types of ships are secondary, moreover, a WW2 battleship has a superior accuracy than an old Dreadnought thanks to the radar and the modern Fire Control System, which is correct and this must not change.

That still doesn't explain why the destoyers and cruisers are so immensely inaccurate in weapons fire, or how it takes two destroyers eons to destroy each other. There is literally no point in guns below 8 inches vs anything. The smaller ships just dont feel useful in any regard.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Spitfire109

[Illya von Einzbern]

There is a reason why in real life Destroyers would want to avoid CAs like plague and why CAs would avoid BC and so on.... DDs and CLs are out classed by bigger ships = bigger is better.
 

[Spitfire109]

7 minutes ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

There is a reason why in real life Destroyers would want to avoid CAs like plague and why CAs would avoid BC and so on.... DDs and CLs are out classed by bigger ships = bigger is better.
 

So what you're telling me is when the Campaign is released it's just better all together to completely ignore anything smaller than a Battlecruiser. Causd thatz what I'm seeing. And the mission where it let's you design a modern battleship is absolutely ridiculous. There is no world where one ship, even if it's of WW2 tech vs WW1 can annihilate a small fleet on it's own with minimal damage. Yamato was scared of and damaged enough to be of concern for it to retreat by an Escort fleet! And the accuracy achieved is completely ludicrous. Bismarck and Hood took shots at each other from 24 km out and couldn't hit a damn thing, and Bismarck had some of the best rangefinders in the world at the time.

[Spitfire109]

I swear if this whole game is just 'hurr durr battleships!' I don't know if I'll play when its released. Just seems so minmaxi and limiting in playstyle if only one class of vessel is actually able to win battles.

[Lobokai]

All true... but, once smaller guns have better accuracy (secondaries and cruiser/destroyer mounts) we'll be able to get our Laffey's back.  Also, once we get worse accuracy on the big guns vs DDs and better secondaries overall, big ships will be better equipped to hold off the smaller ones... so yeah "meta" shifts incoming I'm sure

[SwaggyB]

4 hours ago, Jay Gatsby said:

No sorry, this is a realistic game, if you want unrealistic buffs or nerfs to make cruisers or destroyers at the same level of a battleship you should play at World of Warships, in real life a cruiser or a destroyer are inferior to a battleship, the game is called "UA: Dreadnought" for a reason, the other types of ships are secondary, moreover, a WW2 battleship has a superior accuracy than an old Dreadnought thanks to the radar and the modern Fire Control System, which is correct and this must not change.

I dont believe the original poster ever stated that cruisers and destroyers should be at the same level as battleships, merely that they are too weak. I agree with the general point that destroyers and cruisers need some kind of improvement, whether that be buffing torpedo damage further or improving the accuracy of smaller calibre guns.

What is unrealistic is battleships having far superior accuracy than smaller ships. Also your point about cruisers and destroyers being inferior to battleships is pretty meaningless. They are inferior in terms of cost and size but there are many examples of smaller ships defeating or driving away larger ships or dealing heavy damage (Jutland, Samar, Surigao, sinking of Svent Iztvan etc) Smaller ships were often capable of dealing decisive damage and I do not think it is realistic or fun to have the battleship be near immune to damage from smaller ships.

[sarrumac]

7 minutes ago, SwaggyB said:

I dont believe the original poster ever stated that cruisers and destroyers should be at the same level as battleships, merely that they are too weak. I agree with the general point that destroyers and cruisers need some kind of improvement, whether that be buffing torpedo damage further or improving the accuracy of smaller calibre guns.

What is unrealistic is battleships having far superior accuracy than smaller ships. Also your point about cruisers and destroyers being inferior to battleships is pretty meaningless. They are inferior in terms of cost and size but there are many examples of smaller ships defeating or driving away larger ships or dealing heavy damage (Jutland, Samar, Surigao, sinking of Svent Iztvan etc) Smaller ships were often capable of dealing decisive damage and I do not think it is realistic or fun to have the battleship be near immune to damage from smaller ships.

Bigger ships are far superior firing platforms, with superior firing direction and heavier guns. Of course they are more accurate.

Edited November 6, 2019 by sarrumac

[SwaggyB]

40 minutes ago, sarrumac said:

Bigger ships are far superior firing platforms, with superior firing direction and heavier guns. Of course they are more accurate.

Naval gun accuracy is incredibly complex and the actual movement of the ship in the sea is a very minor problem when compared to accurately determining where a shot will fall. I dont accept your argument that a battleship will always be more accurate based solely on its size.

