Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Alpha-5 Feedback<<<


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Jatzi said:

First, torpedo tubes on one side don't fire after the other side fires when you turn. Which doesn't make any sense of course

I dont seem to have this issue with deck torpedo tubes, which torpedo tubes do you use when you encounter this?

 

37 minutes ago, Jatzi said:

Second, during design when you place turrets on the side of the ship and rotate it the mirrored turret on the other side sin't rotated when it is placed automatically. Very annoying and time consuming to fix. I'm sure it's already a known issue and it's totally just a quality of life thing but yeah. 

Definitely agree especially with adding secondaries to the new cruisers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ThatOneBounced said:

Something feels off about having Italian heavy cruiser guns on a south Carolina class hull (US 1906 Dreadnought hull), feels like this might need to be changed for nation specific turret designs to the generic guns in my opinion

Screenshot (14).png

We need these turrets:

1584651666-unnamed.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThatOneBounced said:

I dont seem to have this issue with deck torpedo tubes, which torpedo tubes do you use when you encounter this?

 

Definitely agree especially with adding secondaries to the new cruisers 

Ive used 3x, 4x, and 5x deck mounts and I have yet to see a mount on side fire after firing the other side and turning. This is on light and heavy cruisers as DD's only have the one hull so I haven't messed with them very much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jatzi said:

Ive used 3x, 4x, and 5x deck mounts and I have yet to see a mount on side fire after firing the other side and turning. This is on light and heavy cruisers as DD's only have the one hull so I haven't messed with them very much. 

Yeah might be a glitch thats rare, did 5 cruiser battles and all of them I was able to fire both port and starboard torpedo separately while they were reloading

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2020 at 6:11 AM, Accipiter said:

i don't know if anyone has encountered this, but there definitely seems to be some kind of weird issue going on with very large calibre (i used 18inch) HE shells during plunging fire at long range: sometimes they do Super-Mega damage for no obvious reason, nuking many compartments (often the entire Bow or Stern especially) in a single hit, about 40% worth of structure damage, and causing fire+flooding in those compartments. overall it even looks like a detonation but i checked the damage log and it didn't register any detonation.

it's really strange and it doesn't look intended.

in one instance i've nuked from 100% to less than 20% structure an enemy BB of about 48000 Tons in a SINGLE 18 Inch HE salvo from close to 30km away... no detonation, i checked.

This has been an issue for as long as I've played. I've commented many times on how plunging HE is absurdly powerful, entirely at odds with what ought to be the case.

BBs didn't fire HE at other BBs, hell they hardly carried any as part of their normal ammo load. I posted somewhere regarding this an example of how the typical ammo load for the RN's 13.5" gun, a very widely used heavy gun for the RN in WW1, changed from the start to the end of the war.

If BBs carried very few HE shells, yet the game makes HE the better choice in many circumstances, that indicates the game clearly has more work to do. But that's what's expected in Alpha testing.

There are a LOT of things about the armour/damage/repair systems in the game at the moment that are clearly not right, so we're just going to have to wait for them to be addressed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2020 at 3:40 AM, Cptbarney said:

Hmm i know it was 3 torps but barham sunk due to a magazine explosion, plus lots of water. By 21inch torpedoes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Barham_(04)

Read after the second world war section.

Although, something like that should be very rare.

She capsized due to massive loss of stability from those torpedo hits. The fact whomever wrote it said there was a magazine explosion that sank her tells me they're either ignorant about what sinks things or are terribly clumsy with language. She was "sunk" the moment she rolled due to the huge loss of stability; that she exploded simply made the end more rapid and far more violent.

Didn't you read my reservations on the new ability of torpedoes to cause ammo detonation? One point I made was how UNCOMMON that was, especially on BBs.

Torpedoes sink things either through initial stability loss that causes the ship to capsize, or through flooding that causes loss of excess buoyancy. The latter can also come about through consequences of the initial hit/s, such as loss of pumping capacity from engine failures in flooding or fires in vital internal spaces and the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

She capsized due to massive loss of stability from those torpedo hits. The fact whomever wrote it said there was a magazine explosion that sank her tells me they're either ignorant about what sinks things or are terribly clumsy with language. She was "sunk" the moment she rolled due to the huge loss of stability; that she exploded simply made the end more rapid and far more violent.

