Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Destoyers are quite a bit unbalnced


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

Your link isn't working for me. I did, however, just do it in the reverse direction.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/qvvBzcx16gG8ACgVA

By making 40 knot DDs, I managed to get about 4 of those battleships before all my DDs died. I will buy that if I handled them better, I can get 6.

So basically, when the human builds and controls the BBs, he wins pretty easy. When he builds and controls the DDs, same. Though i definitely worked harder when fighting as the DDs, and it'll probably take longer to replace tjhe lost ones than patch up my BBs.

A lot of the problem, from what I can see is that the AI doesn't start hitting the DDs before it is too late. Though the hit rates are really suppressed, they could still have done much better if they hadn't focus fired on my BB until my DDs got too close.

Well, but human players really hate the AI when it actually does its best to win by building fast ships. That's why enemy ships are on average slower this round. Having said that, BB vs 12 DD mission before the latest changes shows that defeating DDs isn't that hard if you plan.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/svWK14XwTUr24uNLA fixed

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

Your link isn't working for me. I did, however, just do it in the reverse direction.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/qvvBzcx16gG8ACgVA

By making 40 knot DDs, I managed to get about 4 of those battleships before all my DDs died. I will buy that if I handled them better, I can get 6.

So basically, when the human builds and controls the BBs, he wins pretty easy. When he builds and controls the DDs, same. Though i definitely worked harder when fighting as the DDs, and it'll probably take longer to replace tjhe lost ones than patch up my BBs.

A lot of the problem, from what I can see is that the AI doesn't start hitting the DDs before it is too late. Though the hit rates are really suppressed, they could still have done much better if they hadn't focus fired on my BB until my DDs got too close.

Well, but human players really hate the AI when it actually does its best to win by building fast ships. That's why enemy ships are on average slower this round. Having said that, BB vs 12 DD mission before the latest changes shows that defeating DDs isn't that hard if you plan.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/s4HSTkqB3UUhJP589 now the reverse, perfect example of ghost torpedoes. Its too late to avoid and the spread devastating, if i was using anything other than a battleship with reinforced and many  bulkheads (anything lower would have been deleted). 

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

Your link isn't working for me. I did, however, just do it in the reverse direction.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/qvvBzcx16gG8ACgVA

By making 40 knot DDs, I managed to get about 4 of those battleships before all my DDs died. I will buy that if I handled them better, I can get 6.

So basically, when the human builds and controls the BBs, he wins pretty easy. When he builds and controls the DDs, same. Though i definitely worked harder when fighting as the DDs, and it'll probably take longer to replace tjhe lost ones than patch up my BBs.

A lot of the problem, from what I can see is that the AI doesn't start hitting the DDs before it is too late. Though the hit rates are really suppressed, they could still have done much better if they hadn't focus fired on my BB until my DDs got too close.

Well, but human players really hate the AI when it actually does its best to win by building fast ships. That's why enemy ships are on average slower this round. Having said that, BB vs 12 DD mission before the latest changes shows that defeating DDs isn't that hard if you plan.

The problem is the speed penalty is a very "gamey" feature abused by AI and players. No cap ship should be able to go more than 35kts and DDs over 42kt (don't think I ever saw an actual design reach faster than that). Speed is really a factor at medium to long range. At close ranges it should not be a real factor. Hurt accuracy yes, just not to the point it does now. 

Again I would be happy at this point to fix torpedo spam, versus other changes. I think that would do more to balance DDs than any other change. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, madham82 said:

The problem is the speed penalty is a very "gamey" feature abused by AI and players. No cap ship should be able to go more than 35kts and DDs over 42kt (don't think I ever saw an actual design reach faster than that). Speed is really a factor at medium to long range. At close ranges it should not be a real factor. Hurt accuracy yes, just not to the point it does now. 

Again I would be happy at this point to fix torpedo spam, versus other changes. I think that would do more to balance DDs than any other change. 

People here are essentially whining that we need strict restrictions on ship design measured by what has been achieved IRL. That eliminates the freedom of imagination. Furthermore, you seem to be advocating for arbitrary restrictions to somehow conjure up some semblance of balance in a deliberately unbalanced game. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

People here are essentially whining that we need strict restrictions on ship design measured by what has been achieved IRL. That eliminates the freedom of imagination. Furthermore, you seem to be advocating for arbitrary restrictions to somehow conjure up some semblance of balance in a deliberately unbalanced game. 

