Damage and Sections

[Waffleironskillet]

I have noticed an issue with how damage is modeled in this game currently.  I enjoy that you can damage sections of the ships; however, once a section is destroyed is where the problem arises. 

Currently, repeated hits on a destroyed section of a ship result in "damage" being registered, but percent structure hardly moves.  Furthermore, sections behind or below the destroyed sections remain intact.  This creates a scenario where you can find yourself blasting away at a target and effectively doing almost nothing.  Where this is most noticeable is when you are chasing a fleeing ship and the target presented is largely the back half of the ship.  You will frequently destroy all the sections in the immediate line of fire, but then have to rely on errant hits outside the normal pattern to actually do damage to the ship and sink it.

In order to fix this issue and make a bit more logical sense in my opinion, shots into destroyed sections should continue on and hit sections behind or below causing damage to those sections.  If those sections are below the waterline then causing flooding as well.  This will prevent a target from taking incredible amounts of hits into destroyed sections and waltz out practically unscathed.

Finally, it would be nice if destroyed sections were modeled.  I understand  this is hardly a top priority  at this point, but it would be a nice garnish.

[Norbert Sattler]

One thing that I find annoying in this area is that when you hit an already destroyed component, it will again put out the message that the component was destroyed.

So you might get three messages about a main turret on the enemy ship with three main turrets being destroyed and you think "Oh great, I have disabled all three of the enemy main turrets" but in reality you always hit the same one and it still has two operational turrets.

It would be nice if at the very least we could get a different message/battle-log entry where hitting already destroyed components is either not listed or listed as "already destroyed" or something distinct from "destroyed <component>".

[Oetjoel]

I have a question for @Nick Thomadis. Will this game have more visual damage model? Like for example the turret blown into pieces like in this picture below. Currently I don't see that kind of damage model even tho the turret got hit pretty bad several times.

 

[Cptbarney]

21 minutes ago, Oetjoel said:

I have a question for @Nick Thomadis. Will this game have more visual damage model? Like for example the turret blown into pieces like in this picture below. Currently I don't see that kind of damage model even tho the turret got hit pretty bad several times.

 

A real time damage model like that would be hard to do i imagine and also quite taxing on resources and probs prone to graphical glitches and such, although if it can be done without much issue i wouldn't mind seeing it in general.

Maybe different damaged models depending on how damaged the turret is, where it got hit, the type and size of the shell and how it got destroyed.

But yeah moar effects and animations are always welcome.

[Nick Thomadis]

On 4/30/2020 at 8:18 PM, Cptbarney said:

I have a question for @Nick Thomadis. Will this game have more visual damage model? Like for example the turret blown into pieces like in this picture below. Currently I don't see that kind of damage model even tho the turret got hit pretty bad several times.

We already have this mechanic, and for a few parts (e.g Brandenburg ship) there is visual difference. But we have to gradually model all of them to have a special damage appearance, at least the most important. This will take some time. Until then, we show destroyed parts with burned out effect.

[Cptbarney]

34 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We already have this mechanic, and for a few parts (e.g Brandenburg ship) there is visual difference. But we have to gradually model all of them to have a special damage appearance, at least the most important. This will take some time. Until then, we show destroyed parts with burned out effect.

uhh, how come i got qouted?

[Oetjoel]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We already have this mechanic, and for a few parts (e.g Brandenburg ship) there is visual difference. But we have to gradually model all of them to have a special damage appearance, at least the most important. This will take some time. Until then, we show destroyed parts with burned out effect.

That's great! Glad to hear that. More realistic damage models will enhance the immersion of this game. Looking forward to that day.

[Mooncatt]

I also find the OP concerns totally understandable. it is INFURIATING, especially since we are in "academy" mode. in campaign I can totally understand the enemy running away to fight another day. but this isn't campaign, its "academy" i.e tutorial. no enemy ships should be running away especially when the game has an issue with destroyed compartments being repeatedly hit but not causing any further damage. it makes for a retreating ship practically impossible to sink.

I know most of us have completed all the academy missions, some of us have been lucky and others like me find ourselves in a no win situation every time due to retreating ships. it really does need dealing with sooner rather than later. hope its fixed in the next patch.

[madham82]

3 hours ago, Mooncatt said:

I also find the OP concerns totally understandable. it is INFURIATING, especially since we are in "academy" mode. in campaign I can totally understand the enemy running away to fight another day. but this isn't campaign, its "academy" i.e tutorial. no enemy ships should be running away especially when the game has an issue with destroyed compartments being repeatedly hit but not causing any further damage. it makes for a retreating ship practically impossible to sink.

