>>>Alpha-6 Feedback<<<

[Reaper Jack]

11 hours ago, Tousansons said:

For now In UA:D, use destroyers as screen, use torp at range, don't hope too much of your guns (yet) against anything bigger than a light cruiser. I'll wait for the crews and the way of killing them before saying that a ship type "sucks". They have a role to play and sometimes, they can make some pretty neat heroic acts.

I held my destroyers at 14km distance from the enemy, 1.5km in front of my cruisers screening for them, outside of their own torpedo range (12.7) and they were not only spotted but getting regularly hit by 229mm shells when those same shells couldn't hit my cruisers for toffee. At present it's bad enough that there's little point even having them. If I can't even screen with them there's no point building them except as ASW dummies, when aside from that their role is completed far better by CL's. 

I'm glad Nick said they would be looking into it, as DD'd receiving 3-5 times the number of shell hits of heavy and battlecruisers at the same range is just plain wrong. 

[Skoggatt]

1 hour ago, Reaper Jack said:

I held my destroyers at 14km distance from the enemy, 1.5km in front of my cruisers screening for them, outside of their own torpedo range (12.7) and they were not only spotted but getting regularly hit by 229mm shells when those same shells couldn't hit my cruisers for toffee. At present it's bad enough that there's little point even having them. If I can't even screen with them there's no point building them except as ASW dummies, when aside from that their role is completed far better by CL's. 

I'm glad Nick said they would be looking into it, as DD'd receiving 3-5 times the number of shell hits of heavy and battlecruisers at the same range is just plain wrong. 

I think one problem right now is that the best way to make your ship hard to hit is to make it fast. With how things are right now you can make a 40kt battle cruiser as easily as a 40kt destroyer. Combined with the fact that larger guns usually have much better accuracy than smaller ones. This means the larger ships are hard to hit, but have better accuracy against the smaller ones even with the relative penalties to aiming due to the size of the ships.

In reality (unlike in WOWS) estimating target speed was actually the easiest part of getting a firing solution. Estimating range was much more difficult in this time period. Target speed should have an effect on accuracy, but it should be relatively minor compared to other factors. Target size/detectability should be much more important in calculating accuracy since a smaller less perceptible ship will be harder to range than a large battleship. Furthermore, maneuverable ships such as destroyers and torpedo boats should be extra difficult to hit; historically these ships were maneuverable enough they could chase the shell splashes of the ships firing at them, making it very difficult to adjust fall of shot. In game this could work by making larger slower firing guns unable to fully lock on to small evasive targets. This would give torpedo armed craft a chance to close the range, and give purpose to smaller faster firing guns as well.

[Reaper Jack]

2 hours ago, Skoggatt said:

I think one problem right now is that the best way to make your ship hard to hit is to make it fast. With how things are right now you can make a 40kt battle cruiser as easily as a 40kt destroyer. Combined with the fact that larger guns usually have much better accuracy than smaller ones. This means the larger ships are hard to hit, but have better accuracy against the smaller ones even with the relative penalties to aiming due to the size of the ships.

In reality (unlike in WOWS) estimating target speed was actually the easiest part of getting a firing solution. Estimating range was much more difficult in this time period. Target speed should have an effect on accuracy, but it should be relatively minor compared to other factors. Target size/detectability should be much more important in calculating accuracy since a smaller less perceptible ship will be harder to range than a large battleship. Furthermore, maneuverable ships such as destroyers and torpedo boats should be extra difficult to hit; historically these ships were maneuverable enough they could chase the shell splashes of the ships firing at them, making it very difficult to adjust fall of shot. In game this could work by making larger slower firing guns unable to fully lock on to small evasive targets. This would give torpedo armed craft a chance to close the range, and give purpose to smaller faster firing guns as well.

 

All gun sizes hit the Destroyers with fair effectiveness, battleship grade guns actually fared worst, but this is likely more due to volume of fire. 

The cruisers were going 30-32 knots while my Destroyers were doing 40 knots, so speed had nothing to do with why they took more hits. 

[Hellstrike]

I have enjoyed playing around with this patch a lot. Most ships which existed IRL can be recreated, although sometimes not with their original nation (the Yubari hull makes for a good Arethusa). One thing which I've noticed is that the AI tends to spam secondary and tertiary batteries, even on destoyers. I also see way too few 5 inch guns on them, because the AI decides that triple 4" are better. And 8x3 3" for some reason.

