>>>Alpha-3 General Feedback [HotFix v66]<<<

[Angus MacDuff]

3 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Yeah i just saw the french first pre dreadnought made aorund 1873-75, that way we can experience the birth of the old dreadnought and play to the birth of the modern battleship.

It's not just the birth of these ships.  It's much more about the birth of the naval tactics that goes with this new technology.  This was the point where "broadside" driven naval tactics had to give way to Ironclad/trainable turret tactics and should be the natural start point of our game.  As you say, this pre-Dreadnought period would be a lot of fun to stay in for a lot of players....a very "pure" era of naval warfare, without aircraft or subs.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Angus MacDuff

[Cptbarney]

2 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

It's not just the birth of these ships.  It's much more about the birth of the naval tactics that goes with this new technology.  This was the point where "broadside" driven naval tactics had to give way to Ironclad/trainable turret tactics and should be the natural start point of our game.  As you say, this pre-Dreadnought period would be a lot of fun to stay in for a lot of players....a very "pure" era of naval warfare, without aircraft or subs.

Yeah, i know very little about tactics back then i was more on about the major technological leap that occured (i think the 19th saw major growth in tech and the 20th centuary remains the centuary that saw the quickest and largest amount of tech bought in, changed, invented etc).

But yeah i don't mind subs or aircraft carriers but as i've said before it's always good to give peeps options (plus i like that period as well or any period with angreh boutes).

If i was a billionaire i would probs end making historical (using modern techniques if back then techniques can't be done) ships and putting them into a big sea muesum so peeps can visit.

idk silly little dream of mine among others lol.

[Marshall99]

I would love to see older pre-dreadnoughts from 1875-1890. They looks cool. And it would be great for the campaign too. Maybe we could start with old ships. And we have to develop better, faster, more effective battleships and other classes. 

[Marshall99]

Also, if I remember correctly, the dev team said that we will get some older pre-dreadnought hulls. At least I realy hope. I am an ironclad and pre-dreadnought fun. And also Steampunk fanatic.

[NeoConShooter]

After reading the article, I was greatly impressed with it's thoroughness, but disheartened by it's glairing mistakes. As an amateur ballistician I found the simple mistake that heavier shells carry farther, but that is only true if all other things are also equal, and they rarely are. The four main factors that determine range, penetration and damage of any shell are it's Muzzle Velocity, Sectional Density, Shape and Construction. How these things affect a gun are that it will weigh more as the square root of ME. (Muzzle Energy, if all other things are equal!) So for any given weight and thus strength of gun the heavier the shell, the less powder that can be used to push it out of the barrel, thus it will have a disproportionally lower MV. The heavier shell is harder to push up the bore making more pressure for a longer time. Both things that require you to use less propellant and further reduce MV. The lighter the shell, the easier it is to push up the bore and the more propellant you may use to give disproportionally higher MV. Higher MV is more important to get longer range than a heavier shell is! A "Lite" 47.7 Kg 155MM shell will go 30,600M if fired at 897 M/S, but a "Super Heavy" 152 Kg 203MM shell fired at 762M/S will only go 27,437M! The heavier shell has a SD, that's Sectional Density of 3.687 and the 155MM shell has an SD of 1.985, but the heavy shell can not make up for the increased MV. High SD increases penetration in a linear fashion, but not as much as MV which must be squared to show the difference in penetration. thus the perforation power of the two shells, if they were of identical construction, would be 155MM is 897X897X1.985=1,597,149 and the 203MM is 762X762X3.687=2,140,834, or only 34% greater! The one shell is three times heavier than the other but only goes through 34% more armor at close range. At longer range the heavy shell looses less perforating power with range, but the maximum range is still >3,100M less! The trade offs are myriad and even at the 1880's start date were to numerous to easily comprehend. (Look for a program called "Big Gun MT"! Or if you are well heeled, PRODAS!)

Edited January 15, 2020 by NeoConShooter
corect a typo

[Illya von Einzbern]

The older pre-pre dreads are some what wacky
They look like old ship of the line ships from the hull but have similarities with sub and battleship...
Some look ever scary to board on to but they are cute ships never the less

[Marshall99]

I love the improvisations in these older ships. The engineers always came up with something new. There were many incredible designs. But unfortunately, many were not effective. But this helped to design much better ships later. The key is experience. And the old ironclads can be seen as an experiment. 