 

ok a destroyer meta obviously doesn't exist then. there is literally absolutely nothing wrong with having torpedo spam literally trump all other forms of combat. Nothing wrong with ships being able to launch torpedoes beyond detection range. And definitely nothing wrong with ships with an effectiveness that greatly outweighs ships 50 times their size. if this is what is considered perfectly fine in game balance then I will definitely consider purely building destroyers with 45 kts, 4x10 torpedo tubes, and just replace any losses (if they are even hit) within months. not waste my nation's money on anything bigger since this reduces the numbers of destroyers i could field and kill things a lot slower. I can pretty much send them anywhere, and intercept anything, and can one shot anything smaller than a battleship. Maybe, just maybe, Ill need battleships and cruisers in the beginning when destroyers cant get reliably in range, after that there are no reason, other than power projection, to use anything else.  This is what I call freedom of imagination. 

Edited by ThatOneBounced
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

People here are essentially whining that we need strict restrictions on ship design measured by what has been achieved IRL. That eliminates the freedom of imagination. Furthermore, you seem to be advocating for arbitrary restrictions to somehow conjure up some semblance of balance in a deliberately unbalanced game. 

 

Well there is that sticky reality of creating a game based on a "real" world and a "real time frame". It's not a question of limiting freedom of choice, it's about playing with tech and engineering available at the time. If it could be done and be combat effective, everyone would have built 45 and 50 kt DDs right? They didn't. Le Terrible (which still holds the record at 45kts for an hour, and I'm sure was running in non-combat loadout) was the fastest ever produced, and was built in the 30's (which means late game here). Combat speed was around 40kts. Going faster just didn't happen with the hull types and propulsion tech available in the games time frame. It's not a question of cost or weight, which is how the game makes it currently. You wouldn't want a 100,000 ton BB be able to turn like a DD simply because you put all your money and weight in Aux engines and shaft upgrades do you? You have to have some grounding in reality, that's all I asking. 

Not disagreeing with your last statement entirely, but DDs did not have the advantage they do have in game...i.e. the ability to fire multiple spreads in a battle. 

Edited by madham82
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

People here are essentially whining that we need strict restrictions on ship design measured by what has been achieved IRL. That eliminates the freedom of imagination. Furthermore, you seem to be advocating for arbitrary restrictions to somehow conjure up some semblance of balance in a deliberately unbalanced game. 

Well, I am on the other side for this one. Freedom of imagination, sure. But under realistic rules.

Part of the problem right now is that the horsepower estimates are too low. For example, that 1400 ton destroyer I built last night needed only 33000 horsepower to hit 40 knots. Even considering the low displacement, it should need more like 50000. This underestimation of horsepower needed, which seems to be systematic, makes it ridiculously easy to build fast ships.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ThatOneBounced said:

ok a destroyer meta obviously doesn't exist then. there is literally absolutely nothing wrong with having torpedo spam literally trump all other forms of combat. Nothing wrong with ships being able to launch torpedoes beyond detection range. And definitely nothing wrong with ships with an effectiveness that greatly outweighs ships 50 times their size. if this is what is considered perfectly fine in game balance then I will definitely consider purely building destroyers with 45 kts, 4x10 torpedo tubes, and just replace any losses (if they are even hit) within months. not waste my nation's money on anything bigger since this reduces the numbers of destroyers i could field and kill things a lot slower. I can pretty much send them anywhere, and intercept anything, and can one shot anything smaller than a battleship. Maybe, just maybe, Ill need battleships and cruisers in the beginning when destroyers cant get reliably in range, after that there are no reason, other than power projection, to use anything else.  This is what I call freedom of imagination. 

Damn, you're salty about it. I suppose this is why you're failing to deliver convincing arguments with regard to the larger bAlaNcE.

Personally, I believe that capital ships' secondaries should be more effective. But destroyers should not become easy one-shot targets. Because that's what they often are: one-shot kills. 

Edited by Shaftoe
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

Damn, you're salty about it. I suppose this is why you're failing to deliver convincing arguments with regard to the larger bAlaNcE.

Personally, I believe that capital ships' secondaries should be more effective. But destroyers should not become easy one-shot targets. Because that's what they often are: one-shot kills. 