The other thing I noticed (again) is that all torpedo launchers are grouped together when it comes to reloads. So there is no benefit in having them on each side as you cannot fire and then turn to fire the other side. Occasionally, launchers misfire (only one torpedo is launched from a x3 or x4), sometimes entire groups get off one torpedo and then cycle.

[Tousansons]

On 5/24/2020 at 6:11 AM, Reaper Jack said:

 

All gun sizes hit the Destroyers with fair effectiveness, battleship grade guns actually fared worst, but this is likely more due to volume of fire. 

The cruisers were going 30-32 knots while my Destroyers were doing 40 knots, so speed had nothing to do with why they took more hits. 

This bothered me, so I made some more test. For the most part, I think you are indeed right on the fact that DD's seems to be hit more frequently than the other ship classes. But, let me detail a bit:

- I made several custom battles:

year 1924, using the best fire control technology on various hull. From light cruisers to battleships. I played on the DD side too with the same settings. DD's with 40kn speed, cruisers/BB's with generally 31+kn. Four DD's on one side, one cruiser/BB on the other (hardly a fair fight, but eh.)

Starting range was 14km, but battle usually happened at 10km, finishing at 4km and lower. I used cruise speed as soon as contact with the DD's was established.

My hit rate (all calibers mixed) was around 2-3% (with some exception). One hit is generally enough to cripple a DD (as expected) and said DD returning fire do jack-shit (as expected too).

- I also made a custom battle with 2BB, 1CA, 2CL, 6DD:

year 1924, 14km engagement range with the battle starting at 11km. I let the AI play this one.

CA and CL on my side where left mostly untouched for the duration of the battle. The BB's took some hit from the rather inferior enemy one. DD's exploded from both side with my side gaining the advantage. The mixed hit ratio was 7% on my side, 2-3% on his. Numbers are not really relevant with such a small sample, but on randomly checking hit ratio on ships this was still 2-3% hit against DD's. On the other hands, CL survivability is really high, not because they are more evasive, mainly because they are never fired at by anything bigger than a DD (and remember, DD guns can't do shit for now) On one hand we can say that the screening by the destroyers was a success (even with the losses)

On the other hand what was important in this battle was the target priority of the AI: BB (main caliber only) = DD > CA > CL

If my memory is right, this is a recurent scenario, the AI probably focus on the less armored target before switching to battleships with all it's remaining might. No wonder DD's are getting wrecked all day, anyday.

 

- What can give the impression that DD's are hit fairly frequently in my opinion:

First, they get focus fired by the AI with near maniac behavior. The CA loaded with guns exposing her flattest broadside? Nope. The CL rushing with the destroyers to make a torpedo run? Nah. The little girl 8km in the fog already inside smoke and trying to sail away? You bet she will get the attention of everything. The combinaison of short range effectiveness and lack of endurance make the destroyer an easy target to focus (and sink) by the AI. With this, even a 1-2% hit ratio is sufficient to score a hit on one or two destroyers at the beginning of an engagement.

Second, Destroyers are really easy to take out of a battle. One or two hit with something ranging from 127mm to 203mm is enough to cripple a tin-can. Mixed with the above rain of shell, this can clearly give the impression that destroyers are subject to more frequent hits. A catastrophic hit on a DD is easily catched by the player eye, her structure bar take a massive hit, or even the game tell you right away "DD X sink due to structural damage" the other fact that DD's are deployed in numbers means that they sink in numbers too. BB's and cruisers can take some big hits, but this is usually less frequent due to the fact that they have better armor and need to be penetrated by guns with longer reloads before taking significant damage.

- To conclude:

I'm curious to see what quality of life improvement will be made for the destroyers. Better AI handling of the target selection could be one thing, their pathfinding in bigger formations, crew members allowing DD's guns to effectively do something against bigger target? More importantly what will be their roles in the upcoming campaign? If they spend most of the wars with convoy and screening duty while sinking in minefield, air raids and the occasionnal "decisive battle" it's still plenty occasion where they can make some heroic acts, even in their current state.

