Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, captinjoehenry said:

I think those pens are probably on the unarmored super structure?  Or other unarmored parts of the ship?

It can't be super structure hit, there is extended deck and belt hit in that. This is more or less just weak spots mechanics at work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There were more or less seven major engagements between 1867 and 1914. The first was Yalu River, in the 1894-1895 First Sino-Japanese War. It was a large fleet engagement, 12v14, and ended with d

[First of all I'd like to say I'm delighted to see Nick and the others making adjustments and keeping us so well informed. Very encouraging, and NOTHING I say here is intended in any way to suggest I'

HOTFIX v66 (18/12/2019) Balances - Addressed issue making ships too hard to sink. - Fine tuning of damage model, addressing especially the low power of secondary guns. - Improvement of short ran

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

I understand your points. Bulkheads are importent, but you have to find the balance building battleships. Battleships are durable, so they need armor. They also need many bulkheads, they need big guns, need secondary guns against destroyers, torpedoboats, etc...  When you build a modern battleship, this is not difficult to plan. But when you design a pre dreadnought battleship, it can be difficult. Don't forget. Pre dreadnoughts need the reliable side armor, because they fight closer distances. More armor=more ton; more bulkheads=more ton; bigger guns=more accurate (debatable) , more ton; etc... Also we have to think about what kinde of armor type is the best for building. In the 1890's there aren't many. Harvey is a good choice though. Reinforced bulkheads are importent. Speed. I always plan them around 17 knots. This is an optimal speed. 

What I want to say is that, building a good pre dreadnought is all about compromises. The weight is the biggest problem. And that is why i use most of the time few bulkheads. When you have the reliable, thick armor, it is enough. At least I thought it was enough. But 350 mm is still paper against 229 mm AP. 

I would suggest using less armor on extended deck, and then reduce the extended belt if needed.

Use good barbettes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

I understand your points. Bulkheads are importent, but you have to find the balance building battleships. Battleships are durable, so they need armor. They also need many bulkheads, they need big guns, need secondary guns against destroyers, torpedoboats, etc...  When you build a modern battleship, this is not difficult to plan. But when you design a pre dreadnought battleship, it can be difficult. Don't forget. Pre dreadnoughts need the reliable side armor, because they fight closer distances. More armor=more ton; more bulkheads=more ton; bigger guns=more accurate (debatable) , more ton; etc... Also we have to think about what kinde of armor type is the best for building. In the 1890's there aren't many. Harvey is a good choice though. Reinforced bulkheads are importent. Speed. I always plan them around 17 knots. This is an optimal speed. 

What I want to say is that, building a good pre dreadnought is all about compromises. The weight is the biggest problem. And that is why i use most of the time few bulkheads. When you have the reliable, thick armor, it is enough. At least I thought it was enough. But 350 mm is still paper against 229 mm AP. 


Armor is not as important as bulkheads, if you're using less than standard. And I'd say that even less than "many".

Simply stated, less bulkheads means fires spreading with ease, multi-"square" flooding, and opening your ship to very, very, very bad things that, when happen, and will happen, will make you regret not having more.

"hotfix" status aside - I'd rather reduce one inch of belt armor than go to battle with few bulkheads. The somewhat thinner belt I can compensate for in battle (not giving perpendicular angles to the enemy, keeping a somewhat larger range, etc). The lack of bulkheads, I can not.

Edited by RAMJB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I have been playing Dreadnoughts since 17th Dec 2019. (Why didn't Steam alert me to it before then!) This is a most impressive game – wonderfully stable, dockyard idea is super, academy is a brilliant way to teach the game – very exciting.

My naval history: Peter Turcan's dreadnoughts on C64 and Amiga; CSI's Great Naval Battles;Task Force 1942; Fighting Steel; Vstep's Ship Simulator; Silent Hunter; Killerfish's Atlantic Fleet.

They all basically put me on the bridge with binoculars etc. gave me a plot and all the controls.

I have never played an RTS type modern real time game before – so my initial learning curve was controlling the camera separate to controlling the ship – and getting very confused and frustrated between them. Also, selecting a target also seemed to cause the ship to change course. I have got better able to do these tasks now.

My point is that someone who plays RTS games will have very little trouble – but someone who plays naval games (like me) will really struggle to learn the basics of the control systems. Certainly using a standard RTS interface makes the game available to a wider customer base than naval enthusiasts alone.

Request – would it be possible to have a selectable control option where the camera stays “anchored” on the chosen vessel when I choose to do that? I think this would improve the “feel” and allow the player to invest in their ship more easily – Ideally I would love to be able to stand on the bridge of my ship and direct it from there. I think this would help develop an identification with “our ship”, please.