Didn't you read my reservations on the new ability of torpedoes to cause ammo detonation? One point I made was how UNCOMMON that was, especially on BBs.

Torpedoes sink things either through initial stability loss that causes the ship to capsize, or through flooding that causes loss of excess buoyancy. The latter can also come about through consequences of the initial hit/s, such as loss of pumping capacity from engine failures in flooding or fires in vital internal spaces and the like.

To expand on that, those torpedo hits caused a fire to break out, probably not directly caused by the torpex exploding, and that fire could spread to and set off one of the magazines due to a lack of damage control measures because the ship was lying on its side and in the process of being abandoned by its crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

This has been an issue for as long as I've played. I've commented many times on how plunging HE is absurdly powerful, entirely at odds with what ought to be the case.

BBs didn't fire HE at other BBs, hell they hardly carried any as part of their normal ammo load. I posted somewhere regarding this an example of how the typical ammo load for the RN's 13.5" gun, a very widely used heavy gun for the RN in WW1, changed from the start to the end of the war.

If BBs carried very few HE shells, yet the game makes HE the better choice in many circumstances, that indicates the game clearly has more work to do. But that's what's expected in Alpha testing.

There are a LOT of things about the armour/damage/repair systems in the game at the moment that are clearly not right, so we're just going to have to wait for them to be addressed.

I hear you, but I am observing non-plunging HE doing heavy damage to the hull, internals, and flooding at medium and close ranges when the AI is stern on to me. Previously everyone complained about chasing the AI and firing 1000s of rounds with no damage. That is no more it seems. Now I am killing them just as quickly as if they were taking broadside AP. So obviously the damage model changes have made HE in stern/bow on situations unbalanced. It almost seems that once the deck turns red from damage, the HE is now passing into the bowls of the ship and exploding. I definitely saw some shots hitting yellow and green sections not doing as much damage as the red sections. 

On another note, I was able to replicate the same with 17"s, so it is not just the 18"s being that more powerful. I am going to test 16"s tonight, but I am sure they will inflict similar damage albeit at a proportional damage level. I've got some screens of the 17"s in the same range/positioning as my 18" test. Will post those if need be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

This has been an issue for as long as I've played. I've commented many times on how plunging HE is absurdly powerful, entirely at odds with what ought to be the case.

BBs didn't fire HE at other BBs, hell they hardly carried any as part of their normal ammo load. I posted somewhere regarding this an example of how the typical ammo load for the RN's 13.5" gun, a very widely used heavy gun for the RN in WW1, changed from the start to the end of the war.

If BBs carried very few HE shells, yet the game makes HE the better choice in many circumstances, that indicates the game clearly has more work to do. But that's what's expected in Alpha testing.

There are a LOT of things about the armour/damage/repair systems in the game at the moment that are clearly not right, so we're just going to have to wait for them to be addressed.

 

3 hours ago, madham82 said:

I hear you, but I am observing non-plunging HE doing heavy damage to the hull, internals, and flooding at medium and close ranges when the AI is stern on to me. Previously everyone complained about chasing the AI and firing 1000s of rounds with no damage. That is no more it seems. Now I am killing them just as quickly as if they were taking broadside AP. So obviously the damage model changes have made HE in stern/bow on situations unbalanced. It almost seems that once the deck turns red from damage, the HE is now passing into the bowls of the ship and exploding. I definitely saw some shots hitting yellow and green sections not doing as much damage as the red sections. 

On another note, I was able to replicate the same with 17"s, so it is not just the 18"s being that more powerful. I am going to test 16"s tonight, but I am sure they will inflict similar damage albeit at a proportional damage level. I've got some screens of the 17"s in the same range/positioning as my 18" test. Will post those if need be. 

with all that said, I think the damage model is in a really good state at the moment. Battles have a really nice pacing compared to past alphas. AP shells feel about right in my opinion. Now to address the HE complaints the only way to fix this would be to 1. add a greater damage penalty of HE shells if the shells DO NOT penetrate the hull at all. This makes armor actually do its job exploding HE shells before that go deeper into the hull 2. reduce HE penetration greatly so that HE can not cause damage by penetrating and exploding inside the ship as frequently as is. that being said if a ship's armor can not defend against a HE shell penetration after the fact (Lets say a 18 inch gun vs a budget battleship), then yes doing 400 or so damage should be fair. I dont believe we should be drastically changing the damage model again because Alpha 4 was a disaster on release.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2020 at 1:32 PM, Mike L said:

Yesterday, I had several French super battleships sunk under me by single torpedo ammo detonations.  Today I tried the opposite.  15 destroyers against 1 French battleship.  It took 24  torpedo hits to sink it.  The game's AI cheats.  On top of it, the French battleship was a complete monstrosity.  4 twin turrets forward, 1 aft.  The secodary tower was hanging over the stern.