PS: I did not do extensive testing for years above 1930 and the later technology. In my opinion this will not change much, except the fact that destroyers will sink probably a bit faster, if they are spotted sooner, shot at with more accuracy at longer range and with increased rate of fire.

 

[DerRichtigeArzt]

11 hours ago, Hellstrike said:

I have enjoyed playing around with this patch a lot. Most ships which existed IRL can be recreated, although sometimes not with their original nation (the Yubari hull makes for a good Arethusa). One thing which I've noticed is that the AI tends to spam secondary and tertiary batteries, even on destoyers. I also see way too few 5 inch guns on them, because the AI decides that triple 4" are better. And 8x3 3" for some reason.

The other thing I noticed (again) is that all torpedo launchers are grouped together when it comes to reloads. So there is no benefit in having them on each side as you cannot fire and then turn to fire the other side. Occasionally, launchers misfire (only one torpedo is launched from a x3 or x4), sometimes entire groups get off one torpedo and then cycle.

Torpedoes missfire when they hit your hull before spawning in the water as an entity. To avoid that place torpedo tubes that have at least 30' angle from your hull. Also the torpedoes on both sides work fine. Ui shows you that they are reloading but it works the same way for all armament. The reload circle only shows the gun/tube that is the farthest from beeing able to fire again. So that when it's full you know that all of your torps are loaded. It's unintuitive but you can get used to it. My only criticism of this patch is that the 30+ hulls are basicly copy paste for almost everyone. But I know that they are there only to make campaign functional soon so I don't mind. 

[Aceituna]

I would like to ask you all gentlemen: Since flashfires happen to both main And secondary guns, can it happen to casemates too? Did someone expirience it?

[Cptbarney]

1 hour ago, Aceituna said:

I would like to ask you all gentlemen: Since flashfires happen to both main And secondary guns, can it happen to casemates too? Did someone expirience it?

hmm, havent tried it myself yet.

[Kloothommel]

So far I am really enjoying the new cruiser hulls. The flashfires are amazing to see. Might I make a little suggestion for a new cruiser hull: The Scharnhorst class armoured cruisers. The 8" casemates would really open up some new builds.

 

The direction this project is taking is amazing, and as more things get added every time the detail and depth increases. Great replayability.

The only thing that annoys me is the AI builds where you get BB's with over 20"belts going 30 knots at 1920 tech levels. Maybe setting maximums according to historical data per nation to help the ai make more "realistic" ships?

[DougToss]

2 hours ago, Aceituna said:

I would like to ask you all gentlemen: Since flashfires happen to both main And secondary guns, can it happen to casemates too? Did someone expirience it?

I guess you could say that! 

Quote

“At the Battle of Ulsan on 14 August 1904 the Japanese armoured cruiser Iwate suffered an explosion in an upper deck casemate which spread to the casemate below and to the next one aft. The fact that Iwate’s 6in cartridges were in brass cases, unlike British ones, may have limited the extent of the explosion. A shell burst in the after turret of the battleship Fuji at Tsushima setting fire to three 12in charges. Luckily, the shell burst had blown off most of the roof, allowing venting, and had also fractured a water pipe which helped to put out the fire.”

Excerpt From: “The Grand Fleet”. Apple Books. 

 

[Aceituna]

4 hours ago, DougToss said:

“At the Battle of Ulsan on 14 August 1904 the Japanese armoured cruiser Iwate suffered an explosion in an upper deck casemate which spread to the casemate below and to the next one aft. The fact that Iwate’s 6in cartridges were in brass cases, unlike British ones, may have limited the extent of the explosion. A shell burst in the after turret of the battleship Fuji at Tsushima setting fire to three 12in charges. Luckily, the shell burst had blown off most of the roof, allowing venting, and had also fractured a water pipe which helped to put out the fire.”

Excerpt From: “The Grand Fleet”. Apple Books. 

I am sorry for not writing it clear enough. I didn't ask about casemate flash fires happening in history. I asked if it can happen in this game.

[Reaper Jack]

 

So uh...can I ask just HOW the AI managed those armor values on 11k tons while also doing 31 knots? AND having some top end components? 

-EDIT-
So built it myself to make sure the AI wasn't cheating, went with minimum range and bulkheads to give as much free weight as possible. 

