>>>Alpha-6 Feedback<<<

[BOP_ARP]

Ограничения в кампании необходимы, а иначе флот будет состоять из нелепых, но непобедимых кораблей. (Возможно сделать галочку перед началом кампании)

[DougToss]

Wait is that true? 

Why the heck are 12" guns more accurate? Why the heck is there a buff to accuracy!? Physics are physics. 

A .22 handgun is governed by the same laws of ballistics as a 18" naval rifle, even the ones that barely matter at its ranges like spin drift and the Coriolis effect. 

Quote

I fully understand people who don't want to built "ludicrous" ships and I respect their wish. Please respect other's wish to design monstrosity with quad 20-inch superheavys.

The issue is the AI already builds ships like that which means the player has to. That's bad enough in the Academy, but if it carries over to the campaign that will mean that any campaign game will by necessity devolve into building anime waifu ships because failure to do so will result in a loss.  

Edited June 5, 2020 by DougToss

[madham82]

1 hour ago, Reaper Jack said:

You should be able to build them sure. 

The cost of doing so should be as immense as the Yamatos was historically (and worse for even bigger ships) and stunt your navy in other areas, again, as it should. There needs to be a push and pull system, where you can't just get the best toys without there being a drawback or some sort of pay off, this system not existing is actually causing a lot of the game's issues right now aside from armor not being modeled correctly yet. Mostly with ships that can have it all, armor, huge guns and speed. 

Agreed. If you look at the reasons behind why the Japanese went the Yamato route, it made sense. They knew they would not be able to match quantity with the US, so they went for a qualitative advantage. The only problem was they were fighting the last war, not the new one in the age of carriers. In this game it could still be a viable strategy if you are playing a nation who just doesn't have the resources for a massive fleet, but can build a more powerful smaller fleet. 

1 hour ago, DougToss said:

Wait is that true? 

Why the heck are 12" guns more accurate? Why the heck is there a buff to accuracy!? Physics are physics. 

A .22 handgun is governed by the same laws of ballistics as a 18" naval rifle, even the ones that barely matter at its ranges like spin drift and the Coriolis effect. 

It honestly probably is a table off somewhere. However there is some real precedence. The 12"s guns developed for the Alaska class outperformed the 14"s from the pre-WW2 BBs in every way. But I view this as more related to technology (e.g. Mk 5 12" vs Mk 3 14"s in game terms).  Gun balancing is one of things that I'm sure is on the list, but doesn't need to be a priority until we get into Beta stages. 

[IronKaputt]

1 hour ago, DougToss said:

The issue is the AI already builds ships like that which means the player has to.

More reasons for such "treaty": people should only build their Agincourts with Gerät 36 in Tillman's turrets to compensate for fun, not because it's the only way for survival in arms race.

My point is: we should exploit the benefit of single player to set/mod the game according to personal preferences instead of imposing them to each other.

[Cptbarney]

9 hours ago, IronKaputt said:

More reasons for such "treaty": people should only build their Agincourts with Gerät 36 in Tillman's turrets to compensate for fun, not because it's the only way for survival in arms race.

My point is: we should exploit the benefit of single player to set/mod the game according to personal preferences instead of imposing them to each other.

Basically this, its a single player game not a multiplayer so as long as the core mechanics are well polished and soild adding stuff doesnt really matter as long as the choice to remove, hinder or enhance exists.

So yes people shold be able to build whatever they please in any of the game modes with or without consequences and if mod support comes along i guarantee you that such mods like that would appear, since it would appeal to another audience.

Atm the campaign sounds like a carbon copy of rtw but id rather it moves on from that and becomes its own thing. It would be a severe waste of potential if this game became nothing than a rule the waves clone no matter how good or bad said game series is.

[admiralsnackbar]

If the technical capability exists to construct them I'm in favor of permitting players and also the AI to build such monstrosities.

I definitely wouldn't *want* to see 200 thousand ton battleships with 18, 21 inch guns become the 'meta' either in a campaign or multiplayer. 



That said, you don't necessarily need naval treaties to avoid said monstrosities becoming the meta. You can have Exponentially increased build costs for displacements above a certain amount and/or A hard cap on displacement of ships based on the maximum size of the dry docks, which IIRC was a factor that limited the size of the interwar french battleships treaty/escalator clause notwithstanding.

Semi related: The game allows you to have turret rings basically the size of the width of the deck of the ship. Most warships I've seen pictures of don't support turrets that large [relative to the ship size] -- I assume because they would become too top heavy or heavy in general. Increased displacement incrementally causes the ship to get longer in 'bursts' but doesn't widen the ship at all. 

 

[PainGod]

Quite honestly, accuracy (and range) should be a function of caliber length and propellant charge size for the most part. At no point should a certain caliber be made more accurate at a given range arbitrarily. Instead, those turrets should have a significantly smaller footprint with regards to barbette size in addition to substantially lower weight as is the case right now ingame.

