>>>"Alpha-4 v67+" General Feedback<<<

[AML]

1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

If by that you mean that they have their own icon on the bottom right of battle screen, then it doesn't mean they are treated as secondary. They are just a separated entity, same goes for turrets that have different numbers of guns 

No I mean that when you split targets between your main and secondary guns the wing turrets will fire at the secondary guns target, even when they are the same calibre as the centreline turrets and should be firing at the same target as them.

[Reaper Jack]

So post hotfix, stern chases are still impossible to win, you always run out of ammo. Transverse bulkheads need to be in game, period. Additionally, entire columns of structure that are damaged to red need to either still take 25% of usual damage or perhaps start to flood due to the integrity of that entire section of ship being completely compromised. 

[roachbeef]

9 minutes ago, Reaper Jack said:

So post hotfix, stern chases are still impossible to win, you always run out of ammo. Transverse bulkheads need to be in game, period. Additionally, entire columns of structure that are damaged to red need to either still take 25% of usual damage or perhaps start to flood due to the integrity of that entire section of ship being completely compromised. 

HE is still massively overpowered, so they're the best bet. On a 12.3" max armor battleship (the Bismarck analogue) all my 15" Mark 3 rounds with tube powder bounced at 5 km, but using HE caused flooding everywhere and sank the guy from 90% structural integrity / 100% floatability in 3 salvos. Likewise, on a 5" max armor CA all of my 15" shells bounced but the moment I use HE everything blows up and floods.

We need to rebalance ricochet mechanics so that large and heavy shells don't bounce against 2" of armor.

 

Edit: agree on transverse bulkheads, though. We should also be forced to decide how much coverage the armor belt has as well as decide the shape of the armor angling, not depend on arbitrary resistance numbers. Maybe have it so armor that is too much angled compared to the actual shape of the model will count as internally mounted armor, increasing repair and construction costs.

Edited February 13, 2020 by roachbeef

[Reaper Jack]

3 hours ago, roachbeef said:

HE is still massively overpowered, so they're the best bet. On a 12.3" max armor battleship (the Bismarck analogue) all my 15" Mark 3 rounds with tube powder bounced at 5 km, but using HE caused flooding everywhere and sank the guy from 90% structural integrity / 100% floatability in 3 salvos. Likewise, on a 5" max armor CA all of my 15" shells bounced but the moment I use HE everything blows up and floods.

Was using High TNT myself, HE would do damage but the entire enemy BC was red except for four compartments at the bow so was sitting on 23% structure for 300+ 381mm rounds I pumped at it. So the damage done was entirely superficial. Saturation is...a stopgap measure as mechanics go. A real ship that got hit in an already effectively destroyed compartment would still take more structural damage to that compartment, resulting in floodings that could not be stopped or even taht section of hull being torn away entirely, we need this in game as well as allowing AP which can penetrate past red sections to actually do something against ships that run away presenting their stern. 

Also worth noting, the most extreme test of new shells I did was 4 x CA with 8 x 229mm guns apiece taking on 3 light cruisers and a battlecruiser in custom battles, guns only. The Light cruisers went down like swiss cheese at 14km distance, all three took about 10-15 shells apiece and flooded out (poor AI design) and i actually couldn't tell if less shells had caused the 'finishing' blow on any of them. The Battlecruiser did put two cruisers down to 60% structure and 70% floatability each before it too was sunk by the four heavy cruisers holding distance at 8km and 33 knot speed. It took about 200 shell hits, I was not penetrating the armor (except the extended sections) until about 9km, and that was when the flooding started, it still had about 40% structure left when it flooded out. 

[RedParadize]

I like AP. most of the time I leave it on auto as AI does a ok job at selecting type. Its also more fair toward that poor AI.

[Steeltrap]

15 hours ago, AML said:

No I mean that when you split targets between your main and secondary guns the wing turrets will fire at the secondary guns target, even when they are the same calibre as the centreline turrets and should be firing at the same target as them.

FYI, I raised this a few days ago in the technical issues forum.