 

screen_1920x1080_2020-03-19_12-59-56.png

what size torpedo? what type of torpedo? what bulkhead was used? so many questions.

6 hours ago, ThatOneBounced said:

 

with all that said, I think the damage model is in a really good state at the moment. Battles have a really nice pacing compared to past alphas. AP shells feel about right in my opinion. Now to address the HE complaints the only way to fix this would be to 1. add a greater damage penalty of HE shells if the shells DO NOT penetrate the hull at all. This makes armor actually do its job exploding HE shells before that go deeper into the hull 2. reduce HE penetration greatly so that HE can not cause damage by penetrating and exploding inside the ship as frequently as is. that being said if a ship's armor can not defend against a HE shell penetration after the fact (Lets say a 18 inch gun vs a budget battleship), then yes doing 400 or so damage should be fair. I dont believe we should be drastically changing the damage model again because Alpha 4 was a disaster on release.   

Disagree here. ships are still soaking up dozen of large caliber shells, chasing a ship is next to impossible because everything bounces. even with large magazines im again finding myself running out of ammunition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

what size torpedo? what type of torpedo? what bulkhead was used? so many questions.

Disagree here. ships are still soaking up dozen of large caliber shells, chasing a ship is next to impossible because everything bounces. even with large magazines im again finding myself running out of ammunition.

don't share this issue, using tube powder i can sink most enemy ships through flood damage might wanna check penetration values when you begin to engage. with hits at he belt or below waterline I am sinking ships in a reasonable amount of salvos only time i ran outta round was when ships ran away to regroup then reengaged prolonging the battle

Edited by ThatOneBounced
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ThatOneBounced said:

don't share this issue, using tube powder i can sink most enemy ships through flood damage might wanna check penetration values when you begin to engage. with hits at he belt or below waterline I am sinking ships in a reasonable amount of salvos only time i ran outta round was when ships ran away to regroup then reengaged prolonging the battle

alternatively you can take the easy road out and just load lydite in 18" guns and remove entire ships in a single salvo. i actually forgot to take SHS, so you can actually get better results. but even battleships dont really stand up 18" HE. Especially if you can get them to go bow in or run away then you tend to pen and just ruin the ship. below are just a few straight up belt pens.

image.thumb.png.92f8a0800b9fb0c3a976356adc80bc59.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a single shell just ruining a ship, no detonation needed. Again, this is 18" HE with lydite, standard shells. Looks like the shell goes through the aft deck,  then a few bulkheads. Obviously, penetration isnt an issue,

image.thumb.png.02acffa649ac3f2f2228e493f57ea9f7.png

Edited by Hangar18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ThatOneBounced said:

with all that said, I think the damage model is in a really good state at the moment. Battles have a really nice pacing compared to past alphas. AP shells feel about right in my opinion. Now to address the HE complaints the only way to fix this would be to 1. add a greater damage penalty of HE shells if the shells DO NOT penetrate the hull at all. This makes armor actually do its job exploding HE shells before that go deeper into the hull 2. reduce HE penetration greatly so that HE can not cause damage by penetrating and exploding inside the ship as frequently as is. that being said if a ship's armor can not defend against a HE shell penetration after the fact (Lets say a 18 inch gun vs a budget battleship), then yes doing 400 or so damage should be fair. I dont believe we should be drastically changing the damage model again because Alpha 4 was a disaster on release.   

 

2 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Disagree here. ships are still soaking up dozen of large caliber shells, chasing a ship is next to impossible because everything bounces. even with large magazines im again finding myself running out of ammunition.