Not only was the ship possible, I had a THOUSAND tons SPARE. This does not seem balanced in the slightest. The heaviest cruiser belt in history was the Des Moines' class at 152mm. And they weighed in at almost 20k tons. 

So my take from this is very simply that armor values for cruisers do not represent historical weight (which is something I have noticed before but never to this bad a degree) and the level 5 torpedo belt also does not seem to weigh enough. 

The torpedo belt weight was 850 tons while the armor belt weight was barely 500. Compare this to irl, say the Algerie, widely known as having the best of both the torpedo and armor belts among heavy cruisers in 1939. The Algerie by comparison,has a torpedo belt weight of over 1000 tons and an armor belt weight of 1500 tons at 120mm thickness. That's almost double what the in game weight was for a belt 3 times as thick while the torpedo belt was also very light. 

The thing also had a maintenance cost of 4000 a month, which was by far the lowest I've seen of any class' design that I've made so far. The hull (Italian Heavy Cruiser I) stats it's on are also very good compared to other nations CA's (it only has less stability while being better in all other stats) and has a base maintenance of 1,500/month. Compare this to say, German Heavy Cruiser I, which as I said only has better stability and worse everything else, but has a base maintenance of 14,000/month. This does not matter right now but if we are going to see the campaign soon this needs to be fixed (unless German flavor is to be prohibitively expensive to run any ships?) 

@Nick Thomadis Can we expect this to be addressed in the future? 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Reaper Jack

[Steeltrap]

@Reaper Jack remember all the armour values are expressed in terms of base iron, as are penetration.

The multiplier for late period armour is about 3 times or something, so the Des Moines would have a belt of 18"/457mm.

It DOES make things a bit jarring.

It's an interesting question whether everything ought to be expressed in terms of raw iron, or in fact go the other way, namely with the high end values as the base.

Or perhaps have some mid-point in technology where the values shift from raw iron to Krupp IV etc and make that clear in the shipyard and battles.

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

7 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

@Reaper Jack remember all the armour values are expressed in terms of base iron, as are penetration.

The multiplier for late period armour is about 3 times or something, so the Des Moines would have a belt of 18"/457mm.

It DOES make things a bit jarring.

It's an interesting question whether everything ought to be expressed in terms of raw iron, or in fact go the other way, namely with the high end values as the base.

Or perhaps have some mid-point in technology where the values shift from raw iron to Krupp IV etc and make that clear in the shipyard and battles.

I honestly fail to understand the rational behind choosing either of those methods.

 

Just go the RTW2 route and display the values in relation to the armor I have on my ship.

If I have a 1918 BB that carries Krupp 2 then show me armor thickness and penetration values in Krupp 2 equivalents.

If I have an ironclad that is armored with Iron, show me armor and penetration values in Iron equivalents.

To me, this seems to be the most logical route to go because, in the end, all those values shown by the game are used to compare _my_ armor and guns to those of the enemy.

If I have 10 inches of Harvey Steel and the enemy has 10 inches of Krupp 2, which is (number pulled out of thin air) 20% more efficient, then show me the enemy as mounting 12 inches of armor. If, on the other hand, I am _also_ mounting Krupp 2, then show me the enemy's armor as 10 inches.

Bottom line: IMO, _my_ armor should be the baseline for all values displayed in-game.

 

Now, in the _shipyard_, one could go with an armor value of "Iron-Equivalent" or "Krupp 1" equivalent, or whatever, but for the love of god, say so - show it if the bloody interface instead of telling me: "Hey, you have now put 12 inches of armor on your 1914 BB, armed with 12" guns" (armor = caliber is generally my rule of thumb) when I have _actually_ just put 12" of _IRON EQUIVALENT, i.e. 3.5 inches of Krupp 1 armor on the ship!

Ideally, show me both values, the actual value and the Iron-equivalent. Like: 8/17.5"   Harvey Steel/Iron-equivalent (again, numbers pulled out of thin air)

 

[DougToss]

What is the standard nomenclature in the literature? RHA or some sort of Krupp steel?

e: yes,  the RTW method is very good. 

Either would be an improvement over the existing system. 