[RAMJB]

8 hours ago, NeoConShooter said:

After reading the article, I was greatly impressed with it's thoroughness, but disheartened by it's glairing mistakes.

Which you'll see as follows, are not
 

Quote

As an amateur ballistician I found the simple mistake that heavier shells carry farther, but that is only true if all other things are also equal, and they rarely are.

I guess puttinng that huge disclaimer about how what I was about to write was a massive oversimplification to make the thing short enough (And even en it ended being longer than the Code of Hammurabbi) and understandable enough for the newcomer, was a waste of time ;)..

If to said newcomer to this topic I was about to begin talking about muzzle velocities, ballistic coefficients, cross sections, ballistic caps, etc, then he'd run out in panic. Instead I did a general simplification of things (Even if that means incurring in some specific case mistakes, who cares) to keep things simple ,readable, and understandable.


Also I'll have to tell you that if I was mistaken in what I stated, then you're wrong too! . Heavy shells don't carry farther in vaccuum either (assuming equal MVs). Of course shooting in a vacuum is only one of the scenarios of the many scenarios you can make your analysis on. But still, it is what it is. So, should I have also mentioned it in my post too?. Should you in yours?.

Or is a case of both you and I simplifying things or leaving things out to make them understandable and simple enough?.

 

Quote

 How these things affect a gun are that it will weigh more as the square root of ME. (Muzzle Energy, if all other things are equal!) So for any given weight and thus strength of gun the heavier the shell, the less powder that can be used to push it out of the barrel, thus it will have a disproportionally lower MV. The heavier shell is harder to push up the bore making more pressure for a longer time. Both things that require you to use less propellant and further reduce MV.

No, I'm afraid this is not true. Or rather, it's a case of you being as mistaken in your generalization as I was with mine ;). 

See, there's nothing preventing you from overengineering your gun (particularily so the breech) so it's able to take huge pressures, more than the standards of the caliber, in order to use standard or heavier propellant loads and achieve very high muzzle velocities with very heavy shells for the caliber. You'll meet a myriad of further drawbacks by going that route (barrel wear for one, a heavier and bulkier gun than usual, a much larger ammount of muzzle interference if the barrels aren't separated enough, and a good lot of extra things too) - but nothing inherently prevents you from doing that.

And there are instances of exactly that being done in real life. The italian 15'' gun used in the Littorio class is a very good instance of it: It fired a shell that was between 10 and 15% heavier than the usual for the caliber (885kg of shell when the standard of the caliber is 780-800kg), fired at a decidedly high muzzle velocity (850m/s). You had BOTH a heavy shell and a high muzzle velocity.

Of course the norm wasn't that, it was to either keep the firing charge the same, or reduce it somewhat wich, of course, would imply lower muzzle velocities for heavier projectiles. But that "the norm" is one thing doesn't mean it was always the thing, because it wasn't - so again, you're as guilty of "glaring mistakes" due to oversimplification, as I might be  ;). 
 

Quote

High SD increases penetration in a linear fashion, but not as much as MV which must be squared to show the difference in penetration. thus the perforation power of the two shells, if they were of identical construction, would be 155MM is 897X897X1.985=1,597,149 and the 203MM is 762X762X3.687=2,140,834, or only 34% greater!
The one shell is three times heavier than the other but only goes through 34% more armor at close range. At longer range the heavy shell looses less perforating power with range, but the maximum range is still >3,100M less!

And in a single stroke you're completely setting aside and ignoring things as trajectory shape, angle of fall, difference between deck hits on plunging fire vs vertical armor hits on impacts on vertical surfaces ,etc. Which is extremely important in what you're talking.

Because at short and medium ranges yes the heavier shell (if fired at lower muzzle velocity) will hit vertical surfaces at a higher angle than the lighter, higher MV one. Yet at longer ranges the heavier shell will fall much steeper on the decks than the lighter gun. Both scenarios show that the heavy slower MV shell is suboptimal for vertical armor penetration but much better for deck penetrations at long range, while the lighter shell with higher MV is the opposite.

Also you're giving an inordinate ammount of importance to something that probably is the thing naval designers and fleets of the time cared about. On a land gun probably the most important thing is range. On a NAVAL gun carried aboard a battleship and which must be used to fired other battleships at very large ranges with all the complexities described, losing a bit of range so your gun reached out to 36km instead of 39, was seriously nothing that bothered anyone.