I would also like to be able to move around my fleet and be the captain on the bridge of each in turn. I am finding it difficult to move around my ships without finding them changing course and target after I have left them – perhaps I need to learn to use WASD for the camera and the mouse for ship orders – I tend to use mouse for everything.

The shipyard is excellent – seems to offer proper physics, but also the prospect of designing my own fleet, and designing historical ships. I like the depth I can see growing into the game.

So I have really struggled to get as far through the academy as being able to sink the semi-dreadnought! - and that is great because I don't want the game to be too easy. You are managing the balance between a game and a simulator really well. At Jutland HMS Tiger fired 400 13.5inch shells without a single hit! So there needs to be a balance between realism and gaming satisfaction!

Well done with what you have achieved so far – it is already better than most “finished” games – keep up the great work.  The potential here is enormous.

Buchanie

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2019 at 5:47 PM, RAMJB said:


Armor is not as important as bulkheads, if you're using less than standard. And I'd say that even less than "many".

Simply stated, less bulkheads means fires spreading with ease, multi-"square" flooding, and opening your ship to very, very, very bad things that, when happen, and will happen, will make you regret not having more.

"hotfix" status aside - I'd rather reduce one inch of belt armor than go to battle with few bulkheads. The somewhat thinner belt I can compensate for in battle (not giving perpendicular angles to the enemy, keeping a somewhat larger range, etc). The lack of bulkheads, I can not.

Prior to the hotfix bulkheads were overwhelmingly (almost absurdly so) THE most important factor.

A DD with maximum bulkheads was FAR more difficult to sink than a BB with few.

Indeed I wrote elsewhere that the damage model is very much a "problem" to be solved because transports taking a barrage of shells to the point of flooding with fires everywhere that would survive if you didn't keep shooting until they sank because their damage control was so astoundingly good is somewhat daft.

It's also why my long post about processes, and why splitting the major aspects of the tactical combat into sub-processes was necessary, pointed out the dangers of changing multiple significant aspects across multiple processes in any given update or hotfix. It makes things that much harder to test reasonably.

I am strongly of the view they ought ONLY to have changed accuracy as that was the point most people were making, namely their secondaries really were useless under specific circumstances. Address those (accuracy related) and see what happened.

Seeing also that some are starting to make some pointed comments about it, yes, I am of the view the game ought to focus on getting the basics "accurate" and then play around for purposes of game play.

Which means I don't want secondaries to be useless decorations even if at later stages of technology, mainly due to increased combat ranges, they largely were. But I also don't want 5" secondaries to punch through the belt armour of CA and CL and 5km range where they also have a greater chance to hit than my main guns, which is what this hotfix with changes to accuracy, penetration and the damage model (in other words ALL 3 MAIN COMPONENTS of gunnery) all at once delivered us (and I've not mentioned the increased numbers of enemy ship detonations that is bringing through bow/stern penetrations; a perfect illustration of cascading unintended consequences through changes that are multiplicative in their effects).

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

I don't want secondaries to be useless decorations even if at later stages of technology, mainly due to increased combat ranges, they largely were.



No they were not. Those batteries, which in most cases were DP, were the cornerstone of the AA barrage those ships could put up. And they still had a critical role to play in antiship roles, as they were vital in restricted waters (think Guadalcanal) and when engaging ships of smaller size than battleships (saving main battery ammo and, almost as important, main battery barrel life).

Anyone who has ever played RTW (Beyond actually reading about historical warfare, just playing that game) knows secondaries, and at certain point, even tertiaries are CRITICAL for a battleship's survival.
Lest a night battle happens and you find a DD flotilla 2000yards away, and all you have are those 1-to-2 rounds per minute main guns available to fend them off. Without secondaries to fire on them, welcome to torpedo hell.
Or during a normal engagement a flotilla comes in charging. Without secondaries to fire on them, welcome to "pick your poison" between spending a whole lot of time under enemy unanswered battleship fire while you try to shoot those main guns at the charging DDs, or just let them come and torpedo you into kingdom come. Oh, don't forget aswell that each time you fire on those dudes, its 1% of your ammo gone. If the main battlefleet engagement turns out to be long, good luck when you run out of ammo.


I loathe to insist on it yet again - but as many times as it has been repeated, secondaries weren't ornamental - they had a purpose.

That said purpose wasn't as shiny, charming, full of élan, etc as "massacring anything unarmoured within range just by looking at it funny" doesn't mean they are "useless decorations". I'll insist again that many of the reasons secondaries were useful are still not in the game yet. That doesn't mean that in the meantime it takes to implement those reasons, they have to do what they never did: Secondary guns had limited effective range and VERY limited accuracy when compared with the main battery. That holds true even for the times before secondary directors became a thing.