Got this reply from a dev:

Greetings, thank you for the report. This is a known issue that we plan to fix

Edited February 14, 2020 by Steeltrap

[TAKTCOM]

Damage of the main gun for heavily armored targets increased significantly, almost doubled. Pretty impressive if you forget what is typical damage Alpha 4 is 25-50 to hit or 50-100 damage after HotFix. And yes, you need THOUSAND damage to drown the enemy by destroying his structure. So if this is an improvement, then it is quite modest.

More importantly " The whole damage model should feel now much more realistic". Now shells piercing the armor to not just make holes in the ship, but hit right in the guts of vessel: the engine and ammunition. Yes, of course, this has happened before, but now these things happen much, much more often.

In "Prove your Might", I lost my battlecruiser twice from first ten salvo of Germans due to ammunition explosion. This what is happens when someone neglected advanced armor scheme and reinforced barbets in favor of large guns and high speed.

I completely missed accuracy decrease of the secondary since with the release of alpha four I stopped trying to use the secondary guns at all. Who needs oblique, paper-fired cannons when half a dozen destroyers are coming at you with a speed of 43+ knots and a have dozen torpedoes tube on every ship? If destroyers have +/-35 knots 3-5'' it's OK but in all other cases, you need big guns. At least eight inches.

Suffice it to say, in "Prove your Might" I used two destroyers with a torpedo range of 5 miles to attack a  battleship. Combination of 40+ knots, smoke and evasion maneuvers, despite the rain of 3-4-inch shells from enemy ships, both destroyers received minimal damage. No flooding or damage to mechanisms, torpedoes successfully launched, almost point blank.

What has become truly dangerous is flooding. Shells can cause flooding, torpedoes cause it almost guaranteed. If you build a ship with a minimum of bulkheads, you can lose ship with a minimum time. And here we are talking about seconds. One or two torpedoes and say hello to Neptune.

I like torpedoes changes as a whole, although the combination of "maximum bulkheads + anti-torpedo protection" still demonstrates discouraging durability.

19 23'' torpedoes for almost five thousand damage and you know what?

Spoiler: she did't sink.

Also, torpedoes inflict on their own ship again!

Fires show complete antagonism to flooding in every sense of the word - It seems that the main functionality of the fire in the game is video card loading. Weapons and engines continue to operate, despite the fires. Damage to the structure may be inflicted, but it is so slow that it is difficult to notice. So yes, the fire is now officially harmless. 

And yet, some progress is obviously taking place. Flooding is now real deal danger, as well as engines and ammunition are ready to explode from any hit that has pierced the armor and ships became less resistant to torpedoes ... mostly. *cough* this maximum bulkheads + anti-torpedo protection *cough*.  I think these are steps in the right direction.orpedoes ... mostly. *cough* this maximum bulkheads + anti-torpedo protection *cough*.  I think these are steps in the right direction.

Edited February 15, 2020 by TAKTCOM
*

[Brandon L]

Until we can put main gun barbettes amidships I have no desire to play the game again.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Brandon L

[WiselessOwl]

2 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

So yes, the fire is now officially harmless.

I guess once crew mechanics are introduced, fires will became quite more harmful

Edited February 14, 2020 by WiselessOwl

[Cptbarney]

1 hour ago, Brandon L said:

Until we can put main gun barbettes amidships I have no desire to play the game again.

wait wut? they did they change the design parameters?

[DougToss]

Just a thought looking forward, this level of debug tool may help get damage "right"

Actually the whole interview is really great stuff.

Edited February 14, 2020 by DougToss

[Hangar18]

On 2/13/2020 at 9:36 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Increased slightly the damage of torpedoes.

I agree there was a problem here, however im not sure if an outright damage increase was the solution. I think the TDS techs were just a bit strong. But i will gladly test and relay feedback.

[Steeltrap]

Haven't got much to say as I think the changes are playing around to soothe symptoms.

The root causes appear to be no closer to being addressed.

That's not a problem in the sense there was no claim to be doing so.

Having seen 2 CLs in one battle detonate because of a  2" AP penetration of the bow extended armour, nothing has changed with respect to the ship structure/amour model.

In fact it's not at all clear to me what it was Version 4 was meant to deliver. What was the point of it? How was it advancing development and testing? To deliver a hotfix so soon that appears to go back on certain things really does leave me wondering. Which is NOT to say "It was a mistake blah blah". Not at all. I simply don't know what it was supposed to do, how far short of those things it fell, and why.