For one thing, despite objections of the realism crowd, I think they already gave the smaller guns a buff (check out the 9" in particular). So don't ask for another one :)

As for the complaints, look. Just put a torpedo detector (destroyer) along with the battleships. Make sure it has good acoustic equipment. Torpedo evasion suddenly becomes child play and they can't touch your precious battleships at all. You can spend almost all the time with them on Auto.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/McXbQzEYq4Swssyw8

Edited by arkhangelsk
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just ran a little fast test on this. I can see where the concern for the campaign could come into play. I used a single DD against 5 BBs just to see how much damage I could put out before being sunk. I had torpedoes that could reach out to over 20km and I could carry 81 of them. I capped myself at 40knts though I could have gotten more out of her. I was able to sink 3 ships with one salvo each by staying out around 15 to 16 km. I got careless and decided to see how close I could get and was finally sunk at around 10km. At the loss of 1 DD to 3 Capitol ships there isn't much of a reason to build much of anything else other than a few specialized ships. I'll admit I'm not sure of how to "balance" this but it at least might be something the devs want to think about for campaign purposes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ston5883 said:

Just ran a little fast test on this. I can see where the concern for the campaign could come into play. I used a single DD against 5 BBs just to see how much damage I could put out before being sunk. I had torpedoes that could reach out to over 20km and I could carry 81 of them. I capped myself at 40knts though I could have gotten more out of her. I was able to sink 3 ships with one salvo each by staying out around 15 to 16 km. I got careless and decided to see how close I could get and was finally sunk at around 10km. At the loss of 1 DD to 3 Capitol ships there isn't much of a reason to build much of anything else other than a few specialized ships. I'll admit I'm not sure of how to "balance" this but it at least might be something the devs want to think about for campaign purposes. 

Actually, research has shown that the Speed malus tops out at 37.5 knots, so at 40 knots you are getting the maximum speed malus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, arkhangelsk said:

As for the complaints, look. Just put a torpedo detector (destroyer) along with the battleships. Make sure it has good acoustic equipment. Torpedo evasion suddenly becomes child play and they can't touch your precious battleships at all. You can spend almost all the time with them on Auto.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/McXbQzEYq4Swssyw8

Yep. Right on point. Instead of begging devs to nerf destroyers into oblivion, somebody should learn how to use them defensively.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

Yep. Right on point. Instead of begging devs to nerf destroyers into oblivion, somebody should learn how to use them defensively.

I'm not even salty at this point, I am just failing to understand how you do not see how inherently broken this can become in your "larger campaign balance". literally they have the power to TRUMP ALL OTHER SHIPS. its not even a high sees rock paper scissors match anymore. please explain to me why there is a reason to build anything other than 40 knt oxygen torpedo destroyers with multiple 5 mounts tubes. And why would I play destroyers defensively when I know like the post above said can kill a bunch of the enemy capital ships for basically free? 

 

32 minutes ago, ston5883 said:

At the loss of 1 DD to 3 Capitol ships

tell me why I would need to build anything other than destroyers. I really want to hear your side. Because I have listed many ways to make them more beneficial and realistic to the game play loop (weather and suicide deterrence) but you just flat out ignored them. My point is by the time destroyers are detected its too late, cant evade and cant kill. their target signature and smoke screen  put them in firing range before a single one of may ships (with max towers) spot them. Then when I am able to detect them  secondaries cant cant an accurate shot before they're already turned away to reload and then make another run. rinse and repeat these steps and now youre battle line is in complete shambles not to mention any vessels who were unfortunate enough to not be able to evade 60 torpedo because ship path finding steered them straight into them. destroyers in the player's hands are much worse. being able to kill absolutely anything that opposes them with little risk  or penalty to themselves or to the nation in question's financial budget. Please tell me how this is not broken in the larger grand scheme of things

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ston5883 said:

Just ran a little fast test on this. I can see where the concern for the campaign could come into play. I used a single DD against 5 BBs just to see how much damage I could put out before being sunk. I had torpedoes that could reach out to over 20km and I could carry 81 of them. I capped myself at 40knts though I could have gotten more out of her. I was able to sink 3 ships with one salvo each by staying out around 15 to 16 km. I got careless and decided to see how close I could get and was finally sunk at around 10km. At the loss of 1 DD to 3 Capitol ships there isn't much of a reason to build much of anything else other than a few specialized ships. I'll admit I'm not sure of how to "balance" this but it at least might be something the devs want to think about for campaign purposes. 