[Cptbarney]

35 minutes ago, PainGod said:

Quite honestly, accuracy (and range) should be a function of caliber length and propellant charge size for the most part. At no point should a certain caliber be made more accurate at a given range arbitrarily. Instead, those turrets should have a significantly smaller footprint with regards to barbette size in addition to substantially lower weight as is the case right now ingame.

Also shell types as well, since we had different AP shells in ww1 and ww2 plus before ww1, which all would have different effects on shell spin, drop, drag, aerodyanmics, velocity, range, barrel life, complexity, cost etc.

[Steeltrap]

On 6/7/2020 at 1:35 AM, PainGod said:

Quite honestly, accuracy (and range) should be a function of caliber length and propellant charge size for the most part. At no point should a certain caliber be made more accurate at a given range arbitrarily. Instead, those turrets should have a significantly smaller footprint with regards to barbette size in addition to substantially lower weight as is the case right now ingame.

(None of what I've written is intended to suggest you don't already know it, I'm simply making a general comment on the topic)

That would be true assuming every nation had access to exactly the same tech of all relevant types, including manufacturing tech which is in fact a vast area of enormous significance. The Soviets were able to design AND BUILD astoundingly huge numbers of world class quality tanks, but couldn't build naval tech of anything like similarly world class. Other nations had similar skews; indeed the infamous Bismarck frankly had a lot about it that was poor design and the USN, IJN and RN all produced arguably (or demonstrably) superior vessels for similar or lesser displacements.

The RN's famous (when I say famous, I mean to naval nerds, LOL) 15" gun is a case in point. It was "rushed" in development to production largely on the word of the relevant head of ordnance or whatever branch was responsible (I can never remember them all across the navies off the top of my head) and turned out undoubtedly to be one of the "best" heavy naval rifles ever built, with excellent reliability in ballistics (which meant it went where you pointed it and arrived with good closeness of pattern rather than all over the shop as the more modern RM Littorio class' 15" gun did) and penetration (product of shell weight and design), acceptable rate of fire, good wear characteristics (its performance didn't drop massively after 50 rounds and need replacement after 100, for example) and so on.

Someone (or perhaps several people) posted the comparison the RN made when they got to study the German heavy guns with their own following WW1, pointing out the differences in manufacturing techniques and the flow on effects of those such as the German's being lighter and running a higher gun pressure yet that having consequences for wear. Even there the German method also had consequences for replacing them in that I seem to recall they were intended to replace the entire tube and breech vs potentially re-lining the barrel alone.

In other words, historically it was a decidedly complicated mix of choices and good/bad consequences. I suspect in many instances it was a case of one particular limitation leading each nation to develop different solutions to whichever problems their particular choice(s) "upstream" forced them to address. You'd only truly get the "best of everything" if you were aware of all the "best" choices and compensations, which no one nation would have had. Their results reflected their own particular history of achievements in research, tech development AND production and use. Being able to share with another nation had benefits as well as risks, which is why it's interesting to see that not even 'close' allies such as the UK and USA shared certain things (I believe the USN arrived at more reliable high pressure turbines before the RN, while the UK generally had more advanced radar tech in the late 30s at least).

Apart from all of that, accuracy of course ALSO depends on marrying good gun design and manufacture with gun direction, which gets into the whole issue of optics, mechanical computers (for want of a better term), gun mounts, electronics, radar etc etc.

Yamato demonstrated pretty formidable accuracy at range with her main battery which I believe was largely based on optics. RN radar on HMS Duke of York (a King George V class) was decisive in her main battery accuracy against Scharnhorst in the latter's sinking. And so on.

Plus if you want to build a monster vessel you need first to build the infrastructure not only to build it but also to service and accommodate it more generally. Building a ship that can't dock anywhere but its place of manufacture would be a bit of a problem, and that's before looking into the logistics of "super calibre" guns when the rest of the fleet doesn't have them.

TL;DR? It's a VERY complicated mixture of tech and manufacturing, yet certain guns DID prove to be "more accurate" than others. There were reasons for that, including "luck" for want of a better term, although that "luck" is probably in no small part a product of reducing as many factors that could introduce 'poor' performance being reduced as greatly as possible. In gaming terms, if rolling a 1 is a very bad result in terms of the final performance characteristics of a gun, you'd want to stack as many factors as possible in your favour so you're rolling a 100 side die than a 4 sided one, LOL.

 

On 6/7/2020 at 2:18 AM, Cptbarney said:

Also shell types as well, since we had different AP shells in ww1 and ww2 plus before ww1, which all would have different effects on shell spin, drop, drag, aerodyanmics, velocity, range, barrel life, complexity, cost etc.

Yes, not to mention the understanding of those things AND how to incorporate them into next generations of fire control etc.

