Armor mechanics: How I would like it to work

[RedParadize]

Hi dev.

I have been thinking allot about how to make armor mechanics, but probably not as much as you guys. I am certain that you already have plan for armor. Yet, maybe I came up with something that would help you. I made allot assumption on how the game works while doing this, some may be wrong but I do not think they discard the concept. Anyways, here it is:

Mechanics as I believe they are:

Here is the armor layout as far as I am aware of, excluding some details. Basically, 3 mid section are always the main belt, the two on stern and bow are always external belt. Top column I believe is the same as the deck.  One of my main contention about this is that its the same regardless of ship layout. I am uncertain how hit mechanics works, but it seem that a shell or torpedo damage can cross a section to another if strong enough, angle of penetration seems to matter. Its a nice addition. Is it new to Alpha 3? it would explain the much more frequent critical we get.



-First suggestion: The citadel should be reworked.
At the moment, citadel only buff external armor. Its inadequate, because of this there is no way to do the all or nothing armor scheme. Also, now that shell can now pen from one section to another engines, ammo and water line are easily damaged as nothing stand in the way.

The solution I propose is instead of citadel offering a selection of buff, player would be offered a selection of armor layout such as all or nothing and narrow belt. Some of these layout would include a citadel. The citadel would works as a extra layer of armor between the 5 bottom center compartment and the others. To get a engine critical, external armor, compartment on the path and the citadel need to be penetrated. About how to display that information I would suggest a outline for the citadel, alternatively two more color would do.

This suggestion probably require adding two more slider to the armor menu. One for the citadel top, one for citadel sides. Alternatively there could be a unified slider for citadel and another for Barbette. (more on that later).


-Second suggestion: Turret and funnel position should matter.

As you can see on the image, the position of critical have changed to match deck layout. Ammo is always under the guns and engine always under funnel (averaged) position. Spreading turret all over the place would increase the chance of ammunition being hit.

I also suggest adding internal Barbette. this would make top compartment less empty and meaningless.  They would work a bit like what I suggested for citadel. When a compartment where a Barbette go trough is penetrated or destroyed there is a chance that Barbette is hit. Hit chance could be purely RNG, but ideally with chance proportional to Barbette size. If hit, then penetration calculation take over and Barbette damaged/destroyed, possibly leading to catastrophic ammunition explosion. This could require a extra slider for barbette armor.

-Third suggestion: Variable belt, deck and citadel size.

Ideally this would require variable compartment/hit box size, if not possible. I think it would be possible to add variability to main belt/deck and citadel size. Engine HP and type would set the engine size. Low HP would translate into smaller engine, harder to crit but potentially destroying all of it in a single shot. Turret position and ammo count would set the size of the magazine.  The combined length of engine and magazine would dictate the size of main belt. Compartment partially covered by main belt would have their hit chance calculation done in a similar fashion to what described for barbette.

Final note:
I made these suggestion without knowing how the game work or what is planned. I do not know if these are feasible or if something else is planned. I just wish tha ship designing was dynamic. Regardless of how its done, I would like if stuff we place on deck had deeper impact, beyond ship balance, fire arc and cosmetics.

That's it

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by RedParadize

[Skeksis]

Nice workup, lots of effort 👍, third option stands out, like if you going do something why not go all out and do it right.

[Nick Thomadis]

8 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Ammo is always under the guns and engine always under funnel (averaged) position.

This is how it works now. When we add more detailed Citadel mechanics, it is going to become even more realistic.

[Zuikaku]

On 12/21/2019 at 2:53 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

This is how it works now. When we add more detailed Citadel mechanics, it is going to become even more realistic.

Boiler rooms shoul'd be placed beneath the funnels (except when ship is diesel engined). 

Also it seems boilers csn not be damaged, but not only boilers. Power generators are also in invulnerability mode, so there are no electric power losses (to affect pumps, damage control, prevent turrets from turning and ammo being delivered into the turrets).

[ThatZenoGuy]

11 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Boiler rooms shoul'd be placed beneath the funnels (except when ship is diesel engined). 

Also it seems boilers csn not be damaged, but not only boilers. Power generators are also in invulnerability mode, so there are no electric power losses (to affect pumps, damage control, prevent turrets from turning and ammo being delivered into the turrets).

Funnels can direct exhaust pretty far from boilers, some designs of ships directed all the boilers to a single funnel in the middle or either side of the boiler mass.