I wasn't that lucky in my attempt, though the fact they are 100,000 tons with maximum bulkheads may have been a factor. I got hits but no sinkings and the ships often took only one torp per 15 torpedo salvo. Yes, the destroyer is basically immune if you stay at 15-16 km against 18 inch Mark 3 guns. Having said that, this was kind of the original concept behind the Long Lance, so it is hard to complain too much.

The solution, first let's make it appropriately hard to make a 40 knot destroyer. In this attempt, 40 knots was 53000HP when a ship of that size historically would need more like 80000.

Second, the biggest problem here is that the ships detect the torpedoes too late to do much about them. In the campaign, they'll be escorted by destroyers with sonars. The AI isn't a bad torpedo dodger if it can see them from far enough away.

Third, refinements to the AI, so at least they'll shoot at the destroyers with everything they have, even if the hit chance is low. We need an algorithm that would tell at least the secondaries to go Aggressive against destroyers. This should make this tactic less effective.

20 minutes ago, ThatOneBounced said:

I'm not even salty at this point, I am just failing to understand how you do not see how inherently broken this can become in your "larger campaign balance".

First, a matter of philosophy. Ultimately, I care more about the adherence of the game to realism than its "balance". If the game's mechanics are realistic, we should accept whatever is the outcome. If that means oxygen torpedoes are The Ace, we accept it. If it means secondaries are useless, well I never understood what's so fundamentally wrong with an all big-gun battleship. Of course, if secondaries are useful, fine as well.

Second, your ability to hurt AI battleships when you are holding the destroyers depends at least somewhat on your player skill, and from a gameplay perspective ignoring realism there's not much problem with a player making torpedo attacks to kill AI BBs - it's actually kind of satisfying. Isn't that why players play destroyers in World of Warships?

If you are really losing your battleships to AI destroyers, however, all I can say is that nobody else seems to be suffering from these problems - heck, we are not losing our BBs against 12 destroyers, and in custom scenarios and campaign we can stick sonars on destroyers. Once you can see the torpedoes far enough out, they aren't that big a deal.

Having said that, I'm not adverse to realistic changes - the towers may be adjusted to see the destroyers a bit further out (though the enemy battleships seem to be at least seeing my destroyer). And devs, just let us put hydrophones on the battleships. As soon as the ships got hydrophones, they will be able to see and dodge torpedoes in good time.

Edited by arkhangelsk
Add reply to Bounced
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

For one thing, despite objections of the realism crowd, I think they already gave the smaller guns a buff (check out the 9" in particular). So don't ask for another one :)

As for the complaints, look. Just put a torpedo detector (destroyer) along with the battleships. Make sure it has good acoustic equipment. Torpedo evasion suddenly becomes child play and they can't touch your precious battleships at all. You can spend almost all the time with them on Auto.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/McXbQzEYq4Swssyw8

9" guns are mains, which I think are fine as is. Personally when I build for a mission where I need to deal with the DDs I go for the magic triple 12"s. Their ROF and accuracy just mean it is only a matter of time before I score 1 or 2 hits on a DD, which is usually all it takes. But therein lies a problem with how many of the missions are setup. You are a lone BB or have a pair of AI designed cruisers and face a combined fleet. If you try to focus fire on the enemy DDs to avoid getting torped, your cruisers usually die quickly because the enemy BBs and cruisers concentrate on them. Then it's just your BB left getting pummeled from all directions, dodging torps (which only worsens your accuracy), and generally using up all your main gun ammo on DDs instead of their heavy assets. This is exactly what happened to Bismarck and most of the German heavy units in WW2. More of a problem with some of the mission design yes, but if DDs didn't have reloads (or at least 10 salvos with reload times in a few mins), it would change the dynamics of the battle.

As for friendly DDs screening, it is a solid and realistic tactic. The only problem I have with it is the screen option doesn't seem to do what it should. Half the time my DDs head off into murderous fire instead of sticking close in. Other times they decide to stay on the opposite side of the my BB line. The other issue is torpedo evasion with a division of ships. This is a big issue. You essentially have to detach whatever ship needs to evade. You try that in a div and you get a fleet turn. The controls are just too clunky to move with the precision needed for a battle with many ships. Small engagements sure, but in the large ones half the time you don't even notice the torpedo detected message and alert symbol, unless you happen to be looking at that ship. 