I wish we'd get some much clearer explanation of "THIS is what we've changed, THIS is why, and THESE THINGS are what you ought to notice as a result". Right now it tends to be a list of things that changed but we're left entirely in the dark as to whether they're changes simply chasing forum feedback OR changes as part of a clear development path of the significant components of the tactical combat model.

As a result, I feel strongly that at some point there should be a broader "status report" on how the team feels they are going with the main aspects of the tactical model, from ship design all the way to sinking, compared with where they believe those things will be deemed acceptable for Steam release.

If they were to say the damage model were 80% correct, for example, I'd be rather amazed. If they said 20%, I'd be encouraged with respect to final goal while wondering about the timeline although of course I'm not worried about the timeline other than is necessary for them to fund the project.

I'll also add this from another post I made in the Combat Feedback thread as it's related:

30,000 ton ships designed to exceed by a ridiculous margin any surface speed achieved by any gunnery capital ship every built clearly demonstrates what we've been saying for a LONG time, namely that the "target ship fast speed" modifier is both far too crude AND grossly too meaningful.

I for one would like to start seeing some sort of "current list" of issues grouped under their relevant headings (gunnery model, amour, damage etc) where we know what we've been raising and then have THOSE moved by the devs to a list of "to be addressed".

That way we're putting all our stuff together for the devs to see in an easy format and then WE get to see what the Devs have chosen to accept as valid/significant feedback they're planning to include as they continue development.

Any chance we might get that started? Anyone else got suggestions, something they feel would be better, or general feedback?

Bottom line is I'm finding it slightly frustrating feeling we're none the wiser as to where we are compared with a month or two ago.

Again, I'll stress that's NOT me saying things aren't moving along a planned development line, with an inevitable hiccough or two along the way, it's just I have no real way of knowing and hence not much sense of it.

Cheers

Edited February 15, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Teckelmaster]

I agree with steeltrap. I would love to have an idea what we can focus on in testing.

Currently it feels just like waiting for new content and a bit of trying, i find it highly difficult to be helpful though. 
I know it is extrawork, but if we got some directions, of what specifically we look out for, our feedback might actually be more usefull, i think. 

[RedParadize]

@Steeltrap I agree with you. Specially about the communication part.

I would also like to point out that it is not only speed (and its to hit malus) that is over the top. Armor and armament easily fall in that category too. In fact, I can make a Battlecruiser or Battleship that is faster, better armed and armored then anything that existed, all at the same time. One of the reason of this is that I do not add torpedo defense, double hull, barbette or citadel. I keep damage mitigation buff to the minimum. The freed up mass is simply reinvested on armor and speed.

As I pointed out in my analysis, A single torpedo on 1 of the 3 mid bottom compartment will destroy it along with engine it contain, regardless of citadel or torpedo protection and cannot be repaired. Without engine, the ship will eventually die. This negate all the engine repair and damage chance reduction provided by citadel and else.

About ammunition explosion, it require penetration, can't be triggered by fire and wont happen at all if the compartment get destroyed. Simply put, the best barbette provide a -25% explosion chance at the cost of 22,5% gun mass and cost. This can represent thousands of tons. Not being penetrated provide a reduction of 100% and weight less. Citadel is just as bad.

These component are massive and expensive, their cost and mass are not worth it. Now, if for some reason I had to add them, then I would not be able to make a ship that is better in all 3 category.

[Mhtsos]

Tested again after the hotfix. 

The issues reported earlier still persist, although it was nice to see that now the BBs with minimal bulkheads didn't sink when the flooding contained in the first 1/3 of the ship. 

Although it was discouraging to see that the flooding did go on for the duration of the fight and went away just before the end of the battle.

The fires are utterly harmless now, even with the anaemic damage control of the above ships. 

|

As people mentioned before, the issues seem to be more systemic than something that needs hot-fixes. 

The damage model and targeting model really need addressing and overhauling.

|

Otherwise we are stuck in a very unrealistic see-saw of patches that over/under stress a value/effect.