Edited May 26, 2020 by DougToss

[DerRichtigeArzt]

For me the armor system is very intuitive. You put let's say 100mm of iron. Then make it Krupp IV and all or nothing armor scheme. All this gives you an armor bonus of 118%. So your armor is still 100mm thick. But it is as effective as 218mm of iron would be. If you have an uneven armor value like let's say 267.5mm then just go into Google type in "267.5 + 118%" and it will show you how effective the armor is, in that case 583mm, so not the best but great for a fast battleship that will be used in a role of commerce raider like sharnhorsts were. You can't really have a simpler system its just maths and not particularly complicated at that. Most of the values you can approximate anyway so using the Google method is honestly redundant and unnecessary. 

[Reaper Jack]

16 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

@Reaper Jack remember all the armour values are expressed in terms of base iron, as are penetration.

The multiplier for late period armour is about 3 times or something, so the Des Moines would have a belt of 18"/457mm.

It DOES make things a bit jarring.

It's an interesting question whether everything ought to be expressed in terms of raw iron, or in fact go the other way, namely with the high end values as the base.

Or perhaps have some mid-point in technology where the values shift from raw iron to Krupp IV etc and make that clear in the shipyard and battles.

 

The cruiser had a belt thickness of 324mm of Krupp IV armor. The game displays the base thickness in the armor section and tells you the type under the components list. 

Even if we assume the irl Des Moines has 150mm of Krupp IV equivalent, that's still only about 320mm or so in raw steel/iron values. This ship had the equivalent of battleship grade armor (324mm is about the same thickness as a Scharnhorst belt at it's thickest, again with the same armor grade of what is Krupp IV in game on a ship that when I reconstructed it weighed 10k tons. That just is not possible.)

As I said before, the armor does not weigh enough compared to irl. If the Algerie's 120mm belt weighs 1500 tons than there is no way in hell a 324mm belt on another heavy cruiser weighs in at a third of that. Again, armor in game does not weigh enough.

[DougToss]

4 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

For me the armor system is very intuitive. You put let's say 100mm of iron. Then make it Krupp IV and all or nothing armor scheme. All this gives you an armor bonus of 118%. So your armor is still 100mm thick. But it is as effective as 218mm of iron would be. If you have an uneven armor value like let's say 267.5mm then just go into Google type in "267.5 + 118%" and it will show you how effective the armor is, in that case 583mm, so not the best but great for a fast battleship that will be used in a role of commerce raider like sharnhorsts were. You can't really have a simpler system its just maths and not particularly complicated at that. Most of the values you can approximate anyway so using the Google method is honestly redundant and unnecessary. 

The beauty of a computer game versus a board game is that it can do those calculations for you. There's no reason for players to have to go outside the game to do math when the game could do it right then and there. Having players alt-tab out to figure out the thickness of their armour is not a good way to go, in my opinion. 

There's also good literature that could be incorporated into the game that explains how armour works and how kinds differ from each other, but the math should be automatic if possible. 

Even if our pencil and napkin math is accurate right now, armour is still too light. 

Poking around RTW, they used a somewhat counter-intuitive system of measurement as well.

Quote

After several tests I have some conclusions how armour quality has effect.

 

Each ship at time of designs get value "Armormod" based on actual technology of nation designing that ship. The value represents quality of armour and percentage decrease of penetration value.

 

Eg. 1920 starts has armour technology of lvl 0 to 9, Armormod value of 12, meaning that enemy shells fired upon ship designed at that time has 12 % less penetration potential than legacy fleet ships with same armour protection thickness

This also means that the first 10 levels give not 10 points but 12 points.

 

Another interesting point is that invented inclined belt not only allow inclined belt but automatically increase Armormod value from 10 to 12, increasing effectivness of armour about 1 % no matter if you use inclined belt on ship design and that is a little strange.

 

The increase of effectivness of armour is quite low however still probably reasonable simplification that all legacy fleet has almost krupp quality armour could be omitted.

I believe that in RTW 1, each tech made a certain thickness of armour lighter, whereas in RTW 2 the same weight and thickness becomes more effective.

[skg02]

Just playing Dreadnaughts vs. Modern Cruisers and have to say the way too high speed issue for AI ships is still alive and well. 

Plain and simple this just needs to be fixed for this game to be a serious treatment of the subject. 

You've got BC's going speeds that would make some destroyers embarrassed. 

Its just ridiculous when combined with their supernatural ability to hit at that speed as well - like they are taking no penalty for that high speed.