My suggestion is use implement the same logic the AI is using for friendly ships in terms of evasion. Also tie it in with the upcoming crew experience so it influences their effectiveness at dodging. Also for ships in a div, the ship that needs to evade leaves formation and returns to the rear of the line, much like they do currently when taking damage. Now I can focus more on the battle and less micromanaging, but players can still manually try to evade as well. 

3 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

I wasn't that lucky in my attempt, though the fact they are 100,000 tons with maximum bulkheads may have been a factor. I got hits but no sinkings and the ships often took only one torp per 15 torpedo salvo. Yes, the destroyer is basically immune if you stay at 15-16 km against 18 inch Mark 3 guns. Having said that, this was kind of the original concept behind the Long Lance, so it is hard to complain too much.

The solution, first let's make it appropriately hard to make a 40 knot destroyer. In this attempt, 40 knots was 53000HP when a ship of that size historically would need more like 80000.

Second, the biggest problem here is that the ships detect the torpedoes too late to do much about them. In the campaign, they'll be escorted by destroyers with sonars. The AI isn't a bad torpedo dodger if it can see them from far enough away.

Third, refinements to the AI, so at least they'll shoot at the destroyers with everything they have, even if the hit chance is low. We need an algorithm that would tell at least the secondaries to go Aggressive against destroyers. This should make this tactic less effective.

First, a matter of philosophy. Ultimately, I care more about the adherence of the game to realism than its "balance". If the game's mechanics are realistic, we should accept whatever is the outcome. If that means oxygen torpedoes are The Ace, we accept it. If it means secondaries are useless, well I never understood what's so fundamentally wrong with an all big-gun battleship. Of course, if secondaries are useful, fine as well.

Second, your ability to hurt AI battleships when you are holding the destroyers depends at least somewhat on your player skill, and from a gameplay perspective ignoring realism there's not much problem with a player making torpedo attacks to kill AI BBs - it's actually kind of satisfying. Isn't that why players play destroyers in World of Warships?

If you are really losing your battleships to AI destroyers, however, all I can say is that nobody else seems to be suffering from these problems - heck, we are not losing our BBs against 12 destroyers, and in custom scenarios and campaign we can stick sonars on destroyers. Once you can see the torpedoes far enough out, they aren't that big a deal.

Having said that, I'm not adverse to realistic changes - the towers may be adjusted to see the destroyers a bit further out (though the enemy battleships seem to be at least seeing my destroyer). And devs, just let us put hydrophones on the battleships. As soon as the ships got hydrophones, they will be able to see and dodge torpedoes in good time.

 

Realistically, DDs were not the premier anti-shipping assets the game currently has in practice. How many capital ships were sunk by torpedoes alone by DDs? A few I'm sure but I bet most sinkings were damaged ships were DDs were able to get in close and finish it off (i.e. Bismarck, Scharnhorst, etc...) Think about how hard it is place shells in a spot were you expect a ship to be in 15+kms away. Those shells are moving hundreds of feet per second and you really don't have time to evade.  So how would DDs firing torpedoes at that range really be able to calculate a hit with reasonable accuracy like you can in game right now? This is why DDs had to close in for reasonable accuracy and at those ranges the secondaries on most BBs would dissuade all but the most daring captains. And a DD approaching a combined fleet like that was suicide (i.e. Taffy 3). So either accuracy is way too high, the ability to spot/evade is too low, or a combination of both. Can we even see the accuracy of the torpedo mounts in the interface? 

More often than not, ship launched torpedoes were used to force the enemy to evade and disengage. For one, you either didn't have reloads or couldn't reload in battle. Two, they didn't have the accuracy at range. Most of the Long Lance hits were because the Allies thought they were well out of range of ship torpedoes, and it's obvious minimal wake. They frequently mistook a submarine for causing the hits than Japanese DDs and cruisers. Three, reliability was a big factor too. Fix at least the first one, then maybe the other two and we will see the effectiveness of DDs return to what they truly were, not a effective capital ship counter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, madham82 said:

Personally when I build for a mission where I need to deal with the DDs I go for the magic triple 12"s.

Yeah, I know. 12" is yet another favored caliber, but if you look at the stat box, the 9" actually received more inexplicable buff at long ranges, and everything from about 3 inches to 8 inches are scale down off that, getting some of the advantage from this artificiality. This also makes 10" and 13" particularly UNfavored calibers because that's when the devs jack the hit rate back down.