[Hangar18]

On 12/21/2019 at 8:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

This is how it works now. When we add more detailed Citadel mechanics, it is going to become even more realistic.

just want to add that the ammo detonation visuals are pretty phenomenal. And yall dropped the spiciest hot patch ever, you couldve called that alpha 4 and i wouldn't have batted an eye.

I will say though torpedoes on the deck should be considered a detonation hazard. Its basically a bunch of TNT laying around.

When we see a detonation for a lower amount of damage (say 400), is this usually  a secondary battery detonation?

Edited December 23, 2019 by Hangar18

[skg02]

RedParadize:

Thanks for your work here, would be helpful if developers could confirm your first pic is what's happening now in Alpha 3 patch of game.

Summarized, with questions for devs. 

Belt is side armor on the hull where citadel is.

Extended Belt is side armor on the hull elsewhere from where the citadel is.

Deck Armor is deck armor where the citadel is, corresponds to where Belt is.

Extended Deck is deck armor where the citadel isn't, corresponds to where Extended Belt. 

Conning Tower - is that armor for the whole of Main and Secondary towers?

Turret armor - is that all around the sides of the turrets?

I second the motions for accurate definition of bulkhead and barbette armors.

Also, reading today Sumerall's Naval Institute Press "Iowa Class Battleships" and see the belt is discussed in terms of upper and lower belt which seemed from the reading more where a change in thickness occurred rather than lengthwise along the ship at least for that class of ships.

[akd]

You can see that this is the case in the target armor diagram with penetration probability that appears above targeting cursor once the ship is ID'd (note that the thinner line along the top of the structure is showing deck armor, not some sort of thinner extension to the belt armor on the upper hull).  The only thing I'm not sure on is if there is a hit location for ammo behind the belt and deck extensions.  I suspect there is simply a chance of ammo detonation following penetration regardless of where the hit occurs.

Edited January 5, 2020 by akd

[Steeltrap]

On 12/22/2019 at 12:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

This is how it works now. When we add more detailed Citadel mechanics, it is going to become even more realistic.

 

On 1/5/2020 at 12:33 PM, akd said:

You can see that this is the case in the target armor diagram with penetration probability that appears above targeting cursor once the ship is ID'd (note that the thinner line along the top of the structure is showing deck armor, not some sort of thinner extension to the belt armor on the upper hull).  The only thing I'm not sure on is if there is a hit location for ammo behind the belt and deck extensions.  I suspect there is simply a chance of ammo detonation following penetration regardless of where the hit occurs.

Based on what Nick said, the problem as I see it is there are magazines below turrets stuck way fore or aft and thus outside normal belt/deck protection.

That's why piddling little 4" guns can blow up a CA through the aft belt extended broadside; the greatly increased pen values allow them to pen things they used not to, then they hit the magazine below that main gun and "boom".

[Steeltrap]

On 12/21/2019 at 4:19 PM, RedParadize said:

 

-Third suggestion: Variable belt, deck and citadel size.

Ideally this would require variable compartment/hit box size, if not possible. I think it would be possible to add variability to main belt/deck and citadel size. Engine HP and type would set the engine size. Low HP would translate into smaller engine, harder to crit but potentially destroying all of it in a single shot. Turret position and ammo count would set the size of the magazine.  The combined length of engine and magazine would dictate the size of main belt. Compartment partially covered by main belt would have their hit chance calculation done in a similar fashion to what described for barbette.

Final note:
I made these suggestion without knowing how the game work or what is planned. I do not know if these are feasible or if something else is planned. I just wish tha ship designing was dynamic. Regardless of how its done, I would like if stuff we place on deck had deeper impact, beyond ship balance, fire arc and cosmetics.

That's it

 

Excellent stuff.

The 3rd model is, I believe, effectively what designers did. HMS Nelson is often cited as the poster child for designing a 9 x 16" gun ship while conforming to the relevant Washington/London Naval Treaties. The layout was specifically chosen to allow thick armour over a smaller space so as to minimise weight but not leave the ship too vulnerable. Of course they paid a price in speed, and some other design issues, but that doesn't change the fact the design was done to fit the treaties and not as an ideal if those restrictions were lifted.

[RAMJB]

I think the most pressing matter is different. While the points made in this thread thus far are valid and need adressing and attention, I still think the armor model urgently needs a rework in the way it's supposed to work.