And if this game aspires to be a realistic representation of naval warfare, secondaries will have limited range and very limited accuracy, when compared with the main battery too. That won't mean they will be "useless decorations". And repeating it won't turn them into those either.

Edited by RAMJB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, both were sunk. As far as the lessons of the battle go, the A-class are approximately 1400 ton destroyers. With six inch armament and a WWII hull, Scharnhorst took about one hour to sink each destroyer with six inch guns (open fire 1627, Ardent bites the dust at 1725, then Acasta on 1820). We can make excuses, but that's what goes on the scorecard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scharnhorst vs HMS Glorious escort is not a great example of secondary efficacy as a TB/DD defense. First of, the two destroyer were laying smoke and did not attempt a torpedo run until HMS Glorious was sunk, note that after that both battleship were probably firing the main at them as well. Secondly the two German Battleship were coming toward them, form that angle evasive maneuver are much more likely to succeed. Yet, one torpedo still hit.

In my opinion, secondary became ineffective in their TB/DD defense role around WW1, if not before. Secondary had little chance to stop or deter TB/DD before they launch their torpedo.  It was not secondary battery only role trough, and by ww2 secondary were mostly dual purpose and kept around mainly for AA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Scharnhorst vs HMS Glorious escort is not a great example of secondary efficacy as a TB/DD defense. First of, the two destroyer were laying smoke and did not attempt a torpedo run until HMS Glorious was sunk, note that after that both battleship were probably firing the main at them as well. Secondly the two German Battleship were coming toward them, form that angle evasive maneuver are much more likely to succeed. Yet, one torpedo still hit.

My main emphasis is to draw some hints about the practical hit rates of secondaries (as opposed to gunnery trials) on destroyers rather than a battlecruiser's evasive capability. Scharnhorst was apparently hit by one of Acasta's torpedoes at 1734, so it must have closed in before then to torpedo firing range. She was sunk, finally at 1820, about 45 minutes later, not counting any hits that happened before 1734! Things just aren't looking too good...

For my end, I actually differ from RamJB a little bit. RamJB seems confident with realistic (or pre-hotfix) hit rates that once we actually have to think about more than one battle people would realize the importance of secondaries despite their tactical limitations. I'm actually not as confident it'll take place, but I'm happy to accept either result, as long as they are from "honest" assumptions - that is, we did not give the little guns MVs of 11xx m/s, massive penetrations or base hit chance better than the better-equipped big guns to obtain these results. I'm actually curious which will come out on top in an honest simulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

My main emphasis is to draw some hints about the practical hit rates of secondaries (as opposed to gunnery trials) on destroyers rather than a battlecruiser's evasive capability. Scharnhorst was apparently hit by one of Acasta's torpedoes at 1734, so it must have closed in before then to torpedo firing range. She was sunk, finally at 1820, about 45 minutes later, not counting any hits that happened before 1734! Things just aren't looking too good...

I fail to see in what this contradict what I said. It seem to actually reinforce my point.

Ps: we should move this discussion elsewhere than Combat feedback and Alpha 3. Preferably in the same topic!

Edited by RedParadize
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RAMJB said:


And if this game aspires to be a realistic representation of naval warfare, secondaries will have limited range and very limited accuracy, when compared with the main battery too. That won't mean they will be "useless decorations". And repeating it won't turn them into those either.

You have taken my post to mean something entirely different from what I meant it to be. In fact you've even repeated points I've made earlier (such as DP and improved directors).

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

You have taken my post to mean something entirely different from what I meant it to be. In fact you've even repeated points I've made earlier (such as DP and improved directors).

Of course that might be because I haven't listed all those things each time because that gets somewhat cumbersome, or because I didn't word it well, or both.

I know they weren't useless, I know DP and secondary director suites etc all were relevant, and so on.

When I said "useless decorations" I was referring to the problem they APPEARED either to hit targets one might expect them to engage (DDs under 5km) "far too infrequently", or "do too little" for many people's tastes.

Just thought I'd clarify. My initial response wasn't very helpful, lol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this thread surpossed to be about feedback?

I mean its great and all people having convo's but trying to read feedback consistently and effciently when 2-4pages are taken up by arguements doesn't really help.

We should have a general discussion or arguement thread somewhere so people can talk without issue (best to put here since this will be the most viewed sub-forum).