When it comes to battleships having superior fire direction systems, this is nonsense. The Fletcher class destroyer had far superior fire control systems than any japanese battleship. 

Naval gunfire accuracy is heavily dependent on the technologies used to aim guns. Accuracy should be determined by these technologies (also training of crew, quality of gun etc).

[Angus MacDuff]

5 minutes ago, SwaggyB said:

Naval gunfire accuracy is heavily dependent on the technologies used to aim guns. Accuracy should be determined by these technologies (also training of crew, quality of gun etc).

When we are talking about pre WWII technologies, then the only gun aiming technology is optical.  The larger gun mounts and/or range finding mounts could hold a much wider stereoscopic range finder, which obviously means far greater accuracy in range calculation.  The more stable gun platform from the greater mass means that the shells are more likely to land in the vicinity of the target (prediction).  It is a simple fact that a smaller more lively gun platform, say...a destroyer, will spread it's shots more widely. 

[Diabolic_Wave]

2 minutes ago, SwaggyB said:

Naval gun accuracy is incredibly complex and the actual movement of the ship in the sea is a very minor problem when compared to accurately determining where a shot will fall. I dont accept your argument that a battleship will always be more accurate based solely on its size.

When it comes to battleships having superior fire direction systems, this is nonsense. The Fletcher class destroyer had far superior fire control systems than any japanese battleship. 

Naval gunfire accuracy is heavily dependent on the technologies used to aim guns. Accuracy should be determined by these technologies (also training of crew, quality of gun etc).

He is right, though.

Let's assume a battleship and a destroyer made by the same nation. The Battleship is, a more stable firing platform, has more excess buoyancy that could be used on better Fire Control systems, has more space to put them on, and has a taller, better vantage point to put them on.

Let's use the Fletcher class to demonstrate this. The Fletcher has a beam of 12 metres. The USS Iowa has a 13.5m wide rangefinder. Since, with stereoscopic rangefinders, a wider rangefinder can allow for higher precision, the Iowa has better optical rangefinding.

I haven't any books on the subject, but the principle seems sound; the bigger the system, in this era, the better it should be. Again, the Fletcher couldn't install the Iowa's GFCS at all.

[RedParadize]

I would like to point out that larger range finder are only needed at longer range. This is trigonometry... it is proportional. A fletcher would have no use for a 13 foot rangefinder.

Remember that these things are fragile, after few deck shot they are most likely gone. By that point you hopefully have a reasonable idea of the distance. Rangefinder were not the only way to do this. Trial and error or its evolution: ladder fire were common practice. Note that fast firing guns have a advantage regarding this, they can correct firing solution quickly.

Edited November 6, 2019 by RedParadize

[Angus MacDuff]

We also seem to be stuck on the best technology from WWII.  Take a look at the Bainbridge class destroyer from WWI.  I see no range finding devices there.  Early Destroyers/torpedo boats were extremely unstable and had a pathetic gun armament.  Other than a kamikaze delivery system for a torpedo, they should not be considered as a realistic threat.

[RedParadize]

Oh I really need to add this:

The accuracy of a 10" RF at 10km is equal to a 1" RF at 1km... in vacuum and on the flat!

 

Atmospheric refraction, earth curve plus heat wave and you can say bye to LR accuracy.

[TAKTCOM]

One of the problems is armor protection scheme.  You can damage the battleship with relatively small calibers without breaking through the armor, because you can’t put armor on the radar, radio communication antenna, anti-aircraft guns and fire-control system.

In game? You take bridge armor too 25'' and  them you radar, radio (does anyone use it at all?) and FCS in safety. Then few inches of armor in extended belt and  destroyers and light cruisers guns can do nothing to you .

What will looked like in reality

In game will look like

Smoll guns uselles and armor OP.  Torpedoes can do nasty things, but this is because no one except AI uses anti-torpedo protection, enemy torpedo ships are always numerous and have ammunition in insane sizes. I mean 300 tonn TB have dozen torpedoes on board?

 

[RedParadize]

@TAKTCOM Yes. AoN armor scheme do not cover all the squishy and essential stuff... the crew.

[Spitfire109]

Crew should be something the game eventually takes into account. If we want true realism (and the true horrors of war) then we need casualties to affect vessels.

[RedParadize]

@Spitfire109 Include the wounded in this. A dead crew is "just" a pair of hands less, plus moral impact. A wounded is the same plus the two or three guys that have to take care of him.

 

A ship with 1/5 of its crew wounded or dead is no more effective. It might not even be combat capable anymore.