You're also oversimplifying it too. Because this is not an ideal case of 1/2m(0)v(0)v(0)=1/2m(1)v(1)v(1).

Or rather more literally, this is not a case where conservation of energy is ideal. It would be, in a vacuum. But guns aren't fired on vaccuums, they're firing into the atmosphere and the atmosphere does a thing or two at the time of doing something your equations don't consider at all: Slowing your projectile down. I know your calculation uses SD instead of Mass, I still don't care because it still does not truly account for the energy loss induced by friction with air. It's still not a case of E(0)=E(1), E(0) being the energy of the shell just after leaving the muzzle and E(1) it's energy when it finally falls down back to earth. IT's a case of E(0)=E(1)+W ,W being the "work" done by the atmosphere (Friction, or drag) to slow that shell down. Wich in your calculation accounts for nothing...when it should.

In general terms: Given similar enough aerodynamic coefficients and similar enough cross densities; a shell's energy at the muzzle will always (if not in vacuum) be higher than the energy at the end of the trajectory. And the difference in energies will be MUCH larger between initial and final energy if the projectile is lighter than if it's heavier - because the heavier one retains energy better and loses less because of drag.
Again this is a generalization, this is in general terms, and a case-by-case analysis would find guns that would be better or worse in this regard depending on their particular set of projectile aerodynamics and weight.


Back to range- losing a bit of top range really didn't matter much for naval designers of the era. Particularily so because when we're talking of guns perfectly able to reach beyond 35km, at those ranges not only dispersions will be quite large (hence hit chances lower than at smaller ranges if only because the "target box" could only be as large as the dispersion of the guns could admit) but because earth's curvature begins interfering with your ability to spot the shot even from the highest point of view of a battleship (it's fighting tops and masts) because what you'll be seeing will be the superstucture of the enemy, not the hull, and if you don't see the hull you don't see where the shots are actually falling into either.

And if you aren't able to properly spot the fall of shot in naval gunnery, you might aswell wait until you're close enough that you do. Otherwise you'd be firing mostly at random, which is not really conductive towards effective gunnery. Specially not at massive ranges like those. So what good is for if your guns reach, say, 40km instead of 36km?. In naval gunnery you can shoot only what you can directly see, and in EFFECTIVE naval gunnery you can shoot only what you can spot the fall of shot on.

Yet at 40km you're going to be doing neither.

 

Quote

The trade offs are myriad and even at the 1880's start date were to numerous to easily comprehend. (Look for a program called "Big Gun MT"! Or if you are well heeled, PRODAS!)

Exactly why you should keep it simple in a post which is intended to be an introduction to newbies to the act of firing naval guns, and how it was done ;). Which doesn't imply said introduction is full of "glaring mistakes".

Even more when there's a huge disclaimer both at the beginning and at the end of my post stating that there's FAR MORE to what I wrote, and that to give a complete insight in all that went into naval gunnery a whole collection of books covering different aspects of it wouldn't come close to be enough, let alone a random post in an internet forum .

Edited January 15, 2020 by RAMJB

[Angus MacDuff]

Do we have to have these walls of text that have very little to do with the OP?  Maybe another thread where you can have a deep scientific discussion.

[RAMJB]

last page it was suggested that a long post explaining things properly was needed. I wrote that post.

One page later "Do we have to have these walls of text?"


Damned if you do damned if you don't.

<shrugs>

[Angus MacDuff]

1 minute ago, RAMJB said:

last page it was suggested that a long post explaining things properly was needed. I wrote that post.

One page later "Do we have to have these walls of text?"


Damned if you do damned if you don't.

<shrugs>

I'm not objecting to some enthusiasts having a deep discussion.  Just saying it needs to have it's own thread.

[Fishyfish]

This patch has become nearly unplayable. I'm plagued with the inability to sink any enemy warships, reducing them to 0.5%, 0.3% and flat out 0% structure and still they float on. Further, I can hit everything I want at between 20 km to 30 km range, but can't hit anything with in spitting distance. I've played several late game super battleship custom battles where I've destroyed but not sunk anyone at long range, and closed to brawling distances where my guns are utterly useless. Further I've played several pre-dreadnought battles where I've expended my entire main battery magazine with out landing a single hit. And on top of all of that, since when did my armor become butter? My super battleship, with it's 18 inches of top end krup belt was defeated by 12 inch guns at about 10km regulary. I sank to two battleships I couldn't sink and couldn't hit, who were shooting through my everything with their pea shooters. 