Otherwise we are just clogging the thread up with pointless posts.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been addressed before, but with the new patch and Hotfix, secondary and tertiary weapons become extremely lethal, so much that I equipped my pre 1918 battleships with 9" guns and as much 6" and 2" guns as possible, combined with a high speed. With the new penetration values I would just go close in and hammer even heavily armored battleships with my 6" guns. In a fight of 10 BB vs 10BB my ships repeatedly annihilated the enemy, in most cases without losing a single ship. Also interesting were the hit probabilities at very close (<2500 m) range: Main guns 1%, 6" 8%, 2" 15%. 

While this was actually fun to play, historically its a bit out of whack...

Edited by Bontainer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2019 at 9:50 AM, Bontainer said:

Sorry if this has been addressed before, but with the new patch and Hotfix, secondary and tertiary weapons become extremely lethal, so much that I equipped my pre 1918 battleships with 9" guns and as much 6" and 2" guns as possible, combined with a high speed. With the new penetration values I would just go close in and hammer even heavily armored battleships with my 6" guns. In a fight of 10 BB vs 10BB my ships repeatedly annihilated the enemy, in most cases without losing a single ship. Also interesting were the hit probabilities at very close (<2500 m) range: Main guns 1%, 6" 8%, 2" 15%. 

While this was actually fun to play, historically its a bit out of whack...

You say it's historically out of whack...but.  Against early and all or nothing armor schemes, small guns at close ranges were devastating. Tsushima is actually one of the best examples of this; the IJN had less heavy capital ships and fewer high calibre barrels, but significantly more cruisers, torpedo boats/early destroyers and therefore smaller guns, and the effect of such massed focus fire was utterly devastating. (This may also however be in part due to the Japanese perfection of what is Lyddite in game, I'm not 100% sure.) 

More modern examples include Bismarck (It wasn't just large shells that made her a combat loss, many of her systems were knocked out by smaller shells during her final battle.), The Haguro, a Myoko class heavy cruiser, going down to a Destroyer Flotilla in a straight gun/torpedo duel at the end of the war. (Last gunfight in history for those who are interested.) The Prinz Eugen also penetrated both Hood and Prince of Wales with 203mm/8 inch HE shells, one of which was later found undetonated (a dud) inside one of Prince of Wales' secondary magazines. One of these shells set the fire on Hood that detonated her AA magazines for her secondary arms and AA guns which some still debate lead to her final detonation, and not the Bismarck. The Tenryuu sunk or damaged multiple US Heavy Cruisers with 140mm/5.5 inch guns and some torpedo action. 

These are just what I remember off the top of my head. But even up to WW2, unless you had heavy enough armor and a turtleback (and even this is not guaranteed protection), small guns were very capable of annihilating your ship at close ranges. Especially high velocity weapons, such as the German 203mm guns on the Hippers, could happily penetrate the kinetic equivalent of 400mm or more of steel at close in ranges. 

As for accuracy, Battleship main guns are actually among the least accurate of weapons until the Iowas, and even they could never boast more than a 3-5% hit rate under test conditions. To use the Denmark Strait as an example again, the Prinz Eugen collected more hits on target than the Bismarck did, despite firing less ammo overall. (If we include Bismarck secondaries also firing.) Fortunately for the British, German shells suffered many defects in production, and just over half of all hits were duds. Had they not been, it is likely the Prince of Wales would also have been lost. (Wondering if dud shells and torpedoes will ever also be added to the game. Perhaps reflecting poor economic conditions in the home country during the campaign?) 

As with all things in the Alpha, it will be balanced out, but just because ships had armor they were not invincible. Lighter guns could and would do significant damage to and through armor, whether the current levels in game are appropriate or not is up to the devs to balance. 

Edited by Reaper Jack
typo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

You say it's historically out of whack...but.  Against early and all or nothing armor schemes, small guns at close ranges were devastating. Tsushima is actually one of the best examples of this; the IJN had less heavy capital ships and fewer high calibre barrels, but significantly more cruisers, torpedo boats/early destroyers and therefore smaller guns, and the effect of such massed focus fire was utterly devastating. (This may also however be in part due to the Japanese perfection of what is Lyddite in game, I'm not 100% sure.) 


It's out of whack. Otherwise modern dreadnoughts would've stockpiled loads of 6'' guns on their decks. Not 12,14,15,16 and 18 inch guns.

You mention tsushima - a battle where ranges were tremendously close - and even at those ranges guns under 12'' would not penetrate the main armor of battleships. The quick firing guns, true, did a sterling job... the sterling job of peppering and mangling superstructures and sending splinters on very problematic area (Rozhestvensky was killed by a shell fragment, for instance).