 

1 hour ago, ThatOneBounced said:

don't share this issue, using tube powder i can sink most enemy ships through flood damage might wanna check penetration values when you begin to engage. with hits at he belt or below waterline I am sinking ships in a reasonable amount of salvos only time i ran outta round was when ships ran away to regroup then reengaged prolonging the battle

The whole shell/explosive thing is propellant, bursting charge, fuse and shell construction merged in a way that's not entirely satisfactory IMO, although to be fair it's not the worst compromise between too simple and too complex. When it comes to defeating armour, however, by far the most important factors are shell design and construction (insert obligatory comment about early Royal Navy WWI AP rounds and Jutland vs subsequent study leading to the far more capable Green Boy shell design), probably followed by fuse design.

RN had a problem with shells that bounced or shattered along with bursting charge problems in WWI. Interestingly, the Germans had some problems with duds in WW2 (Prince of Wales was found to have a 15" shell with its fuse in tact and nose cap removed rolling around in her hull from a below waterline penetration; they cut a hole in the hull UNDER it and lowered it out...nervous business I bet LOL). Not sure if it'd be better to split things along shell design, explosive/propellant and fuse design rather than a simple "propellant/explosive governs EVERYTHING", although it certainly would be more accurate to do so. Would give a little more flexibility in design for the player, as you might want to push one factor ahead of the others for experimentation reasons. An example of that might be the bursting charge the Japanese were using at Tsushima that proved to be more powerful than the Russian's more standard one and also particularly good at fire starting (which, interestingly, one might argue resulted in the Brits drawing incorrect conclusions about that battle and thus directly leads to their poor shells at Jutland, but that's a whole debate in itself).

When it comes to shell type, I'd expect the ammo load out and thus use to alter significantly over the time period of the game. We know this happened within WW1, with a typical shell load out for heavy guns in the RN shifting from quite a lot of HE to barely any from 1914 to 1916 and then to 1918. In more 'modern' times, as shown in WW2, a ship with 8" or greater main guns ought not fire HE at enemy ships of similar class or heavier, at least not while we're limited to HE or AP.

Adm Jellicoe was very clear in his instructions on gunnery pre-Jutland that he expected hits from ranges beyond 10,000yds/9.1km to be with HE that would cause potential havoc on unarmoured upper works, but the serious damage would be done with AP at 10kyd or closer.  Prinze Eugen used 'AP' at both Hood and Prince of Wales, and managed to score some hits that caused damage; in Hood's case caused the secondary ready ammo locker explosion and fire, in PoW's a penetration through what the game would call 'stern belt extended' (although technically she had 'all or nothing') that caused flooding. Were the game to start to allow splitting of shell, fuse and explosives/propellants as mentioned in 1, above, then we could see things such as SAP equivalents, where shorter fused AP is sort of a compromise between 'standard' AP and 'high capacity/HE';  it wouldn't get the mass of through-and-through (over-pen) we see against lightly armoured targets, yet also won't be defeated/mitigated by light armour the way HE ought to be.

Regardless, the problems we know about now include:

- incomplete armour/compartment schemes. No effective citadel which is a real problem for bow/stern hits. In fact the citadel choices as they are act as an armour modifier plus other things such as reduced damage chances to engines and the like. Not a huge fan of that concept, but I suppose it's one way to do it. I'd prefer something like a more detailed, ACTUAL placement of all the vital bits as was evident in games like "Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic: 1939-1943" (released in 1990, and I played it back then). Trouble with that is it requires a lot more compartments and different numbers of same across multiple decks. I still think it was the best of the damage models for ships I've ever seen, however.

- grossly simplified damage control. Maximum bulkheads + various other damage mitigation choices (double/triple hull and so on) = zombie apocalypse ships. Don't even bother shooting them if there's anything else. There's no apparent difference in terms of damage control capacity between a BB and a TR, and in fact a TR with max bulkheads can in some ways be considerably harder to sink than a min bulkhead pre-dread BB (I use the Armed Convoy mission a lot for testing each new version).

- excessive importance of 'angling' because, in part, the highly inflated hit rates make damage mitigation necessary if combat is to last longer than 10 minutes. I REALLY dislike this because it turns things 180 degrees from what we ought to see, namely the priority being presenting ALL your firepower to your enemy and being as steady a gun platform as possible assuming of course you're fighting a similar class ship or aren't trying to close range (as per opening of Battle of Denmark Strait, or the Surigao Strait massacre, both of which saw one side approaching bow-on for good reasons).

- simplistic penetration model for HE in particular (supposedly a flat 33% of AP according to the previously data-mined damage model thread). It can lead to some silly things, like 6" HE rounds scoring over-pen against the mid-belt zone of a TR class whereas surely it would explode within it IF it didn't simply explode upon striking.

