Propellant discussion

[4plainsq]

Hello Developers

This is my 2nd post after discussing the lightweight/standard/heavy/superheavy shell options in my 1st. In this post I want to talk about the various propellants that can be chosen in game and problems I've found:

1. Bonuses/penalties to gun range are effectively accuracy bonuses/penalties
It took me some time to figure that one out. And it makes no sense. Gun accuracy is a combination of precision manufacturing and consistency. The closer to the average muzzle velocity each projectile is shot, the easier it is to aim it at a specific range. The less the spread of a shot the gun has, the less shells falls around the aim point. This has NOTHING to do with the actual gun range.
Gun range is a function of the average muzzle velocity of the gun and the drag and weight of the shell. Heavier shells and higher muzzle velocities increase the gun range. They DO NOT increase the accuracy.
In fact: heavier shells and higher muzzle velocities tend to make the gun less accurate unless the engineers take design measure to counteract. Those counter-acting design measure however make the entire gun mechanism (gun laying drives, recoil absorbtion, ...) bigger and heavier. NONE of that happens in game.

2. I have yet to use Lyddite or Lyddite II for anything. I cannot find a suitable application for either. -50% to the penetration for Lyddite 1 and -20% for Lyddite II simply isn't a sacrifice worthwhile. Purposely lowering the penetration capacity of the shells fired is really very counterproductive, if I want to design a ship that can actually do something.

3. The same goes for Cordite and Cordite II. But the main issue here is that the sacrifice for extra armor penetration is gun range. And as discussed above, penalties go gun range are effectively penatlies to accuracy here in the game. Example:
Mark 3 18" Gun stats at 25km range with Ballistite (+5% gun range, +110% cost per shell) as propellant: 
        27.6" belt armor penetration; 28.8" deck armor penetration, 3.6% chance to hit
Mark 3 18" gun stats at 25km range with Cordite II (-6% gun range, +550% cost per shell) as propellant: 
        26.6" belt armor penetration; 27.7" deck armor Penetration, 2.6% chance to hit'
Ballistite also has a lower chance of ammunition detonation than Cordite. Ballistite is an alround BETTER propellant. And it is much cheaper.

4. Tube Powder isn't really worth it either. It suffers from having a range penalty. So as discussed in the 1st point any penalty to gun range makes the propellant choice not really worth it. Tube Powder would be a really good choice if range penalties weren't effectively accuracy penalties

5. Shell Type: Going for any less than the heaviest type shell out of Lightweight, Standard, Heavy or Superheavy is a bad choice. This is because going to a heavier shell type increases the gun range AND therefore the gun accuracy, as these are tied together at the moment. Additionally you also get more damage for a not that large penalty in ship weight or cost.

 

Best regards

4plainsq

Edited January 26, 2020 by 4plainsq

[roachbeef]

Pretty much everybody agrees it was a horrible design decision, but it's likely that in the future propellant and explosive filler will be differentiated

[RAMJB]

Right now there's little reason to go with certain options, yes.

Once the campaign is released and what we can mount on a given ship is limited by what technologies we have at the moment of designing it, those options that now seem not worth it will be far more useful.

Those propellant modifiers are based on the actual properties of the propellants that were actually used during the period the game covers. Some were better than others. Some had severe drawbacks. Those had to be here too because "There seems little choice between them" is not a valid reason to turn them into what they were not. Again, the importance of the different powders can't be truly displayed in the gamemodes we currently have - that only will come to be of importance in the campaign.

so I'll have to disagree here. No, not "everybody agrees it is a horrible design decision". It's just a design feature that doesn't synergize well with the game modes in the current development stage, but will fit in perfectly later on as the game gets completed.  

[Teckelmaster]

I strongly contradict to one point:

i use lyddite 1 pretty often, even on big gun builds, as you can he your enemies out if the water pretty efficiently. In the current state of the game it is actually quite effective and in some of the academy scenarios a cost efficient way to win. If you, as you wrote, never tried it, why judge it at all? Only my thought on it, but give it a try... big guns, lyddite one, force he shells. Works fine pretty often...

[Hangar18]

On 1/26/2020 at 8:27 AM, 4plainsq said:

I have yet to use Lyddite or Lyddite II for anything. I cannot find a suitable application for either.

load it up on some 18" guns and spam HE

[Illya von Einzbern]

HE spamming ships to death feels kinda silly....
Just get the crew inside the armored deck and let it rain...
sure you can burn the deck.... but perhaps on CAs and CLs but on big ships!?
I would go with the option of choosing ammo types and quantity.
like 800 lydit 2 HE shells and 700 Tube powder AP shells and 50 WP shells (for the land crabs )
Would this be possible? I do get that the filler is makes a difference on the shells performance but just slaving your self to a single filler is kinda counter productive.

(unless 18" HE spam XP) hmm yes. I smell some bacon for breakfast.
Sir. It comes from the enemy ship.
Lets board it to have some crispy bacon.... (Lydite II after a victorious battle reduce up keep by 1% for 2 turns)

[Cptbarney]

3 hours ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

HE spamming ships to death feels kinda silly....
Just get the crew inside the armored deck and let it rain...
sure you can burn the deck.... but perhaps on CAs and CLs but on big ships!?
I would go with the option of choosing ammo types and quantity.
like 800 lydit 2 HE shells and 700 Tube powder AP shells and 50 WP shells (for the land crabs )
Would this be possible? I do get that the filler is makes a difference on the shells performance but just slaving your self to a single filler is kinda counter productive.