Even then out of the russian ships sunk, Navarin and Veliky were sunk by torpedoes, Imperator Alexandr III was killed by 12'' gunfire, Borodino was blown up by a 12'' in the magazines. The only russian battleship sunk by cruiser gunfire was Oslyabya, but even then when swarmed by then, even then at knife fighting range, and even then, the loss was credited to the japanese cruisers' main guns (203mm), not to the smaller rapid firing ones. 

The damage dealt by guns smaller than 12'' was, summing up, meritory but not lethal on it's own. And limited to high explosive damage out of the vital areas.

In this game is ravenously lethal, and their AP goes through armor as if they were coil guns.

It's out of whack.


 

6 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

More modern examples include Bismarck (It wasn't just large shells that made her a combat loss, many of her systems were knocked out by smaller shells during her final battle.), The Haguro, a Myoko class heavy cruiser, going down to a Destroyer Flotilla in a straight gun/torpedo duel at the end of the war. (Last gunfight in history for those who are interested.) The Prinz Eugen also penetrated both Hood and Prince of Wales with 203mm/8 inch HE shells, one of which was later found undetonated (a dud) inside one of Prince of Wales' secondary magazines. One of these shells set the fire on Hood that detonated her AA magazines for her secondary arms and AA guns which some still debate lead to her final detonation, and not the Bismarck. The Tenryuu sunk or damaged multiple US Heavy Cruisers with 140mm/5.5 inch guns and some torpedo action. 


I'm going to ask you about the source you're using here. Bismarck **WAS** turned into a combat loss by heavy gunfire. The shells that knocked out her FC tops were battleship shells. The sells that knocked out her turrets were battleships shells. The two shells registered in her machinery areas were battleship shells. Furthermore - the shell that forced Bismarck to abort the sortie was a battleship shell, and the shell that slowed her down to 28 knots tops, was also a battleship shell.

All that cruiser gunfire did to Bismarck was to rearrange the already mangled superstructure a bit more, during the target pratice stretch of the engagement. Again, any kind of primary source that points out the opposite, please share it.

Haguro was not a battleship, was a cruiser with a 4'' thick main belt, and laughable turret armor. I don't know what that name is doing in a discussion about the disgusting effect of light gun AP against battleships in the game, but Haguro was not a battleship so it's like naming a watermenlon in a discussion about oranges. 

Prinz Eugen did not "penetrate" Hood, nor did "penetrate" PoW, much less with HE shells. Prinz Eugen did hit Hood on the boat deck, as luck wanted it, where all the ready ammunition for the UP rockets was stored. Of course that did cause a pretty large fire - but then again it was a fire on the deck situation - nothing compromising for the ship's survability at all.

So:

A) Prinz Eugen did **NOT** hit an "AA magazine" (ready to use ammunition stored on the deck is not a "magazine", I'm sorry)
and

B-) The theory about Hood's sinking "not being bismarck" is a beautiful tale, but one discredited already more than 30 years ago, and with little grasp on reality. For many reasons, not the least that the inspection of the wreck that took place in the early 2000s pretty much confirmed that the ship blew up by the 15'' aft magazines going off, which killed many of the "theories" that had floated around since Hood's demise (including the one about the fire caused by PE). The definitive cause of the loss of HMS Hood is not completely certain, but what it's certain is that it was no "spreading fire from the boat deck".



Meanwhile PoW took 8'' hits from Prinz Eugen. The total accounted damage from then can be summed up with one word: Testimonial. The shell lodged in PoW's wasn't "in the magazine" - was near the aft starboard boiler room. And it wasn't Prinz Eugen's either - it was a 380mm AP shell from Bismarck.



Tenryu sank no cruiser with her 5.5'' guns. She does have at least one cruiser to her credit, indeed - result of her Long Lance torpedoes. We're not discussing torpedoes here at the moment. We're discussing gunfire, and tenryu sank nothing with her 140mm guns.


 

6 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

But even up to WW2, unless you had heavy enough armor and a turtleback (and even this is not guaranteed protection), small guns were very capable of annihilating your ship at close ranges.


Source, please.

 

6 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

Especially high velocity weapons, such as the German 203mm guns on the Hippers, could happily penetrate the kinetic equivalent of 400mm or more of steel at close in ranges. 


Prinz Eugen's 203mm AP could penetrate 24cm of armor at 10.000mm on the best of the days (source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_8-60_skc34.php ). I'm going to ask you again for that source you're using - because yes, PE's guns "could" penetrate 400mm of armor. Just after leaving the muzzle. And that doesn't even compute as "point blank range".

And Prinz Eugen's guns were 8'' in caliber. 203mm. What people are complaining (and rightly so) are the completely out of whack penetration of small guns (2'', 3'', 4'',5'', 6'', the likes) so whatever those 8'' guns performed like, is completely offtopic to the debate at hand.