- poor modelling of multiple decks, splinter/blast mitigation, etc. Probably why, when also added to the one above, we see MASSIVE plunging fire damage on seemingly properly armoured BBs when AP rounds that hit 30 seconds earlier simply bounced off/ricochet.

- destroyed compartments become damage black holes. Hence the 'firing from astern' problem.

I could go on, and it sounds like I've lots of complaints, but really that's not my point at all. As I've said, it's Alpha so there is plenty of time for these to be addressed.

Just as we ought not be too critical or worried given it's still relatively early days in Alpha, however, I think we also ought bot be assessing the state of things too POSITIVELY according to what we see now.

For all the reasons I put above, trying to form an opinion of any real value either way strikes me as impossible. Yes, we can say what we like or don't like, but really I sincerely hope Nick and others are not deviating from that plan (unless in minimal specifics that won't change the final versions) to make us happy.

I expect them to be working along a very clearly articulated plan of building the necessary components that, once all put together, will provide a good approximation of 'reality'. Once they tell us they are getting close to THAT, including crew effects on damage control for example, then we will see how well their model choices have worked.

Cheers

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

snip

Ultimately we are here to test.

powders are going to be split, i think it was in this thread that nick said it was in the play book.

One thing i do not understand is the shell weights. if you look at the shell weights of the 305s, theyre nearly double what is expected. im not really sure why. I have a feeling the same trend continues for other calibers. But im too lazy to check.

While it doesnt matter, i think the ship length in ship plan section is a bit off too.

speed seems extremely easy to pick up, and technically hull geometry should have a part in that, but right now you can get speeds we would struggle to get today, let alone 1940

Edited by Hangar18
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hangar18 said:

Ultimately we are here to test.

Entirely agree, hence my final comments.

Was about to post some more examples snipped from recent battle, but I've changed my mind. Not because they aren't valid, but because it just highlights what we all ought to know already.

They would, however, show why I disagree with any sort of statement saying damage model etc is 'OK'.

A 14,000t CA being sunk from flooding from 2 x 12" hits while a 8,800t CL has taken 14 x 12" hits (many of them penetrating HE, not to mention assorted 6" as well), been afire in some 60-70% of compartments and yet back to 24% structure and particularly 58% floatation (after being as low as 14%) strikes me as, well, you can decide LOL. Doubly 'frustrating' in light of the next comment.

One thing that WOULD make a big difference would be greater effects from accumulated damage. As it is, you get a damage or flooding instability penalties, but they aren't very large compared with other factors and both reduce to 0 over time (assuming no additional damage). Trouble is that means that CL that has been pounded to scrap has NO real penalty applied to its ability to SHOOT, and that makes zombie ships particularly irritating, especially if they're packing guns that can cause some significant damage to you. Ironically, given the best permanent penalties come from tower destruction and lost performance from funnel damage/loss, those CL guns can be more annoying than 12" guns that don't hit anywhere near as often in earlier tech battles.

I've not even mentioned the fact a ship can manoeuvre and apply a -23.0% penalty to hit when firing at it.......while it's doing 0.5kts.

The 'to hit' penalty from manoeuvres apparently is NOT tied to the ship's speed. Instead, you get a penalty/bonus for that speed, then another for manoeuvres.

The thing is it ought not matter what you do with your rudder at 0.5 knots. The degree to which a manoeuvre can throw off effective aim ought to be a function of the difference between the positions the target would be at given the flight time of shells fired at it. At 0.5 knots you move about 1m every 4 seconds, so a 20 second flight time is ~5m.

While you get a bonus for "ship slow speed" of +28.5&, but then you can get rid of most of it even though it ought make no difference at all.

Put your rudder hard over at a speed that makes no practical difference in the straight v manoeuvre positions when the shells land and you remove 81% of the bonus your enemy gets because of your low speed.

Trouble is of course WE get to play as much as we like, which means more time to become aware of all sorts of peculiarities and irritants. Nick and co can only address so many things with each new version.

I have to get better at practising what I preach, which is to say patience.

🙃

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

Entirely agree, hence my final comments.

Was about to post some more examples snipped from recent battle, but I've changed my mind. Not because they aren't valid, but because it just highlights what we all ought to know already.