I'm sure these comments are repeated above, consider them reinforcement to the point. 

Also think the cruiser modelling needs some work so what was IRL can be in the game - 5" twins for US and the standard 4 twin 5" mounts found on Myoko-Takao-Mogami Japanese CA's.

This shows up when same tower, different size ship for US and 5" won't mount, but 4" will.  

Hulls are just a little too narrow now, which I'm wondering whether throws off the roll ratings. 

Further, seems like there's a constant tendency for a prejudice in the game engine toward a forward weight offset on everything, so the rear turret(s) end up having to be placed in extended armor position and promptly getting destroyed because of it. Again, reinforcement to the point already probably made above I'm sure. 

Also, looks like some work is needed on AI designs in terms of stack and secondary barbette placement, very Frankenstein at times. 

Eventually would be good to see US Iowas stack taken out of Japanese design options which especially for Japanese rebuilt dreadnaughts or any other BB's other than modern, should probably go with British WWI style. 

Really, want this game to succeed, so comments are only meant constructively. 

[Steeltrap]

On 5/27/2020 at 9:59 AM, Reaper Jack said:

 

The cruiser had a belt thickness of 324mm of Krupp IV armor. The game displays the base thickness in the armor section and tells you the type under the components list. 

Even if we assume the irl Des Moines has 150mm of Krupp IV equivalent, that's still only about 320mm or so in raw steel/iron values. This ship had the equivalent of battleship grade armor (324mm is about the same thickness as a Scharnhorst belt at it's thickest, again with the same armor grade of what is Krupp IV in game on a ship that when I reconstructed it weighed 10k tons. That just is not possible.)

As I said before, the armor does not weigh enough compared to irl. If the Algerie's 120mm belt weighs 1500 tons than there is no way in hell a 324mm belt on another heavy cruiser weighs in at a third of that. Again, armor in game does not weigh enough.

Oh, I thought you meant it had a displayed effective value of 324, not a base 324mm. My bad, I didn't look at the pic closely enough. Yes, LOL, that is pretty whacky.

I often encounter pre-dread BBs with armour up to 23" effective on belt and turrets, and still doing 18-21.5 knots speed, too.

Funnily enough, I happen to think one of the most crucial root causes of all these problems lies in the grossly inflated hit rates. If you get hit 10 times as often as you might in reality, everything ELSE becomes 10 times as significant in the sense that if the damage or armour or damage control systems are insufficient, that over the top mass of hits will VERY quickly illustrate any issues.

If they want to be realistic, I personally think they ought to have the courage to do so, and that INCLUDES with hit rates. Otherwise they have to make hits much less effective, either in terms of the damage and damage control models, or the armour model, or combinations thereof. Which means building in MORE unreality to compensate for the first entirely avoidable lot of it. If people find hit rates "too low", that's what time compression is for. Or you have to trade off getting closer to score hits against the risks of receiving them, which of course will almost ALWAYS favour the largest gunned, most heavily armed ships. JUST AS DID REALITY.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Reaper Jack]

4 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Oh, I thought you meant it had a displayed effective value of 324, not a base 324mm. My bad, I didn't look at the pic closely enough. Yes, LOL, that is pretty whacky.

I often encounter pre-dread BBs with armour up to 23" effective on belt and turrets, and still doing 18-21.5 knots speed, too.

Funnily enough, I happen to think one of the most crucial root causes of all these problems lies in the grossly inflated hit rates. If you get hit 10 times as often as you might in reality, everything ELSE becomes 10 times as significant in the sense that if the damage or armour or damage control systems are insufficient, that over the top mass of hits will VERY quickly illustrate any issues.

If they want to be realistic, I personally think they ought to have the courage to do so, and that INCLUDES with hit rates. Otherwise they have to make hits much less effective, either in terms of the damage and damage control models, or the armour model, or combinations thereof. Which means building in MORE unreality to compensate for the first entirely avoidable lot of it. If people find hit rates "too low", that's what time compression is for. Or you have to trade off getting closer to score hits against the risks of receiving them, which of course will almost ALWAYS favour the largest gunned, most heavily armed ships. JUST AS DID REALITY.

Yeah agreed. 