6 hours ago, madham82 said:

You are a lone BB or have a pair of AI designed cruisers and face a combined fleet. If you try to focus fire on the enemy DDs to avoid getting torped, your cruisers usually die quickly because the enemy BBs and cruisers concentrate on them. Then it's just your BB left getting pummeled from all directions, dodging torps (which only worsens your accuracy), and generally using up all your main gun ammo on DDs instead of their heavy assets.

Try hitting the BBs, hurting them some, and accepting the AI's choice when to switch to the destroyers. That has worked well for me so far.

6 hours ago, madham82 said:

if DDs didn't have reloads (or at least 10 salvos with reload times in a few mins), it would change the dynamics of the battle.

They don't have TEN salvoes. Usually it is about four salvoes. In the long run though yes they have to get it down to maybe 2. 1 for Reduced, 3 for Increased.

6 hours ago, madham82 said:

As for friendly DDs screening, it is a solid and realistic tactic. The only problem I have with it is the screen option doesn't seem to do what it should. Half the time my DDs head off into murderous fire instead of sticking close in. Other times they decide to stay on the opposite side of the my BB line.

And yes, I agree the Screen AI can use refinements. Still, I think the main point is to let them be a sonar - because the devs won't let us install hydrophones onto battleships. They can be a real life-saver and we don't have them!

6 hours ago, madham82 said:

The other issue is torpedo evasion with a division of ships. This is a big issue. You essentially have to detach whatever ship needs to evade. You try that in a div and you get a fleet turn. The controls are just too clunky to move with the precision needed for a battle with many ships. 

Personally my torpedo evasion technique, unless I know exactly what I want to do, is let the AI handle it. I turn the automatic evasion on. More times than not, if you let them see the torpedoes far enough out, it will solve the problem for you. Just remember to turn it off when the threat is gone.

6 hours ago, madham82 said:

Small engagements sure, but in the large ones half the time you don't even notice the torpedo detected message and alert symbol, unless you happen to be looking at that ship. 

 

That is a problem with you being inattentive. I think it is our duty as players to be attentive to the warning messages scrolling up the report screen and not to bitch too hard if we lost concentration or jacked the time compression up too hard.

6 hours ago, madham82 said:

Realistically, DDs were not the premier anti-shipping assets the game currently has in practice.

For one thing, most of them don't have oxygen torpedoes. Second, real captains are very attentive to the torpedo threat and will do preemptive evasions like zigzags to ruin the intercept solution - a concept that is not well understood by either the AI or many human players who don't want to ruin their accuracy.

Now, we have to get three and four, and here I blame whiney players. Torpedoes were not nearly this powerful in the previous Alphas, so it took a LOT of hits to sink a battleship. However, in terms of the number of destroyers you have to use to get results, it is realistic. But all people can see is the battleship taking 100 hits and not sinking, and they forget two things.

a) Our torpedoes are perfectly reliable. Which I don't think is that big a deal. Besides, eventually I expect to be able to Save/Load during battle and I think players will Save-scum every time their torpedo duds at a critical moment.

b) The calculation of enemy speed and course at the moment of firing is perfect, while real torpedo solutions are prone to error in these two aspects and thus the correct lead angle. The mistake, of course, gets more relevant as range increases.
On the other hand, a computer game with automated torpedo launches cannot get away with knowingly throwing the torpedoes in a bad direction.

So, overall the relatively low torpedo power used to compensate for A and B. But players. They whine. The torpedo power was buffed.

Still, this problem is manageable as long as the AI improves to use preventive zigzagging and optimal use of their hydrophone gear. Like in World of Warships, you can handle torpedoes if you remember to dodge.

Edited by arkhangelsk
Delete some extraneous quoted text
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Yeah, I know. 12" is yet another favored caliber, but if you look at the stat box, the 9" actually received more inexplicable buff at long ranges, and everything from about 3 inches to 8 inches are scale down off that, getting some of the advantage from this artificiality. This also makes 10" and 13" particularly UNfavored calibers because that's when the devs jack the hit rate back down.

Yea there needs to be some rebalancing there, just too many calibers that are undesirable. 

17 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

They don't have TEN salvoes. Usually it is about four salvoes. In the long run though yes they have to get it down to maybe 2. 1 for Reduced, 3 for Increased.