[Spitfire109]

Such things like ships surrendering or scuttling themselves due to the crew or captains decisions where also prevalent.

[RedParadize]

Or simply disengaging yes.

[SwaggyB]

3 hours ago, Diabolic_Wave said:

He is right, though.

Let's assume a battleship and a destroyer made by the same nation. The Battleship is, a more stable firing platform, has more excess buoyancy that could be used on better Fire Control systems, has more space to put them on, and has a taller, better vantage point to put them on.

Let's use the Fletcher class to demonstrate this. The Fletcher has a beam of 12 metres. The USS Iowa has a 13.5m wide rangefinder. Since, with stereoscopic rangefinders, a wider rangefinder can allow for higher precision, the Iowa has better optical rangefinding.

I haven't any books on the subject, but the principle seems sound; the bigger the system, in this era, the better it should be. Again, the Fletcher couldn't install the Iowa's GFCS at all.

I don't have the statistics on accuracy of gunfire by type of warship so you, and others in this thread, may very well be correct. I'm sure there are many people here more knowledgeable than me on this issue. I guess my argument is that these ship do not operate in a vacuum and that because there are many factors involved i would dislike one class of ship to have a natural advantage in accuracy. I  would rather accuracy be affected by things such as fire control directors, rangefinders, crew quality, quality of gun etc. In this way a battleship can be more accurate by virtue of the equipment installed (and it will have more room for said equipment) rather than just having a natural advantage.

Regardless of whether a battleship is more accurate than smaller ships, i still agree with OP that smaller calibre guns are too ineffective. It is almost laughable how inaccurate smaller ships can be.

[Diabolic_Wave]

4 hours ago, SwaggyB said:

I  would rather accuracy be affected by things such as fire control directors, rangefinders, crew quality, quality of gun etc. In this way a battleship can be more accurate by virtue of the equipment installed (and it will have more room for said equipment) rather than just having a natural advantage.

Absolutely. I just wanted to make the point that a battleship will probably turn out entirely more accurate regardless. I was probably pretty unclear, so sorry about that.

And, smaller guns certainly don't feel right. I do agree with the 'buff small guns' sentiment entirely.

[Steeltrap]

On 11/7/2019 at 7:07 AM, SwaggyB said:

I don't have the statistics on accuracy of gunfire by type of warship so you, and others in this thread, may very well be correct. I'm sure there are many people here more knowledgeable than me on this issue. I guess my argument is that these ship do not operate in a vacuum and that because there are many factors involved i would dislike one class of ship to have a natural advantage in accuracy. I  would rather accuracy be affected by things such as fire control directors, rangefinders, crew quality, quality of gun etc. In this way a battleship can be more accurate by virtue of the equipment installed (and it will have more room for said equipment) rather than just having a natural advantage.

Regardless of whether a battleship is more accurate than smaller ships, i still agree with OP that smaller calibre guns are too ineffective. It is almost laughable how inaccurate smaller ships can be.

 

On 11/7/2019 at 11:33 AM, Diabolic_Wave said:

Absolutely. I just wanted to make the point that a battleship will probably turn out entirely more accurate regardless. I was probably pretty unclear, so sorry about that.

And, smaller guns certainly don't feel right. I do agree with the 'buff small guns' sentiment entirely.

I think we're all grapping with the obvious issues we see yet inevitably doing so in the absence of rather crucial details about the broader campaign.

In the general scheme of things and with similar technology, a larger capital ship with a screen will be more dangerous in a straight up fight than a smaller one with a screen.

As I used to say in WoWS, there's a reason nations built battleships even if that game left you wondering why they didn't simply conquer the world with fire starting DDs and CLs, LOL.

The campaign, however, is going to introduce issues of logistics and budgets, and those ought to have very large effects. Your BB will drive off my CA, sure, but that assumes your BB can be where my CA is. If I build 5 CAs and you have 2 BBs, you can't be everywhere that I can. And so on.

The page below has some interesting info about gunnery doctrine, ranges and effectiveness. It specifically speaks about Lyddite v TNT and shell design, too. The observation that the Brits believed initial long range fire was going to be disruptive to superstructure etc but only once they got to a range where their AP shells could penetrate reliably did they expect the gunnery to be decisive is highly relevant to the current damage system and effectiveness of HE v AP, too.

http://www.jutland1916.com/tactics-and-technologies-4/the-long-range-battle-and-shell-debate/

Edited November 8, 2019 by Steeltrap
Fixed typo