I think I'm done. I think I'm going to hang this up and check back in a few months time.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Fishyfish

[Skeksis]

@Fishyfish releasing in alpha is the means for us to 'help' them. These problems need to be reported in detail, so they can debug/fix them.

[Fishyfish]

7 hours ago, Skeksis said:

@Fishyfish releasing in alpha is the means for us to 'help' them. These problems need to be reported in detail, so they can debug/fix them.

I'm pretty sure that they're well aware of these bugs, I've seen them posted about before. But ya know getting no information from the devs is the best. There is nothing I can do to "help" when my game isn't worth firing up to bug test. All the points worth improving or changing have been beaten to death in dozens of posts and I'm not part of the baying crowd that posts nothing more than "give this add this where's my wifu aircraft carrier I demand planes where's tillmans why not space battleship yamato wheres multiplayer" 

Nah man. Maybe I'll try it out when the next patch drops, maybe I'll wait a few. I can get most of my bug reports out with in a few days of playing. There's nothing to do in between because there's no replay value in something that doesn't work right to begin with. Releasing in alpha means for us to "help" them, remember? It's broken, I'll come back and see what got fixed and whats now broken when the next round comes. At that point in time I'll do my duty as an alpha tester to point out whats still broken, rebroken or newly broken and then I'll hang it up again. And really, if this game goes in the direction that the baying crowd wants I probably won't come back to it. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Fishyfish

[Tankaxe]

Light forces (heavy cruiser and below) are still a major contention this update. They are unable to have accuracy above %20 regardless the range and their hulls are tanky enough to withstand a hail of medium gunfire that is 11" the only semi-useful cruiser gun. Accuracy for lower caliber guns need a major overhaul rather than a light step we had this patch. 

Torpedoes also make cruiser action unfun since everyone is throwing torpedo spam at each other with reload times. All sense of tactics and positioning is useless besides the ungodly micro of dodging torps because formations makes evasive manuvers a mess. This also includes of boths sides has DD as it's just stabbing DDs at each other and dropping torps suicidally.

[arkhangelsk]

4 hours ago, Tankaxe said:

Light forces (heavy cruiser and below) are still a major contention this update. They are unable to have accuracy above %20 regardless the range and their hulls are tanky enough to withstand a hail of medium gunfire that is 11" the only semi-useful cruiser gun. Accuracy for lower caliber guns need a major overhaul rather than a light step we had this patch. 

The little guns already have been given manifestly unjustifiable hit rates (per round) at close range that are higher than the main guns despite their inferior ballistics and fire control systems. Perhaps what needs adjusting is your perception of the overall effectiveness for small guns.

[roachbeef]

It seems that pathfinding is still a major issue with squadrons. If you try to sail at "optimal" speed instead of the maximum speed and then try to turn, the trailing ship will overshoot due to not slowing down/turning in time, and then zigzag back and forth in an attempt to follow the lead ship, overshooting each time. This is worst in ships with fast overall speed but slow turning speed.

What I believe is happening is that the trailing ship only looks at the ship ahead of it and tries to gun for X distance behind it, which will break during turn. What we need is for AI pathfinding for the full squadron to be calculated before the turn, and not have it update as the lead ship moves.

Maybe whenever you make a turn order, have the lead ship's position and rudder angle saved to a queue (first in first out), make the following ship head to that position, then copy the rudder angle the lead ship had at that position. Or whatever solution works.

 

Still, more important than pathfinding (which doesn't come up that often in Naval Academy) is the aforementioned barbette size issue. This is just hideous

 

We'll also need barbettes for secondary, tertiary, quaternary, and even quinary batteries as well as some sort of way to install small-caliber AA guns on the superstructure 

Finally, there is an issue with turrets and barbettes clipping with searchlights, vents, and so forth. Being able to adjust their position automatically or manually would be nice, but if not then just removing them when turrets clip would also be fine.

Edited January 25, 2020 by roachbeef

[Tankaxe]

18 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

The little guns already have been given manifestly unjustifiable hit rates (per round) at close range that are higher than the main guns despite their inferior ballistics and fire control systems. Perhaps what needs adjusting is your perception of the overall effectiveness for small guns.