 

I'm going to shorten this and just obviate the later passages of your post for the sake of brevity, but for the record, yes, you're wrong on those ones too. The point that stands is that nothing of what you stated adresses the problem at hand, and the problem at hand is that in the game small gun AP shells perform like railguns, not actual historical counterparts. 

I'm going to leave a single sample for you to understand what this all is about:

In-game penetration performance for a 4'' Mark 4 gun at 5000m: 7.5'' of basic armor. Translated into Krupp IV: 3.5'' of armor at 5000m

Real life penetration of the highest muzzle velocity 4'' gun of the era (American 4''/50 Mark9): 2'' of armor at 5750m. We're talking of an over performance in the 70-75% range here. And that is the highest muzzle velocity 4'' gun of the era. Not compared with the average ones (which usually were 40 calibers long).

It's a pattern that is the same across the board and the smaller the gun, the bigger the discrepancy where the game gives small guns ludicrous penetration values at short ranges they never had (not even close). 

So yes, there's a problem with small guns in the game. Their penetration is completely out of place compared with their historical counterparts.

 



 

Edited by RAMJB
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RAMJB said:


It's out of whack. Otherwise modern dreadnoughts would've stockpiled loads of 6'' guns on their decks. Not 12,14,15,16 and 18 inch guns.

You mention tsushima - a battle where ranges were tremendously close - and even at those ranges guns under 12'' would not penetrate the main armor of battleships. The quick firing guns, true, did a sterling job... the sterling job of peppering and mangling superstructures and sending splinters on very problematic area (Rozhestvensky was killed by a shell fragment, for instance).

Even then out of the russian ships sunk, Navarin and Veliky were sunk by torpedoes, Imperator Alexandr III was killed by 12'' gunfire, Borodino was blown up by a 12'' in the magazines. The only russian battleship sunk by cruiser gunfire was Oslyabya, but even then when swarmed by then, even then at knife fighting range, and even then, the loss was credited to the japanese cruisers' main guns (203mm), not to the smaller rapid firing ones. 

The damage dealt by guns smaller than 12'' was, summing up, meritory but not lethal on it's own. And limited to high explosive damage out of the vital areas.

In this game is ravenously lethal, and their AP goes through armor as if they were coil guns.

It's out of whack.


 


I'm going to ask you about the source you're using here. Bismarck **WAS** turned into a combat loss by heavy gunfire. The shells that knocked out her FC tops were battleship shells. The sells that knocked out her turrets were battleships shells. The two shells registered in her machinery areas were battleship shells. Furthermore - the shell that forced Bismarck to abort the sortie was a battleship shell, and the shell that slowed her down to 28 knots tops, was also a battleship shell.

All that cruiser gunfire did to Bismarck was to rearrange the already mangled superstructure a bit more, during the target pratice stretch of the engagement. Again, any kind of primary source that points out the opposite, please share it.

Haguro was not a battleship, was a cruiser with a 4'' thick main belt, and laughable turret armor. I don't know what that name is doing in a discussion about the disgusting effect of light gun AP against battleships in the game, but Haguro was not a battleship so it's like naming a watermenlon in a discussion about oranges. 

Prinz Eugen did not "penetrate" Hood, nor did "penetrate" PoW, much less with HE shells. Prinz Eugen did hit Hood on the boat deck, as luck wanted it, where all the ready ammunition for the UP rockets was stored. Of course that did cause a pretty large fire - but then again it was a fire on the deck situation - nothing compromising for the ship's survability at all.

So:

A) Prinz Eugen did **NOT** hit an "AA magazine" (ready to use ammunition stored on the deck is not a "magazine", I'm sorry)
and

B-) The theory about Hood's sinking "not being bismarck" is a beautiful tale, but one discredited already more than 30 years ago, and with little grasp on reality. For many reasons, not the least that the inspection of the wreck that took place in the early 2000s pretty much confirmed that the ship blew up by the 15'' aft magazines going off, which killed many of the "theories" that had floated around since Hood's demise (including the one about the fire caused by PE). The definitive cause of the loss of HMS Hood is not completely certain, but what it's certain is that it was no "spreading fire from the boat deck".



Meanwhile PoW took 8'' hits from Prinz Eugen. The total accounted damage from then can be summed up with one word: Testimonial. The shell lodged in PoW's wasn't "in the magazine" - was near the aft starboard boiler room. And it wasn't Prinz Eugen's either - it was a 380mm AP shell from Bismarck.