In the pictures avobe you can see the hull is represented by a series of rectangles, 7 in lenght, 3 in height, which combined as a 3x7 "box" represent the hull. Out of those, the extreme 2x3 "boxes" represent the ship's ends ("extended" areas) while the central 3x3 represents the citadel, or main armored area. Avobe them there's a set of thinner rectangles representing the decks avobe each area. Avove that - it's superstructure and guns already.

Focusing on the 3x7 "box", currently the armor model covers each of those sections with the ammount you input in the relevant section of "belt armor" in the designed. Meaning, what you input as "belt" is what covers the WHOLE of the 3x3 central area. What you input as "belt extended" is what covers the WHOLE of the two 2x3 "end" areas.

And this is completely bonkers.

Belt armor was just that - BELT armor. Which means that the ship had a, well, a "Belt" roughly in the area of the waterline, where armor would be that thick. Out of those areas, armor would be either FAR less thick...or almost unexistant (plating levels at most), depending on the armor doctrine used on the ship (incremental vs AoN).

In practical terms you'd end up with max armor on your waterline, a few feet avobe it, a few feet under it (depending on the height of the belt, another very important parameter the damage doesn't represent at all right now, and which should in the future). Out of those areas then you'd have to choose what to put as protection. It's what was called the "Upper" belt - areas that covered the hull from the main belt up to the top of the hull. Which ,out of sheer necessity of making ships float, couldn't be covered in the same kind of armor thicknesses as the main belt, lest the sheer weight of that armor would make the ship both unstable...AND...unfloatable.

Under the belt you'd have the Torpedo Defence System, which out of necessity, couldn't be cladded in external armor of any thickness.

Yet in the game what you set as your belt is what covers your whole hull. And that has distinct, significant, and really problematic consecuences in the battle performance of armored ships.


My proposal - outside of the scope of a complete revamp of the armor layout system (Which I honestly think is warranted long term as this simplified model can make do as a placeholder but needs a lot more detail if the game intends to realistically represent the challenges of effectively armoring big battleships) would be that, given that the current "Box" is three "rectangles" in height those rectangles should be treated as follows:

Bottom rectangles are under-water sections of the hull. Those should represent areas that torpedoes would hit, or diving shells, but no avobe-water hits could reach. And should be treatly mostly as unarmored sections (which in practice, they mostly were) where the player is barred from putting any armor (outside of internal antitorpedo internal bulkheads that should be represented in the antitorpedo selection box)

Top rectangles are upper hull sections. Those should represent the hull area from the belt up to the main deck, thickness of protection to be selected by the designer (IE, the player) in the design screen under two new boxes: "upper belt" and "extended upper belt" - to represent the relevant parts of the main central area, and the hull's ends respectively.

Mid rectangles are the waterline. Those should represent the actual hull waterline and area where the main (and extended) belt actually was present in historical designs. Nominal armor as introduced in the designer right now.


Currently the designer is using calculations for the weight of the belt armor which are right for a belt, but then the game is using that protection thickness for the whole side hull. That's just not how things ought to be. And that should be, IMO, one of the current top priorities in the game development to adress, because it's really a problem in-battle with end-on fire engagements and long range impacts which hit the upper side of the hull, but not the deck nor the belt, hits that should go "in" and are just deflected because the game represent an armor thickness on those areas that shouldn't be there to begin with.


Once that's covered then more evolved changes to account for internal stuff should be adressed. But let's start building the house from the basement and not from the roof here - with the armor model as it stands, the suggested changes in this thread thus far won't adress the main issue the armor model in place currently has.

Edited January 8, 2020 by RAMJB

[akd]

And note that above only describes post-Dreadnought / Krupp armor.  Earlier schemes, in particular protected cruiser scheme and early central citadel ironclad scheme, made a completely different set of compromises that had huge effects on ship survivability, and in turn drove armament development.

[WelshZeCorgi]

I think it would be beneficial for the game if it had a sort of World of warships mockup in terms of understanding what is considered extended and main, what is the squishy parts, what are the tanky parts, where the explody bits are, where the burny bits are, where the "choo-choo" bits are and an overall better visual communication on how your shiny armor bits would perform against in relation to caliber size and weight.

Edited January 8, 2020 by WelshZeCorgi