The one thing I have found that is very realistic so far, is that I made a Battleship with 406mm main guns, but only six, and went heavier on the armor, about a 380mm belt and 170mm deck, not pushing reality too far, and the game put me against two 356mm armed BB's. At 11-14km I had a complete immunity zone, and once I reached that zone, maintaining distance at 13km meant I could bounce shells all day long. Sadly both enemy BB's had 450mm belts so I was struggling to pen back, but the fact the immunity zone was something I could do was much appreciated. 

[DerRichtigeArzt]

1 hour ago, Reaper Jack said:

Yeah agreed. 

The one thing I have found that is very realistic so far, is that I made a Battleship with 406mm main guns, but only six, and went heavier on the armor, about a 380mm belt and 170mm deck, not pushing reality too far, and the game put me against two 356mm armed BB's. At 11-14km I had a complete immunity zone, and once I reached that zone, maintaining distance at 13km meant I could bounce shells all day long. Sadly both enemy BB's had 450mm belts so I was struggling to pen back, but the fact the immunity zone was something I could do was much appreciated. 

With armor that would not be used in reality. Guns have too much penetration. In 1930's it's only worth to armor up against CA's because big guns will pen anyway. But gun damage is low anyway unless you are using 18" guns which is kinda sad because I took a liking to 15" Bismarck setup. Also ships are bullet sponges and it shows. You can hit a ship 20 times with a 15" shell and it will be almost fully operational unless you cause a flash fire/ammo detonation. Crew needs to be implemented as soon as possible to avoid running out of ammo after just one engagement. 

[BobRoss0902]

3 minutes ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

With armor that would not be used in reality. Guns have too much penetration. In 1930's it's only worth to armor up against CA's because big guns will pen anyway. But gun damage is low anyway unless you are using 18" guns which is kinda sad because I took a liking to 15" Bismarck setup. Also ships are bullet sponges and it shows. You can hit a ship 20 times with a 15" shell and it will be almost fully operational unless you cause a flash fire/ammo detonation. Crew needs to be implemented as soon as possible to avoid running out of ammo after just one engagement. 

Ships historically if you didn't get a catastrophic hit would be pretty spongey tho.

 

Sinking a ship is usually just a bonus, damaging it and forcing the enemy to take it in to port was often what happened putting it out of action for often times until the end of a war.

[Steeltrap]

7 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

With armor that would not be used in reality. Guns have too much penetration. In 1930's it's only worth to armor up against CA's because big guns will pen anyway. But gun damage is low anyway unless you are using 18" guns which is kinda sad because I took a liking to 15" Bismarck setup. Also ships are bullet sponges and it shows. You can hit a ship 20 times with a 15" shell and it will be almost fully operational unless you cause a flash fire/ammo detonation. Crew needs to be implemented as soon as possible to avoid running out of ammo after just one engagement. 

 

7 hours ago, BobRoss0902 said:

Ships historically if you didn't get a catastrophic hit would be pretty spongey tho.

Sinking a ship is usually just a bonus, damaging it and forcing the enemy to take it in to port was often what happened putting it out of action for often times until the end of a war.

I made a comment quite some time back that the missions in the Naval Academy were having an unfortunate side effect, perfectly understandably mind you, of teaching people to think if they don't sink everything they've failed.

I say "unfortunate" because sinking things is, as you said, a bonus and obviously the best result. Controlling the area of battle and potentially denying the enemy the use of damaged ships for many months was the important thing strategically, and fighting battles of little to no strategic value is a great way to lose a war, lol. Jutland is one of the best examples, obviously, with the German's tactical victory (based on ships and lives lost) but the UK's strategic victory (Germany didn't achieve any sort of decisive result, didn't break the blockade, and its fleet never again challenged the RN in any significant way).

Warships generally could (and did in some cases) absorb surprising levels of punishment because they were designed to do just that, and the world's most powerful navies had got pretty good at their designs over the years. We all know of the BCs at Jutland and HMS Hood precisely because those were unusual, tragically so. We remember Bismarck because of Hood and also because of the fearful pounding he (according to my book written by an officer of Prinz Eugen they referred to Bismark as their big brother, and the author remarked that the last time he saw Bismarck was as they split up causing him to say "There went our big brother.....we were going to miss him very much") took in an unwinnable battle.