4 salvos is completely unrealistic still. For example, only the Japanese built DDs with reloads (that I know of), and they had exactly 1 reload for each tube. Torpedoes are not small at all. The Long Lance (an extreme example) was almost 30 ft long. Most were around 20ft. Where exactly are you going to store all these on already cramped tin can of a DD? The Japanese used storage for the reloads on the deck. There seems to be some debate over the time it took reload, but anywhere from 3-20mins is what I have seen. But it most certainly is not something one would do under fire.  If they do decide to fix this grossly unrealistic feature on DDs, any reloads should significantly increase the chance of ammo detonation. 

17 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Try hitting the BBs, hurting them some, and accepting the AI's choice when to switch to the destroyers. That has worked well for me so far.

That works, if they aren't the retreating AI type. Then they just turn tail and you have to clear the DDs to even reach a good firing position. By that time you have probably depleted your ammo to the point you can't inflict enough damage before the timer runs out or you run out completely (or you take a single torp miships and now can't catch them). Again, this is more to do with mission design and the AI not being penalized for retreating (which should be a loss for them). 

17 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Personally my torpedo evasion technique, unless I know exactly what I want to do, is let the AI handle it. I turn the automatic evasion on. More times than not, if you let them see the torpedoes far enough out, it will solve the problem for you. Just remember to turn it off when the threat is gone.

You know I had completely forgot about AI command for friendlies. Will give it a try. Just goes to show how much better the experience would be if friendly ships had torpedo evasion built-in. 

 

17 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

That is a problem with you being inattentive. I think it is our duty as players to be attentive to the warning messages scrolling up the report screen and not to bitch too hard if we lost concentration or jacked the time compression up too hard.

IMO that's just poor GUI design. Do you think an commander of a fleet would be reading reports of every shell hit, fire started, etc...just to scan for "Torpedo detected"? More to the point, do you think the ships that detected them would be waiting to receive an order from the fleet commander to evade them? Of course not, so why do I have to be scanning the literally 100s of message lines to catch the detection warning, then jump to that ship to see where they are coming from, then decide how to have them react. It works in small scale, but not in a major battle were there are lots of messages every second, and you are trying to coordinate the major elements. I mean at some point I do want to enjoy the graphics in the game...otherwise I would be playing RTW or the like. 

Honestly it could be remedied for the most part with a couple of basic GUI changes if they didn't want auto-evasion:

  • Make the font/color on the detection message stick out
  • Keep the yellow alert on the location of the enemy torpedos the whole time they are spotted
  • Make a message pop up similar to the sinking message in the top of the screen
  • Even something from dare I say it, WoWS where there is a little icon for each torpedo that is persistent as long as they are spotted (this could also help with bugs related to missing torpedoes)

 

17 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

 

For one thing, most of them don't have oxygen torpedoes. Second, real captains are very attentive to the torpedo threat and will do preemptive evasions like zigzags to ruin the intercept solution - a concept that is not well understood by either the AI or many human players who don't want to ruin their accuracy.

Now, we have to get three and four, and here I blame whiney players. Torpedoes were not nearly this powerful in the previous Alphas, so it took a LOT of hits to sink a battleship. However, in terms of the number of destroyers you have to use to get results, it is realistic. But all people can see is the battleship taking 100 hits and not sinking, and they forget two things.

a) Our torpedoes are perfectly reliable. Which I don't think is that big a deal. Besides, eventually I expect to be able to Save/Load during battle and I think players will Save-scum every time their torpedo duds at a critical moment.

b) The calculation of enemy speed and course at the moment of firing is perfect, while real torpedo solutions are prone to error in these two aspects and thus the correct lead angle. The mistake, of course, gets more relevant as range increases.
On the other hand, a computer game with automated torpedo launches cannot get away with knowingly throwing the torpedoes in a bad direction.

So, overall the relatively low torpedo power used to compensate for A and B. But players. They whine. The torpedo power was buffed.

Still, this problem is manageable as long as the AI improves to use preventive zigzagging and optimal use of their hydrophone gear. Like in World of Warships, you can handle torpedoes if you remember to dodge.

Agreed completely. I would love a formation option of zig-zag were they will do it automatically to a waypoint or bearing. I think we need wide and narrow spread settings too on torpedoes. Also it would help to have some kind of graphical display to show how the spread fans out at various ranges. Something similar to how gun/torp ranges are currently. 

 

 

Edited by madham82
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...