I know most of us have completed all the academy missions, some of us have been lucky and others like me find ourselves in a no win situation every time due to retreating ships. it really does need dealing with sooner rather than later. hope its fixed in the next patch.

See my thread here were I proposed some solutions. Hopefully if enough agree, we can the devs to consider some changes if they haven't already. 

 

[Steeltrap]

The answer is to accept that the damage model is at a very basic state and is intended to be considerably more sophisticated.

I have to believe that as the damage/armour/damage repair models are the things I find THE greatest disincentive to play. I know only too well how things are likely to go, what ships will sink relatively easily and what will be ridiculously durable (hint: look at bulkhead status).

It's been this way for pretty much the whole time. If it ISN'T going to change pretty dramatically then, well, that's game over for me.

[Mooncatt]

On 5/5/2020 at 8:12 AM, Steeltrap said:

The answer is to accept that the damage model is at a very basic state and is intended to be considerably more sophisticated.

I have to believe that as the damage/armour/damage repair models are the things I find THE greatest disincentive to play. I know only too well how things are likely to go, what ships will sink relatively easily and what will be ridiculously durable (hint: look at bulkhead status).

It's been this way for pretty much the whole time. If it ISN'T going to change pretty dramatically then, well, that's game over for me.

absolutely agree. it needs to change dramatically for me. the game thus far has huge potential. but, there are a few main deal breakers for me.

1) as said above (and many many times) this compartment model MUST change and sooner rather than later. personally I want this changed before the campaign is released or its a game breaker.

2) in academy mode.... retreating enemy ships are a pointless exercise since they are almost impossible to sink due to the above point and also we are in academy mode. this makes sense in campaign mode but not right now.

3)DDs attacking BBs is ludicrous, as I pointed out in another post they were designed to take out smaller ships and uboats during this era. and on the same point the secondaries are still useless against DDs

hope things change is all I can say. atm the game is "OK" but its still alpha, lets give the devs a chance before we bring out the hanging at dawn

[disc]

1 hour ago, Mooncatt said:

3)DDs attacking BBs is ludicrous, as I pointed out in another post they were designed to take out smaller ships and uboats during this era. and on the same point the secondaries are still useless against DDs

I am not sure why you think this is ludicrous -- the Russo-Japanese War was kicked off by a surprise night destroyer attack on battleships. Destroyer attacks on battleships or battlecruisers were also made at Tsushima (again at night), Dogger Bank, both the daylight and night phases of Jutland, and in a number of actions in WWII (Guadalcanal, Samar, Surigao Strait, HMS Glorious). Part of the popularity of torpedo boats in the first place was that a single torpedo could endanger a battleship.

Otherwise I agree that the damage model needs a rework.

Edited May 6, 2020 by disc

[Cptbarney]

55 minutes ago, Mooncatt said:

absolutely agree. it needs to change dramatically for me. the game thus far has huge potential. but, there are a few main deal breakers for me.

1) as said above (and many many times) this compartment model MUST change and sooner rather than later. personally I want this changed before the campaign is released or its a game breaker.

Ye, i hope they do layered armour, internal objects and models like engines, transmission, ammoracks, crew quarters etc. And also armour degrading over time in the fight as well and destroyed compartments allowing lower or deeper compartments to be hit and penetrated.

Combo of the current system with warthunder, wows and any other system that works well.

 

Quote

2) in academy mode.... retreating enemy ships are a pointless exercise since they are almost impossible to sink due to the above point and also we are in academy mode. this makes sense in campaign mode but not right now.

I agree with this, we could do with SOME missions making us force the enemy to retreat, maybe cause a lot of damage to them or have control of two fleets one that is smaller distracting the enemy fleet while your main fleet engages enemy coastal, towns/bases/markets/locations/fortificaitons etc.

Quote

3)DDs attacking BBs is ludicrous, as I pointed out in another post they were designed to take out smaller ships and uboats during this era. and on the same point the secondaries are still useless against DDs

hope things change is all I can say. atm the game is "OK" but its still alpha, lets give the devs a chance before we bring out the hanging at dawn

Dunno, you had some instances where DD's could take out BB's and some battles where dd's were quite influential in this regard (dunno about ww2), I've notice secondaries above 152mm's seem really gud. But below especially 107mm and below they seem non-existant.

We will see what alpha 6 and 7 brings.

 

EDIT: spelling mistakes.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Cptbarney

[madham82]

3 hours ago, Mooncatt said:

2) in academy mode.... retreating enemy ships are a pointless exercise since they are almost impossible to sink due to the above point and also we are in academy mode. this makes sense in campaign mode but not right now.