I personally prefer for the team to dedicate on these core issues, before venturing in the "new features" area.

[Hangar18]

Must agree that DM is probably the most important thing right now.

Here is my experience with torpedoes

these are 24" electric torpedoes

The structure here was already heavily degraded. after 4 torpedoes somewhat spread across the mid section, and bow lead to the following float. Honestly it did not impair him all that much. and the guns still functioned enough to sink 3 ships.

Awhile later, he again took another 3 torpedoes. Again the structure damage here is mostly from battle ships and battle cruisers at point blank. very minimal effect.

What I did not show was the cruisers that were getting rocked in one hit. I very strongly suspect this is because they dont have a TDS. Torpedo damage is high. But its mitigated so much by the TDS that it makes it marginal. even areas where no TDS should be present seem to be reduced in damage. Which is something i think we can all agree on, should not be present.

 

[arkhangelsk]

I actually have just done a test that gives me reason to suggest that the torpedo model is overall not working too badly.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PUJRScGSmHA4dh8e7

Basically it is a Yamato-class battleship dying to 9 hits once you actually give it the bulkheads and antitorp facility the real thing might actually have, instead of the best thing there is. Because Yamato's torpedo defense and even subdivision clearly isn't "the best there is". It is a knowingly compromised and flawed design for the sake of haste and draft.

Using the 130,000 ton battleship that did not exist in real life with the best in-game torpedo protection and bulkheads and using it as a basis to say things are too tough simply is not on.

Now, I'll go confirm how fast the components die if I use maximum defences.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Mk8cGSECuMCQ1etx9

Total number before dying: 59. It has to be noted that not everything was damaged even after 12 hits.

Edited February 15, 2020 by arkhangelsk

[Siranui]

Is 2560x1600 resolution the maximum planned? It seems to be the current maximum.

When using the above resolution and 'fantastic' graphics setting, the 'funnel efficiency' is unreadable, as per attached. 'Torpedo Launchers' is on top of it, and there apears to be a partial pixilation of the displayed data.

Can we please do something about the entire way 'funnel efficiency' is presented, and the manner in which a User ascertains what funnels are required. It needs prioritising in the UI when on that tab, as tiny text right at the bottom of the stats section is not very useful. A better solution would be to present the funnel capacity required and current efficiency in the middle of the screen when the 'funnel' tab is selected, where 'no mounts' gets shown, for example.

[RedParadize]

On 2/5/2020 at 11:12 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Weapon Fire Mode (ammo control) is now working per division, not per ship. 

It seem that there is a bug with this new feature. Only one ship of the formation will launch its torpedo.

[Ruan]

Really enjoying the new damage model. Setup a 3v3 battleship duel in 1921. I stuck with AP only for main guns and had a good mix of penetration and bounce. I really had to think about my positioning to get the best angle and decide if I wanted to close and pound away or keep my distance and use plunging fire. Both choices gave me differing results. If I used plunging fire I could cause good damage to compartments and super structure but had less of an effect with damaging components and flooding. When I did close in the amount of flooding increased and I was able to knock out more components.

Flooding appears to be working better than before. The flooding rate, as far as I can tell, seems to be tied to the amount and size of "holes" applied to a compartment. If a compartment takes multiple hits that cause flooding it would flood faster than say a single hit. But even then the flooding was slow enough that it really gives the sense that the ships bilges and pumps are hard at work. The repair time also feels good. Flooding lasts long enough that you might not want to completely ignore it if your ship is taking multiple hits but the rate is low enough that you can trust that your ship isn't going to sink before damage control can take care of it.

Fire is lacking slightly. It isn't nearly as effective as before and that's ok. I feel that only run away fire should cause large amounts of damage to the ship. However, I do feel that fire should cause other effects if it lasts to long on your ship. Components going offline if there is a fire in the compartment. For example guns can't fire if there is a fire in the gun house, magazine or around the barbette. The super structure is also immune to fire for some reason.

I still feel that the damage model would benefit greatly from having varying sizes and number of compartments based on ship size, component choices and number of bulkheads.