Tenryu sank no cruiser with her 5.5'' guns. She does have at least one cruiser to her credit, indeed - result of her Long Lance torpedoes. We're not discussing torpedoes here at the moment. We're discussing gunfire, and tenryu sank nothing with her 140mm guns.


 


Source, please.

 


Prinz Eugen's 203mm AP could penetrate 24cm of armor at 10.000mm on the best of the days (source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_8-60_skc34.php ). I'm going to ask you again for that source you're using - because yes, PE's guns "could" penetrate 400mm of armor. Just after leaving the muzzle. And that doesn't even compute as "point blank range".

And Prinz Eugen's guns were 8'' in caliber. 203mm. What people are complaining (and rightly so) are the completely out of whack penetration of small guns (2'', 3'', 4'',5'', 6'', the likes) so whatever those 8'' guns performed like, is completely offtopic to the debate at hand.

 

I'm going to shorten this and just obviate the later passages of your post for the sake of brevity, but for the record, yes, you're wrong on those ones too. The point that stands is that nothing of what you stated adresses the problem at hand, and the problem at hand is that in the game small gun AP shells perform like railguns, not actual historical counterparts. 

I'm going to leave a single sample for you to understand what this all is about:

In-game penetration performance for a 4'' Mark 4 gun at 5000m: 7.5'' of basic armor. Translated into Krupp IV: 3.5'' of armor at 5000m

Real life penetration of the highest muzzle velocity 4'' gun of the era (American 4''/50 Mark9): 2'' of armor at 5750m. We're talking of an over performance in the 70-75% range here. And that is the highest muzzle velocity 4'' gun of the era. Not compared with the average ones (which usually were 40 calibers long).

It's a pattern that is the same across the board and the smaller the gun, the bigger the discrepancy where the game gives small guns ludicrous penetration values at short ranges they never had (not even close). 

So yes, there's a problem with small guns in the game. Their penetration is completely out of place compared with their historical counterparts.

 



 

I think part of the issue is the scale. which armor should be reflecting the IRL values.

i mean either way, some things are still incorrect (weight and velocity), but what should the IRL pen be equal to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Small guns could (and should) annihilate the bow and stern of AON ships (predictably they have 'nothing' there), and the superstructure.

Doesn't matter how big your ship is, if its entire upper decks are ablaze and missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Small guns could (and should) annihilate the bow and stern of AON ships (predictably they have 'nothing' there), and the superstructure.

Doesn't matter how big your ship is, if its entire upper decks are ablaze and missing.

Yes, but the reality was that it took quite a while to achieve that, and the whole time you're likely to be being shot at.

"Annihilate" is, not meaning to be combative, a rather extreme exaggeration IMO.

Probably the best example of a then state of the art BB taking quite a few hits in relatively short time and then thorough reporting done on it that's now available is USS South Dakota (BB-57) off Guadalcanal on the evening of 14-15 November 1942.

Here's a link to the official Navy report: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-south-dakota-bb57-war-damage-report-no57.html 

There's far too much to put in a post, obviously. I highly recommend anyone who's not read it to do so as it's very interesting and informative, and also gives a great illustration of how navies learned from their combat experiences.

There a few things I think are worth pointing out here, however.

Here's its summary:

1. During the action off Guadalcanal on the night of 14-15 November 1942, SOUTH DAKOTA was hit by at least 26 projectiles. The most serious material damage was that sustained by electrical wiring circuits. Many interior communication and fire control circuits were severed, particularly in the superstructure where the damage was most extensive. All radio transmitting antennae and all radars, except the one on Main Battery Director II, were rendered inoperative. Short-circuits from this damage caused an overload on the I.C. switchboard which resulted in loss of power on fire control and interior communication circuits throughout the ship for approximately three minutes.

2. Minor flooding resulted from one hit below the waterline and two hits close to the waterline. The list of about 3/4° which developed was removed by shifting fuel oil.

3. Before receiving the first hit, SOUTH DAKOTA experienced electrical difficulties initiated by the shock of Turret III firing astern. Although not the direct result of enemy action, an analysis of this casualty has been included herein because the loss of power to Turret III seriously hampered SOUTH DAKOTA during the action.

4. In spite of numerous hits, SOUTH DAKOTA received only superficial damage. Neither the strength, buoyancy nor stability were measurably impaired.

I've read elsewhere, and one can understand the official report not including it, that many of the difficulties re the loss of power were in fact caused by engineering staff breaching procedures that resulted in the total loss of electrical power for about 3 minutes. The clear suggestion was this wouldn't have happened, or certainly not to the same extent, without those non-standard actions being taken.