(unless 18" HE spam XP) hmm yes. I smell some bacon for breakfast.
Sir. It comes from the enemy ship.
Lets board it to have some crispy bacon.... (Lydite II after a victorious battle reduce up keep by 1% for 2 turns)

Well miss virginia the chonk bb learnt the hard way when miss falire (or whatever her name was) managed to reduce her structure to 48% with mostly AP (cus apprently she can't hit sod all with HE and barely anything with AP).

So her fat bum went into the night while my battered italian HC (Heavy cruiser) plonked away at 17knots. Funnily enough i won that mission even though both ships survived.

Next match decided to put some smoll guns on a BB and watch her burn some russians to the ground for laughs.

Can't wait for the des memes and smolensk spam for HE lolz lol.

[SmoCro]

7 hours ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

HE spamming ships to death feels kinda silly....
Just get the crew inside the armored deck and let it rain...

More ships lost to fire than flooding.

And, as we know from the WTC, steel does not do that well if heated up.

[Hrulj]

10 minutes ago, SmoCro said:

More ships lost to fire than flooding.

And, as we know from the WTC, steel does not do that well if heated up.

WTC is construction steel meant to support a massive weight. Ships use armored plate sometimes two dozen inches thick, no regular fire can heat that up, be it from wood, furniture, coal or gas. It's why making armor plate was so expensive, it required specialized industry of it's own to produce. Unless the fire is inside the ship it is of no great danger. 

[Illya von Einzbern]

Even if the superstructure is turned in to no mans land with HE the ship itself will still float.
Metal does heat up a bit but it is still surrounded by cold water which would prevent the heat from going insane.
Will the ship be able to sail with out support? well no. unless there is a some sort of rudder inside the hull.
Will the fire spread inside the ship if deck is on fire?... why should it if you lock all access to the hull interior.
Eventually all burnable will burn out (wood and paint). Guns will be operable and speed control work (coz engine room actually has the gear box while command structure works as bell that calls for speed).
I have hard time seeing why a deck fire would spread inside a compartmentalized ships interior? is not the bulks to prevent this for?

Scuttling a ship sounds more likelihood why they sank?
i mean you can put a camp fire on a steel boat frame and it wont sink no mater how many times you lit a campfire on it.
Ships sinks when it has too much water in there to keep it a float. Archimedes principle of buoyancy  also dictates this. If fire does not increase it's weight and displacement so that it can no longer sustain force that pushes it towards the surface it will sink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes'_principle (Archimedes principle).


In other words. Pure fire on deck will not be able to sink a ship on its own. you can test this out yourself with small fish tank.
Put a peace of floating steel ship and lit a fire on it. it won't sink. If fire would be that heavy then the Asian floating lanterns would have the greatest hull that can not sink from fire.
https://books.google.fi/books?id=NexxG1n-TGgC&pg=PA2435&lpg=PA2435&dq=will+fire+sink+a+ship+if+the+deck+is+only+on+fire&source=bl&ots=mMstjuN-u5&sig=ACfU3U2wcX4jg8gZfHDKfbjuza01pmLxrA&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFqdvD6ajnAhUN6aYKHYuuB2EQ6AEwCnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=will fire sink a ship if the deck is only on fire&f=false
Congressional senates documentary of same question. A deck fire alone is not capable of sinking a ship. Ships are also built to be fire proof 

Fires below the deck can cause stress to the structure which can lead for the armor to not be as durable but before that the crew has already suffocated. Air tight compartments? well this would make internal fires less of a problem if it can be contained in the burning compartment. Fire requires air to be a fire (after all fire is a rapid oxidation effect). All in all fire is more dangerous to the crew than for a armored behemoth. And drifting hulks are prime real estate for any navy to abuse.

[RAMJB]

On 1/28/2020 at 1:55 PM, Illya von Einzbern said:

HE spamming ships to death feels kinda silly....

Damage effects of whatever hits you get in game at the moment go hand to hand with a damage model that needs revamping, and an armor model that for all we know, is a placeholder that also see a very serious facelift (if not a complete rehaul) down the development line.

Long story short - it's too soon to have this conversation :).

[Cptbarney]

1 hour ago, RAMJB said:

Damage effects of whatever hits you get in game at the moment go hand to hand with a damage model that needs revamping, and an armor model that for all we know, is a placeholder that also see a very serious facelift (if not a complete rehaul) down the development line.

Long story short - it's too soon to have this conversation :).

I've noticed that when my ship gets hit and over-penned by AP sometimes light damaging pens it reduces speed or hinders flood control, i actually like that as a feature not sure if it can be expanded upon.

As long as HE doesn't devolve into a bloody smolensk style mentalness it should be all good.

[Illya von Einzbern]

please no smolenks HE insanity. HE stay as ground pounder and AP to kill ship plz

[Cptbarney]

7 hours ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

please no smolenks HE insanity. HE stay as ground pounder and AP to kill ship plz

I just dont want some cheeky boute spamming HE at like 30RPM per salvo lol. i hope we get ground bombardment missions would be really cool to see destructable buildings and terrain to some extent.

For funsies maybe even islands with little villages and you can see some peeps trying to watch the fight or something lol.

[Illya von Einzbern]

Naval invasion support mission (D-Day, Solomons, Guadalacanal, and Norway landing)
Man that would be awesome to do naval port raids to give middle finger to ship building. This could actually be used as a way to achieve tactical victory of an enemy.
Not always do you need to kill hundreds of sailors if they have no ships to sink with. Also gives more value to recon ships and planes  (yes i used the P word and not that P word )

[khang36]

On 1/30/2020 at 2:31 AM, Illya von Einzbern said:

please no smolenks HE insanity. HE stay as ground pounder and AP to kill ship plz

Well unless you are trying to sink tincans then HE is the only way to go. Part of taffy 3's survival in the battle off Samar is in part due to Japan using ap shells which did minimal damage due to over pen.