Perhaps, I do know that IRL hit rates were in %5 and that's including advanced radar and fire control. However since the bulkhead damage model in-game requires alot more ordinance to damage the lower hit rates makes it feel unwelcome. We already have ships that can 32 large caliber penetrations and still chug along once the proper dam con tech is aquired. 

Maybe the hit rate is fine but in that case penetrating hits should be of more consequence.

[RAMJB]

22 minutes ago, Tankaxe said:

the lower hit rates makes it feel unwelcome

Please read this as a constructive comment on the topic at hand. It's what intends to be.

While in no way or shape I'm implying the damage model is perfect, modelling game features after "gut feelings" of what's "welcome" or not, from the subjective perspective of players who're self-admittedly got a limited knowledge of the topic, is not a sensible way to go in a game that intends to have realistic features.

If what's at fault is the damage model, and if ships are able to take too much damage (something we can have a good talk about using sources to decide wether it is or not), then what should be tuned is the damage model.

Not to unrealisticaly bring up the accuracy rates of certain guns to compensate for that "felt" drawback in the damage model.

At this point, to be completely blunt, neither hit chances nor the damage model are where they should be. For many different reasons already debated in other threads and topics ,and in this same one. We can continue those debates to see what can be done to improve the game and make it come closer to it's intended goal.

But the way to improve the game isn't tuning things to compensate those others that are currently either incomplete, in need of a rehauling, or both. Things need to be correct separately and on their own. They are not supposed to "compensate" for mutual flaws. Because then you'll be breaking one part of the game to "compensate" the other being broken. and that way we'll end up with a game that looks nothing like actual naval warfare, when what intends to portray is exactly that.

Instead ,if something doesn't work properly then what should be done is to wait for it to be fixed and right on it's own. Not to "break" something else for a short term "gain", because in the long run you're just misalligning everything in the game, and end up with a game where NOTHING works like it should, because everything is over, or under, modelled in order to compensate for something that's also over,or under, modelled, because that one in turn is also under, or overmodelled to compensate for....

Ad infinitum. Then we won't have a game, we will have an unrecoverable disaster.

And at any rate, and in every aspect of it "feelings" are not a good argument to model things after. That can be possible for games which don't bother with realism at all, but given the intentions of the developers to make this a credible, immersive, representation of naval warfare of the big gun era, in this one it's not. Argue for changes based on sources and how the actual thing was vs how it is represented in game. Gameplay reasons are acceptable to an extent too. But "feelings"...are not.

Of course I'm not telling you to refrain from explaining your expectations of the game. What I'm saying is that asking wether something is right or not is perfectly fine and that's what we're all here for. If said something is right someone will tell you why, so you'll get to learn that bit more about an incredibly interesting topic as naval warfare. And if it's not then a debate will be lit up where people will contribute with valid sources and materials and ideas for the devs to make the game improve in that particular area.

But going full on to asking for changes, just based on no other reason that "feelings"...well that's...kind of a different thing ;). To go that far you need to bring sources that show why and how the game is wrong. "I don't think is right" is just not a valid argument, unless backed with the proper proof in the shape of sources or accounts that back your opinions up  ;).

Edited January 25, 2020 by RAMJB

[akd]

24 minutes ago, Tankaxe said:

Perhaps, I do know that IRL hit rates were in %5 and that's including advanced radar and fire control. However since the bulkhead damage model in-game requires alot more ordinance to damage the lower hit rates makes it feel unwelcome. We already have ships that can 32 large caliber penetrations and still chug along once the proper dam con tech is aquired. 

Maybe the hit rate is fine but in that case penetrating hits should be of more consequence.

As noted, that is a damage model problem (and one that is highly circumstantial) not an accuracy problem.  I have seen a single 9" penetration sink a pre-dreadnought, which is a bit extreme the other way.

[roachbeef]

 

28 minutes ago, Tankaxe said:

Maybe the hit rate is fine but in that case penetrating hits should be of more consequence.

14 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

snip

I think Tankaxe is trying to say that ships are too tanky, not that accuracy needs a buff, so there's no need for another wall of text repeating what was said before.

If you want to sink ships quickly, just include a few destroyers that can finish off the enemy with torpedoes. It's what usually happened to ships who refused to sink.