3)DDs attacking BBs is ludicrous, as I pointed out in another post they were designed to take out smaller ships and uboats during this era. and on the same point the secondaries are still useless against DDs

2) IMO it doesn't matter if it's campaign or academy, the only time retreating is viable is if you have a speed or visibility (i.e. able to break visual/radar contact) advantage. The AI needs to follow this logic unless a "retreat" zone is added to the battle maps. Also on a side note, academy missions should not teach tactics that would not be valid in campaign. Not talking design, just the tactics used. Right now though, I look at academy missions as structured tests of the game mechanics. So I am good with them being "broke" in a sense, but like we all have said...these need to be fixed before campaign. 

3) If you look at the Japanese doctrine and design of their WW2 DDs, they were essentially focused on big fleet battles only. Basically using their Long Lances to weaken an approaching battle fleet before their BBs moved in to finish them. They were terrible in ASW roles for most of the war. So the idea isn't ludicrous, but we definitely need some balancing. One of the chief problems is torpedo spam. All launchers have reloads and crazy numbers of them at that which completely unrealistic. Realistically no DD that had actual reloads would try to do that during a battle while dodging shells. So pretty much they need to be a one shot launcher during a battle, with the ability to reload after the battle if they have reload components (on the campaign map for example). And having reload components should substantially increase their chances of detonation, as was the case with IJN DDs that did have reloads. IMO this would help reduce their OPness as they are in game today. 

[cipher315]

I like your idea for DDs as you pointed out most DDs might have one or at most two reloads per tube. Not 5 or 6. Reloading would take a long time and would be insanely dangerous. You have like 100kg per torpedo of high explosives out on deck and a hit from basically anything will set that off. A detonation would totally destroy the torpedo launcher and probably do high hundreds to low thousands of damage to the DD. It would be totally different for underwater launchers but that's ok as they do not have the firing angles or numbers that on deck launchers can have.

[kadm]

Taken to 11

[Steeltrap]

I suspect the new missions emphasising DDs trying to torp capital ships is a "test of mechanics/concept", or at least I certainly hope so.

Realistically you use DDs for that when you've no other viable option (i.e. desperation, as was the case when DDs were escorting ships caught with their Hello Kitties exposed such as was probably the most famous of cases, the Battle off Samar) or as part of broader doctrine (as has been mentioned with IJN in particular) or straight up opportunism (circumstances favoured it, as was the case in the night battles in the Guadalcanal campaign in particular).

Also important to note the differences in time period makes a significant difference to viability and doctrine, too. In producing a general "battle doctrine" (for want of a better description) Jellicoe had calculated the likely launch distance and known speed of German torpedoes and thus calculated how many minutes of uninterrupted gunfire the fleet would have against a German battle line before having to turn away (about 10 minutes from memory). So he was CERTAINLY aware of the threat of a shotgun of torps against his extended battle line. That torps ended up being largely ineffective is an entirely different topic.

So, yes, I hope it's all to do with testing.

My greatest issue with this sort of testing is the AI is worse than useless at any sort of divisional manoeuvring. Sorry, Nick, I'm sure you know it's true and I'm equally sure you'll fix it, but as it stands trying to take multiple ships into combat produces such a massive Charlie Fox that the first thing I do is remove every ship from any sort of division and command them individually.

Which is why I tend to avoid precisely the sort of battles the update is offering; there are simply too many mechanics that work against them being enjoyable. Worse than useless AI for manoeuvring, unchanged and simplistic compartment/damage/damage control models, poor AI ship design etc etc.

I REALLY worry that this announced "flash fire" mechanic is going to produce visually impressive nonsense, too. Much as the criticism of the "torpedo exploding magazines", this smells of a mechanic addressing a problem that DOESN'T exist instead of addressing a whole bunch that DO exist and what's more would be far more significant to address BEFORE introducing mechanics that potentially will produce really silly results precisely because those far more important points are yet to be addressed.

To put that deliberately clumsily worded point more simply, fix the underlying mechanics BEFORE adding fancy bling that can't possibly work sensibly unless those mechanics ARE fixed.

[Steeltrap]

On 5/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, madham82 said:

Also on a side note, academy missions should not teach tactics that would not be valid in campaign.

Entirely agree, and I think I've said as much elsewhere.

I WOULD extend it to design, too. Seen the AI continue to make dreadful design choices, which has real implications for testing battles between DIFFERENT TECH levels. You don't really get a good test of how tech differences play out if one side doesn't produce designs that avoid some really basic idiocies, such as BC/BB with MIN bulkheads.