There again is the story of the Germans losing the strategic (and in this case arguably the tactical ultimately) battle.

The service histories of "the twins" (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) are further illustrations of the point about what 'victory' looks like as they spend significant periods of the war out of action being repaired (and upgraded at the same time). The fate of Gneisenau was a particularly strong illustration of that point.

If your enemy can't use their forces effectively, because they're damaged or resource constrained (fuel for example) or any other reason, you've more or less won.

None of which, however, means we ought to accept/expect design choices that see ships soaking up ridiculous punishment when those ships have no business being able to do so. I have always been very much frustrated that "max bulkheads" is some sort of 'undead granting design choice', LOL, where even a Transport can take 30 and more 6" gun hits and not sink IF it has those magical bulkheads and you don't hit it repeatedly in a short period from the correct angles.

We'll have to wait and see what happens with damage, armour and damage control models. I've already written elsewhere that I believe the gross inflation of hit rates is itself a poor choice with consequences throughout, and one of those is ships are shown as taking vast punishment seemingly unaffected. Even WITH the models corrected, 5 times the hits as was realistically scored will necessarily push the game away from being realistic in that the hits themselves will need to be 5 times less damaging than history suggests they ought to be else everything sink crazily quickly (as still tends to happen at present).

Cheers

[BobRoss0902]

1 hour ago, Steeltrap said:

 

I made a comment quite some time back that the missions in the Naval Academy were having an unfortunate side effect, perfectly understandably mind you, of teaching people to think if they don't sink everything they've failed.

I say "unfortunate" because sinking things is, as you said, a bonus and obviously the best result. Controlling the area of battle and potentially denying the enemy the use of damaged ships for many months was the important thing strategically, and fighting battles of little to no strategic value is a great way to lose a war, lol. Jutland is one of the best examples, obviously, with the German's tactical victory (based on ships and lives lost) but the UK's strategic victory (Germany didn't achieve any sort of decisive result, didn't break the blockade, and its fleet never again challenged the RN in any significant way).

Warships generally could (and did in some cases) absorb surprising levels of punishment because they were designed to do just that, and the world's most powerful navies had got pretty good at their designs over the years. We all know of the BCs at Jutland and HMS Hood precisely because those were unusual, tragically so. We remember Bismarck because of Hood and also because of the fearful pounding he (according to my book written by an officer of Prinz Eugen they referred to Bismark as their big brother, and the author remarked that the last time he saw Bismarck was as they split up causing him to say "There went our big brother.....we were going to miss him very much") took in an unwinnable battle.

There again is the story of the Germans losing the strategic (and in this case arguably the tactical ultimately) battle.

The service histories of "the twins" (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau) are further illustrations of the point about what 'victory' looks like as they spend significant periods of the war out of action being repaired (and upgraded at the same time). The fate of Gneisenau was a particularly strong illustration of that point.

If your enemy can't use their forces effectively, because they're damaged or resource constrained (fuel for example) or any other reason, you've more or less won.

None of which, however, means we ought to accept/expect design choices that see ships soaking up ridiculous punishment when those ships have no business being able to do so. I have always been very much frustrated that "max bulkheads" is some sort of 'undead granting design choice', LOL, where even a Transport can take 30 and more 6" gun hits and not sink IF it has those magical bulkheads and you don't hit it repeatedly in a short period from the correct angles.

We'll have to wait and see what happens with damage, armour and damage control models. I've already written elsewhere that I believe the gross inflation of hit rates is itself a poor choice with consequences throughout, and one of those is ships are shown as taking vast punishment seemingly unaffected. Even WITH the models corrected, 5 times the hits as was realistically scored will necessarily push the game away from being realistic in that the hits themselves will need to be 5 times less damaging than history suggests they ought to be else everything sink crazily quickly (as still tends to happen at present).

Cheers

On the subject of bulkheads, they could do the sort of things they pull off in game, the reason why Bismarck was still floating upright well after even every single gun on board was forcefully silenced was due to the fact that she was so well divided into sub compartments, I personally think there should be more options for bulkheads so that achieving that level of efficiency should be more difficult than sacrificing some weight as well as have tech limitations. There needs to be downsides to such a level of subdivision, I'd say when crew is a thing, more bulkheads make it more difficult for crew to escape or something like that.