In addition to rebalancing the damage model, here are some other possible fixes:

1. Remove that time compression limit. Victory at Sea: Pacific offered 32X time compression in RTS without too much of a decrease in frame rate. Granted, VaSP had a far lower graphical quality than UAD, so it is likely the devs will have to spend an inordinate amount of time ironing out bugs to get that feature.
2. Add the ability to order your gunners to specifically aim at a ship's waterline when you're at close range ( < 3km) instead of shooting at a tower that's already destroyed. That should serve as a replacement for when you're out of torpedoes.
3. Implement crew numbers, so if you shoot at a ship long enough the surviving crew will either scuttle it, surrender, or be too dead to operate any of the weapons systems or retreat.

[RAMJB]

/Edit: Run removefootfrommouth.exe

Edited January 25, 2020 by RAMJB

[roachbeef]

35 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

Tankaxe was indeed trying to say that accuracy needs a buff

And after arkhangelsk's post, they changed their opinion to 

1 hour ago, Tankaxe said:

Perhaps, I do know that IRL hit rates were in %5 and that's including advanced radar and fire control. However since the bulkhead damage model in-game requires alot more ordinance to damage the lower hit rates makes it feel unwelcome. We already have ships that can 32 large caliber penetrations and still chug along once the proper dam con tech is aquired. 

Maybe the hit rate is fine but in that case penetrating hits should be of more consequence.

The specifics changed, even if the sentiment behind them (that ships took too long to die) did not.

I wasn't aiming for a personal attack—merely trying to be helpful and clarify what Tankaxe was trying to argue in their latest comment—you seemed to take their initial complaint regarding accuracy and went on to talk about damage models, which they already acknowledged might be the issue. I'm sorry that you feel personally attacked in this forum as you have shared a lot here, but I feel like you are overreacting to a tongue-in-cheek comment. Due to the nature of text-only communication, many people can come across as rude when they're only joking around and not being serious. I do not want to come across as rude,  but I feel like assuming people aren't trying to be antagonistic will make life on the Internet a lot less stressful and more fun. Sorry if I offended you. I'll be more explicit in the future.

Edited January 25, 2020 by roachbeef

[RAMJB]

34 minutes ago, roachbeef said:

t I feel like you are overreacting to a tongue-in-cheek comment. Due to the nature of text-only communication, many people can come across as rude when they're only joking around and not being serious. I do not want to come across as rude,  but I feel like assuming people aren't trying to be antagonistic will make life on the Internet a lot less stressful and more fun.

It perfectly might be the case. If I got the whole gist of it wrong, as it seems obvious I have, the one to apologize here should be me, not you.

If you've been around this forums for a while, you'll know that it's not my choice to be pretty much perpetually into a defensive posture here. See, had I not been wrong on this one, it wouldn't have been the first one that someone comes out of nowhere to drop some pretty...let's say... open...and nasty... personal attacks towards me.

Nor the second time....nor the third, in fact.

A point is reached where it's not a case of me wanting to feel antagonized, which is not the case at all; is that out of just being used to it from repeatedly being subjected to things like that, by this stage I instantly assume by default that messages that in my initial days in this forum I'd have instantly taken as tongue in cheek and not malicious at all, I take as something very different.

I agree that it's kinda stressful because after the times I mentioned avobe, I'm very self aware of how I post, how I word things, how I come across in my answers so nobody gets the wrong idea of my intentions when posting...and even doing that I've still gotten some pretty nasty posts against me.

So it's not really my choice to be in the defensive, really, at this point is pretty much the position I'm forced to take by default. Which is kinda sad because I love good natured banter as much as anyone else, but at this stage I'm just winded of being the target of personal attacks from people who somehow, and with absolutely no reason to do so, find innapropiate that I try to contribute to this forum in the way I do.

Again I'm sorry you got caught by an answer like that when there was no ill will from your part. At this point it's really difficult to me to distinguish from people who're truly being mean from people who're just making a good natured poke at my posts ;). 

Edited January 25, 2020 by RAMJB

[Tankaxe]

Perhaps feel was not the proper word to use but Roach was correct that I reevaluated my opinions once its been pointed out. What I was trying to say with the damage model as it is now the lower hit rate would make sinking ships a more tedious action unless both were changed together. 

akd did point out that it can be inconsistent like the 9" one shot example but then require ludicrous amount of ordinance to sink the next game. However the Pre-dread era is much more easy to sink ships because all the background dam con techs hadn't kicked in yet and can be quite fun.

Enjoyed these discussions and wish everyone a good day

Edited January 25, 2020 by Tankaxe