It's quite impressive to see just how 'quickly' the RN were able to develop then introduce across the fleet the "Green Boy" shells following the disturbingly poor performance of the APC shells at Jutland.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Steeltrap]

On 6/6/2020 at 4:06 AM, DougToss said:

Wait is that true? 

Why the heck are 12" guns more accurate? Why the heck is there a buff to accuracy!? Physics are physics. 

A .22 handgun is governed by the same laws of ballistics as a 18" naval rifle, even the ones that barely matter at its ranges like spin drift and the Coriolis effect. 

The issue is the AI already builds ships like that which means the player has to. That's bad enough in the Academy, but if it carries over to the campaign that will mean that any campaign game will by necessity devolve into building anime waifu ships because failure to do so will result in a loss.  

Yes, it is true. Same goes for 9" guns. Has been the case for the last few versions of the game. I and others have commented on it many times.

If you check across the gun types you'll see it. It's why my earlier scenario BC design features triple 12" as it's by far the best choice unless you believe your opponents will start to present ships sufficiently armoured that the 12" will no longer prove effective.

Considering you get access to higher 'marks' of gun at lower calibres at first, this can be even more accentuated if you can use mk3 12" v mk2 14".

[Steeltrap]

On 6/4/2020 at 3:31 PM, Cptbarney said:

Plus dat name doe, King karl the great. I think if i saw a ship named that and that big i would expect it to rekt everything that exists in the world lol.

LOL Barney, you do make me laugh sometimes.

[Cptbarney]

1 hour ago, Steeltrap said:

LOL Barney, you do make me laugh sometimes.

Well miss chonk has to live up to her name or she goes into the bin 'w'

[DougToss]

Was it Aurora that had you research the relevant technology, begin the procurement process for a weapons system, and have the resulting weapon have variable quality depending on other factors plus chance? I think it was but I may be mistaken. 

The general idea being, you as Japan have access to British 12" Armstrong guns, but have never built a comparable naval rifle. You have a metallurgy and armaments industry of x ability. You research the caliber of gun, based on what you have and what you know about those 12" Armstrong guns. Your industry presents you with a 12" gun. It is of quality y, which is likely less than the Armstrong gun because it is the first attempt. Subsequent 12" guns based on it improve, and may improve in divergent ways from British guns, though they share a design ancestry. That way, you as Japan are able to produce quality naval rifles, but they are different from those of other nations. 

You may end up evolving it into a 12.5" or 13" gun while the British abandon that design lineage and move to 15" guns. That seems like a leap up, but they may be starting from scratch in some areas so it may not be a straight improvement. 

That's not a bad way to handle national characteristics, and it also provides an incentive for uniform logistics. It is much riskier to go to larger calibers when you feel you are leaving something behind. 

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

29 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Was it Aurora that had you research the relevant technology, begin the procurement process for a weapons system, and have the resulting weapon have variable quality depending on other factors plus chance? I think it was but I may be mistaken. 

 

I'm not aware of any randomness in Aurora's development system.

You research, say, Near Ultra-Violet Laser technology and 10cm focal size as well as capacitor technology level 3. With those technologies you can then develop a 10cm NUV laser cannon with a range of, IIRC, 120,000km that fires every 5 seconds. If you use a level-1 capacitor, it will only shoot every 15 seconds, if you up the focal size it will either shoot slower too or you have to increase the capacitor tech to make up for the increased power-demands of the larger weapon.

Nowhere in that process is any randomness involved.

[DougToss]

11 minutes ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

I'm not aware of any randomness in Aurora's development system.

That's the system I was thinking of, my mistake. I guess the quality of Armstrong or Enfield or whoever wasn't random either. I think the Aurora system would be a good addition.

[Steeltrap]

On 6/10/2020 at 1:19 AM, DougToss said:

That's the system I was thinking of, my mistake. I guess the quality of Armstrong or Enfield or whoever wasn't random either. I think the Aurora system would be a good addition.

In principle, yes, but we need to remember our own cautions about getting further into the weeds than is necessary to achieve the intended game objectives of research and production.

[The Fundamentalist]

On 6/5/2020 at 11:06 AM, DougToss said:

Physics are physics. 

A .22 handgun is governed by the same laws of ballistics as a 18" naval rifle, even the ones that barely matter at its ranges like spin drift and the Coriolis effect. 

Yes and there are sweet spots in projectile density, design and weight that make some rounds inherently more accurate than others. Simply sayings "physics are physics" and implying that all projectiles of varying diameter are equally accurate is silly. 

I would agree that there should be more variation than simply projectile diameter. 

[DougToss]

I agree in principle, I don't think that's what's going on here. 12" guns were made more accurate arbitrarily, which is not the same as a universal ballistics model accounting for different projectile characteristics. Rather, it seems to be different projectiles operating under different rules which is a very alarming design decision.

Edited June 11, 2020 by DougToss