In regards to ship formations. It's still rather annoying that a ship will drop out of formation without much warning and sometimes pick the worst route to take when dropping out. Having a toggle to have ships either auto drop out of formation or a manual order to do so, would be a big improvement. The manual option could be a simple button you press that then asks you to set the new course you want the ship to take (exit left or right of the direction of travel) and if you want the ship to remain in the formation or leave the formation altogether. How a ship leaves the formation could also be changed. Currently the ship will perform a loop and attempt to rejoin the formation in the rear. An option to have the ship simply slow down and maintain a parallel course then rejoin when the end of the formation comes along would be the best thing in the world.

[Hangar18]

18 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

I actually have just done a test that gives me reason to suggest that the torpedo model is overall not working too badly.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PUJRScGSmHA4dh8e7

Basically it is a Yamato-class battleship dying to 9 hits once you actually give it the bulkheads and antitorp facility the real thing might actually have, instead of the best thing there is. Because Yamato's torpedo defense and even subdivision clearly isn't "the best there is". It is a knowingly compromised and flawed design for the sake of haste and draft.

Using the 130,000 ton battleship that did not exist in real life with the best in-game torpedo protection and bulkheads and using it as a basis to say things are too tough simply is not on.

Now, I'll go confirm how fast the components die if I use maximum defences.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/Mk8cGSECuMCQ1etx9

Total number before dying: 59. It has to be noted that not everything was damaged even after 12 hits.

but im not basing this off a super battleship. the ship in my post is only 2k heavier than yamato and normal load. I can't even be sure it was max TDS, only the bulkhead count is known.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Hangar18

[arkhangelsk]

I'm not thinking specifically of your post, but the grunts all over the place about the toughness of ships against torpedoes. For your pictures oh goddarnit it only ate 7 torpedoes. I also notice it only has 8 14" guns which means there's probably quite a bit of weight left for a good TDS. Just feed it about 5 more torpedoes and see how it reacts first.

When people are talking about how overly tough ships are to shells and torpedoes, I think it must be remembered that ships in real life almost certainly did not have the equivalent of the game's maximum damage mitigation systems. Between catalog specs and more subdivision no one can see, the choice in real life is obvious.

My technique when designing the Yamato in the link is based on the idea of first building the ship to the Standard displacement (which was about 71000 t by Wiki) with the range locked at Very Short, put in all the "surface stats", fill the unused displacement up with protective systems, then increase the range to Very Long while increasing Displacement to the Full Load, then shrinking the range bar back until everything is within weight limits, and finally another touch-up.

[Ruan]

23 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Must agree that DM is probably the most important thing right now.

Here is my experience with torpedoes

these are 24" electric torpedoes

The structure here was already heavily degraded. after 4 torpedoes somewhat spread across the mid section, and bow lead to the following float. Honestly it did not impair him all that much. and the guns still functioned enough to sink 3 ships.

Awhile later, he again took another 3 torpedoes. Again the structure damage here is mostly from battle ships and battle cruisers at point blank. very minimal effect.

What I did not show was the cruisers that were getting rocked in one hit. I very strongly suspect this is because they dont have a TDS. Torpedo damage is high. But its mitigated so much by the TDS that it makes it marginal. even areas where no TDS should be present seem to be reduced in damage. Which is something i think we can all agree on, should not be present.

 

Is it TDS that is saving these ships? It takes substantially less flooding to drop the "float" of smaller ships. I've noticed this with flooding caused by shell hits. It's possible these smaller ships do have TDS but with how much "float" they have they sink anyway.

Perhaps Torpedo defenses should be a armor value instead of a component. You set the thickness and just like armor that would determine what kind of damage is done. This would also give more dynamic with weight usage. Then the component side could be choosing between a bulge or belt types. With bulge being lighter but providing less resistance and more drag (less maneuverability) per inch. While a belt is heavier but provides more resistance per inch and does not cause drag.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Ruan

[roachbeef]

Given the fall of shot at most ranges, I feel like angling ships would not improve actual armor angle or ricochet chances to the degree portrayed in the game, and if close enough for it to matter, I feel like AP would still crush the thin 1-4" bow we see in most AI designs. Next patch should either decrease HE effectiveness or reduce ricochet chances against thinner armor to stop having BBs fire HE at each other.