11. During the engagement described above, SOUTH DAKOTA sustained at least 26 projectile hits. It is estimated that one hit was 5-inch, six were 6-inch, eighteen were 8-inch and one was 14-inch. The caliber of these hits was estimated from the damage produced and fragments recovered of one projectile. In many cases the size of the entry hole of the projectile almost gave a direct measure of its caliber. Although structural damage was extensive, it was considerably less than would be generally expected from this number and caliber of hits. That damage was not more extensive can be attributed to the fact that most projectiles passed through the ship's structure without detonating. SOUTH DAKOTA reported that fragmentation was chiefly due to impact rather than detonation.

(an interesting discussion of IJN's longer time fuses follows, pointing out many hits failed to detonate due to that feature i.e. AP rounds went through unarmoured areas, or what the game calls "overpenetration").

Here's something from the section "Fires and Firefighting".

50. There were no serious fires during or following the action. Fires were small and quickly extinguished before they spread beyond the immediate vicinity of ignition. The fire potentially most dangerous was in two life jackets which were found burning in passage B-319-T. These were believed to have been ignited by a flash through the ammunition hoist from 1.1-inch clipping room B-0502-M.

(there are some more bits saying getting to the fires in the superstructure proved a bit difficult as did the runoff water, and then there's a list of changes that were made so that in future these issues would be alleviated as much as possible).

The Captain made this observation about armour:

"Armor: - Fire control and conning tower have definitely proven their worth. Further agitation for the removal of this weight is definitely suspended. Control stations behind armor should be used more frequently. Too much stress in the past has been laid to the space restrictions at these stations. Had these stations not been utilized during the engagement, control and conn personnel would probably have been destroyed."

Lastly, here's the official conclusion of the report:

54. Damage to SOUTH DAKOTA did not imperil the ship. Loss of fire control, interior communication and radar facilities seriously impaired her fighting power, particularly in night actions. During the action SOUTH DAKOTA attracted all of the enemy fire so that WASHINGTON was able to sink the Japanese battleship KIRISHIMA practically unmolested.

My conclusion?

While it's fine for the devs to make changes for gameplay and 'fun' reasons, I think they'd be FAR better served in the Alpha stage trying to get their many game systems to produce something reasonably approximating known realities. One that's done. things can be tweaked to get the game to what they want for the release.

Secondaries DO start fires and CAN damage fire control towers as it stands. Indeed they did that quite well in v3 before the hotfix, and against targets and ranges one might expect it to be possible (the problems of durability and difficulty hitting late period DDs notwithstanding).

Making secondaries powerful to the point one can complete some scenarios solely on the basis of their performance (indeed they EXCEED main guns in some respects now) is NOT in my view either credible or necessary.

Cheers

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree that the AP performance of low caliber guns is out of whack by quite a lot.  The HE performance of secondaries in the current patch feels fine though and effective against the targets that they should be effective against.  The problem is that low caliber guns have far too much pen.  This honestly might also be a problem all the way up to the low end of BB guns but if so it's to a vastly lesser extent

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Small guns could (and should) annihilate the bow and stern of AON ships (predictably they have 'nothing' there), and the superstructure.

Doesn't matter how big your ship is, if its entire upper decks are ablaze and missing.

The Chinese ironclad Dingyuan was holed 464 times at the Battle of the Yalu River, mostly by 2-6" QF guns, yet was still considered capable of fighting. Likewise her sister ship Zhenyuan took 220 hits and was similarly still capable of fighting.  Not an all or nothing armor scheme, but much of her superstructure was unarmored.

Chinyen_Brassey's.jpg

At the same time, the Japanese large protected cruiser Matsushima suffered some 100 casualties and was knocked out off action by a single 12-inch shell.

Edited by akd
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Probably the best example of a then state of the art BB taking quite a few hits in relatively short time and then thorough reporting done on it that's now available is USS South Dakota (BB-57) off Guadalcanal on the evening of 14-15 November 1942

Navy boys about SOUTH DAKOTA: Damage to SOUTH DAKOTA did not imperil the ship.

Rear Admiral Willis Lee aboard SOUTH DAKOTA about SOUTH DAKOTA: deaf, dumb, blind and impotent... 

Opinions are divided!:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:

Navy boys about SOUTH DAKOTA: Damage to SOUTH DAKOTA did not imperil the ship.

Rear Admiral Willis Lee aboard SOUTH DAKOTA about SOUTH DAKOTA: deaf, dumb, blind and impotent... 

Opinions are divided!:lol:

Not really?  The damage South Dakota took didn't put it in risk of sinking or anything so the ship wasn't in danger of being lost.  But both of them explicitly say the ship took enough damage to render it largely unable to fight until damage control could be done correctly.

Edited by captinjoehenry
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...