They would, however, show why I disagree with any sort of statement saying damage model etc is 'OK'.

A 14,000t CA being sunk from flooding from 2 x 12" hits while a 8,800t CL has taken 14 x 12" hits (many of them penetrating HE, not to mention assorted 6" as well), been afire in some 60-70% of compartments and yet back to 24% structure and particularly 58% floatation (after being as low as 14%) strikes me as, well, you can decide LOL. Doubly 'frustrating' in light of the next comment.

One thing that WOULD make a big difference would be greater effects from accumulated damage. As it is, you get a damage or flooding instability penalties, but they aren't very large compared with other factors and both reduce to 0 over time (assuming no additional damage). Trouble is that means that CL that has been pounded to scrap has NO real penalty applied to its ability to SHOOT, and that makes zombie ships particularly irritating, especially if they're packing guns that can cause some significant damage to you. Ironically, given the best permanent penalties come from tower destruction and lost performance from funnel damage/loss, those CL guns can be more annoying than 12" guns that don't hit anywhere near as often in earlier tech battles.

I've not even mentioned the fact a ship can manoeuvre and apply a -23.0% penalty to hit when firing at it.......while it's doing 0.5kts.

The 'to hit' penalty from manoeuvres apparently is NOT tied to the ship's speed. Instead, you get a penalty/bonus for that speed, then another for manoeuvres.

The thing is it ought not matter what you do with your rudder at 0.5 knots. The degree to which a manoeuvre can throw off effective aim ought to be a function of the difference between the positions the target would be at given the flight time of shells fired at it. At 0.5 knots you move about 1m every 4 seconds, so a 20 second flight time is ~5m.

While you get a bonus for "ship slow speed" of +28.5&, but then you can get rid of most of it even though it ought make no difference at all.

Put your rudder hard over at a speed that makes no practical difference in the straight v manoeuvre positions when the shells land and you remove 81% of the bonus your enemy gets because of your low speed.

Trouble is of course WE get to play as much as we like, which means more time to become aware of all sorts of peculiarities and irritants. Nick and co can only address so many things with each new version.

I have to get better at practising what I preach, which is to say patience.

🙃

oof thats a nasty exploit.

A List of things that rub me the wrong way

* Bigger is better has almost always dominated in this game. As gun caliber increases, so does cost and weight. 18" guns are somewhat discouraged by weight and cost, and thats fine, they actually arent too far of historical values (100t off). However lower caliber guns, such as the mk5 305, those are nearly double their actual weight. I think lowering weight and costs of the lower caliber guns to incentivize their use over the biggest gun possible, might be a decent way to bring a bit more balance. Historically, there have been times where lower caliber guns have out performed higher caliber guns, such as the 12" mk8 over the 14" mk6. Tech matters.

* Shell weights are off by a huge margin, which contributes to the above.

* The way armor thickness is handled...100% to thickness means armor values skyrocket quickly.

* Range finder bonuses are not accounted for in the gun stat UI. (stick radar 2 on, and then switch between the 2 top range finders, the accuracy stats don't change)

* Gun accuracy seems to have steps...with peaks at 305, 381, and 457 why?

* 127mm guns not fitting on things they should have historically. (minor)

* Snap points for towers.

* Torpedoes are a hazard to have on deck, and a hit to one should be a detonation.

* Ship length does not seem to contribute to its handling at the moment, though the tooltip says it does.

* Way to easy to stack speed on large ships

* Armor model is obviously really simple right now.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed that for the British Armoured cruiser V hull, some gun configuration doesn't quite work the way I would expect it to. It basically comes down to side-guns that are pointing to the stern not tracking during battle, but the building interface doesn't show any issues with the guns.
I've tested it with both 9 and 8'' guns. When I reverse the turrets(so they point to aft) they do track. I've added some screenshots for clarity as It's kinda hard to explain otherwise.

I hope the 'issue' is clear this way. If not, please let met know. I can provide some additional screens and/or explanation.

Other than that, just keep doing what you're doing because this game is already incredibly fun to play in this stage! I'm impressed!
 

Schermopname (2).png

Schermopname (4).png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hangar18 said:

oof thats a nasty exploit.

A List of things that rub me the wrong way

* Bigger is better has almost always dominated in this game. As gun caliber increases, so does cost and weight. 18" guns are somewhat discouraged by weight and cost, and thats fine, they actually arent too far of historical values (100t off). However lower caliber guns, such as the mk5 305, those are nearly double their actual weight. I think lowering weight and costs of the lower caliber guns to incentivize their use over the biggest gun possible, might be a decent way to bring a bit more balance. Historically, there have been times where lower caliber guns have out performed higher caliber guns, such as the 12" mk8 over the 14" mk6. Tech matters.

* Shell weights are off by a huge margin, which contributes to the above.

* The way armor thickness is handled...100% to thickness means armor values skyrocket quickly.

* Range finder bonuses are not accounted for in the gun stat UI. (stick radar 2 on, and then switch between the 2 top range finders, the accuracy stats don't change)

* Gun accuracy seems to have steps...with peaks at 305, 381, and 457 why?

* 127mm guns not fitting on things they should have historically. (minor)

* Snap points for towers.

* Torpedoes are a hazard to have on deck, and a hit to one should be a detonation.

* Ship length does not seem to contribute to its handling at the moment, though the tooltip says it does.

* Way to easy to stack speed on large ships

* Armor model is obviously really simple right now.

 

 

One of the most annoying problems until this point. The  +118% (Krupp IV) buff leads to absurd armour values and tankiness in modern/superBBs that rivals shore the Antlantic Wall...

The armour model is improved, but I do really hope they can make more realistic. It still is a box, with some variation, but a box nevertheless.

|

Speed is also still not really affected by hull shape. Stubby/chonky BBs can easily make 30kns+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mhtsos said:

One of the most annoying problems until this point. The  +118% (Krupp IV) buff leads to absurd armour values and tankiness in modern/superBBs that rivals shore the Antlantic Wall...

The armour model is improved, but I do really hope they can make more realistic. It still is a box, with some variation, but a box nevertheless.

|

Speed is also still not really affected by hull shape. Stubby/chonky BBs can easily make 30kns+.

They should have smaller bonuses, so compound being 5 or 10% and scaling up from there, have some armour types give bonuses to other areas besides overall armour strength, and the make shell quality, varients, types and marks so that we don't have the one type of AP and one type of HE we have now.

armour models needs to not only needs to fit around the model (so like world of warships where its clearly a skin just above the actual 3d model or just underneath the 3d model). So that it accounts for angles, thickness and type easier. Plus we also need other sections internally so actual models of the transmission, ammoboxs and rack, engines etc. Plus other armour layers instead of dividing it into box sections, having set into many sections (so belt being one long and maybe large section), should help.

Yeah thinner and longer ships should have an easier time to get to speed or at least achieve higher speeds, but bigger fatter ships should turn a lot easier as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so when i start a custom battle with more then 10-ish ships the game crashes showing a Too Meny Threds error, other then that i have no major problems.

other then that i'd love to see a system where you can save ships for later use, and a way to build a number of ships and send then to figth, insted as of curentlly only building one.

i think that allowing multi ship building and more options in custom battle will help the game alot.

i also wanted to say that i love the game i hope to see alot more for you guys in the future.

 

Edited by GingerWaste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few things I would like to bring up mainly with design of a ship

Light Cruisers main belt armor should be increased from 5 inches to around 6.2 inches as a main reason for this change is simple weight. Most light Cruisers being built after 1930 was above 6 inch limit. This would give a slightly better lay out armor from Modern Light Cruiser in game from the preceding older designs. Build I made using the Italian Navy there is about 500 unused weight I can use for armor as the weapon sweet is good on that design when I push speed to 32 knots I can still use 290 tones.

I'm not saying nerf Modern Light cruisers to carry less those numbers are fin and good for me, just let us carry more armor at around 6.2 as a max size armor to add a bit more from for designs and allow some give or take want 6.2 inches of armor give something else up else weight wise.

US Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, and Large Cruiser all used the 5 inch gun as the secondary gun not the 4 inch gun, in fact the US Navy never used the 4 inch gun during that time period, before during the First World War and earlier on Destroyers and yes up until 1390 when the Somers and Porter Class was built as Large Destroyers for there time used the 5 inch 51 guns these two classes later replaced by the Gearing Class originally designed to carry 8 5 inch gun later changed to 6 like the Sumner Class Gearing longer and the lack of a another twin 5 inch gun gave room to expand aft bridge and fuel tanks for longer cruising distance.

Modern Light Cruiser.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...