Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Be bold Nick! 

It's an Alpha. The entire point is not to be comfortable.

We're here to help you achieve your vision, and know that anything could change at any time as you iron it out. The idea of being comfortable this early on is baffling. I was comfortable when Kerbal Space Program had maybe 5 parts and a flat Earth, but the project kept growing and evolving.

You have to keep pushing the envelope, and getting comfortable when ships carry several times more torpedoes, reloaded much more quickly than they could plausibly be, taking up no space, at no risk of explosion, well that's not the realistic title you were so exited to make when you got started. 

If we had gotten too used to being comfortable in Alpha 2, we wouldn't even have 22 and 23 inch torpedoes. 

We are already very bold. We provide a game with features never seen before and we strive for realism and historical accuracy. But we do not want players to have torpedo boats that accidentally fire their single torpedo and then quit the battle because it missed. We do not also want torpedo boats to be a minimal threat. Already reloads take a good amount of time to reload according to tubes and I remind that most games of the genre, have unlimited ammo... It is really a minor issue that can become optimized during the campaign development.

  • Like 9
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

@Steeltrap and @Accipiter covered most of the bases. I have also posted pretty extensively on this and can link to past posts if required.  The problems with gunnery are many, but taking a second

I will add something that's probably not necessary but can't hurt. While some of our criticisms in this thread to date might be seen as somewhat pointed, I think it's entirely due to the fact we

i'll join my voice here since it's as good a time as any: i've been following this game's pre-alpha progress since nearly week 1, and played every patch, and frankly, i'm starting to get worried

Posted Images

17 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We are already very bold. We provide a game with features never seen before and we strive for realism and historical accuracy. But we do not want players to have torpedo boats that accidentally fire their single torpedo and then quit the battle because it missed. We do not also want torpedo boats to be a minimal threat. Already reloads take a good amount of time to reload according to tubes and I remind that most games of the genre, have unlimited ammo... It is really a minor issue that can become optimized during the campaign development.

I would probs add some options if peeps want it or not, plus it helps with replayablity not sure if it would help with work load however. Although if trying to fix my old ruger 22/45 model and texture it says anything lol. (bloody thing). 😆

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

Agreed. There isn't a single ship in the entire game that should have more than a single reload of torpedoes, with the majority having half a reload or sometimes none. Even the Torpedo obsessed IJN only carried one reload's worth of torpedoes per tube. 

The fact that reduced torpedoes still gives 3-4 reloads, normal gives about 6 and increased gives up to 10 is frankly insane, if a destroyer is carrying 30-50 torpedoes in deck cases I expect it go big boom when it gets hit by even a 2 inch gun. 

As for torpedo range, I honestly have a big issue with it. Again, only the IJN actually solved the issues of using fleet borne torpedoes at extreme range with the Type 93, everybody else had to live with torpedoes that were effective out to only 12-15km at the most and even then that was on slow settings as low as 20 knots to get the range that high. The Type 93's were expensive and volatile by comparison to other torpedoes, not to mention the increased weight and maintenance cost of including an oxygen generator system on the ships (which also increase big boom risk) that carried them. 

 

7 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

It is entirely false that ships did not carry additional torpedoes.

  • Asashio class carried 40 (8 on deck) (yes 40 total) 
  • Shiratsuyu class carried 40 (8 on deck) (yes 40 total, however 1 set (4) was removed due to gun weight)
  • Type 1936a class carried 24 (8 on deck)
  • Type 1936b class carried 24 (8 on deck)
  • Z51 class carried 18 (6 on deck)
  • Gnevny class carried 12 (6 on deck)
  • Storozhevoy class carried 12 (6 on deck)

I havn't run out of ships but it is 5am.

so yeah ships absolutely carried reloads. Not all of them, but many of them. Other carried multiple reloads. The values we see in game are therefore valid numbers, even if few ships utilized larger amounts. there is an argument to be made for adding a no reloads as an option. 

I removed any ship not a DD from the list since that is the issue. Cruisers and bigger ships frequently carried reloads since they had the space and crew to do so.

I think you have been reading reloads incorrectly (probably the 5am issue lol). When they mention 8 reloads, that's 8 torpedoes not 8 salvos. This was typical for their DDs to carry one reload per tube (Fubuki did too, but actually had 18 for it's 3 triple mounts). The two 1936 types, 2 reloads for each mount is not 8 torpedoes for each but 2 actual torpedoes. Z51 did carry 18 total for it's 6 tubes. So it had one and half salvos it could reload. Gnevny and Storozhevoy had only one reload for each tube (12 total on board). I couldn't find any confirmation that US DDs carried reloads. Not sure if the British did either. So they were not that common, and most certainly carrying more than a full reload was uncommon.

So what we see is that having more than 2 reloads for each tube just didn't happen. So the game's default of 3 is completely unrealistic. 3 should be the max and 0 the default. Remember these torpedoes are many feet long, up to 2 feet wide, weight well over 1000lbs, and we expect a tin can with barely enough room for it's crew to hold absurd amounts of these weapons? Oh then we throw in the cherry on top, reloading in combat. In principle, only the Japanese had this ability (because of how they designed their mounts and storage). In practice I have never read where it was done. Their doctrine called for the DD to withdraw to a distance to begin reloading. Only makes sense since you are moving a 1000lb exposed warhead on an exposed deck. So the reality is we are seriously out of whack with number of reloads and ability from the real world. To the point that a campaign launched today, it will be easily exploited by swarms of cheap, fast, heavily torpedo armed DDs murdering everything.  

Edited by madham82
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, madham82 said:

 

I removed any ship not a DD from the list since that is the issue. Cruisers and bigger ships frequently carried reloads since they had the space and crew to do so.

I think you have been reading reloads incorrectly (probably the 5am issue lol). When they mention 8 reloads, that's 8 torpedoes not 8 salvos. This was typical for their DDs to carry one reload per tube (Fubuki did too, but actually had 18 for it's 3 triple mounts). The two 1936 types, 2 reloads for each mount is not 8 torpedoes for each but 2 actual torpedoes. Z51 did carry 18 total for it's 6 tubes. So it had one and half salvos it could reload. Gnevny and Storozhevoy had only one reload for each tube (12 total on board). I couldn't find any confirmation that US DDs carried reloads. Not sure if the British did either. So they were not that common, and most certainly carrying more than a full reload was uncommon.

So what we see is that having more than 2 reloads for each tube just didn't happen. So the game's default of 3 is completely unrealistic. 3 should be the max and 0 the default. Remember these torpedoes are many feet long, up to 2 feet wide, weight well over 1000lbs, and we expect a tin can with barely enough room for it's crew to hold absurd amounts of these weapons? Oh then we throw in the cherry on top, reloading in combat. In principle, only the Japanese had this ability (because of how they designed their mounts and storage). In practice I have never read where it was done. Their doctrine called for the DD to withdraw to a distance to begin reloading. Only makes sense since you are moving a 1000lb exposed warhead on an exposed deck. So the reality is we are seriously out of whack with number of reloads and ability from the real world. To the point that a campaign launched today, it will be easily exploited by swarms of cheap, fast, heavily torpedo armed DDs murdering everything.  

The Jeune École approach. AFAIK didn't really work out too well IRL

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

Torpedo reloads span from 3 to 5.

Feels like significantly more when I've seen destroyers carrying over 100 torpedoes. Worst case was 112 on 20-24 tubes. The 4 quad launchers were carrying 80 between them and the remaining smaller tubes (I think it was a couple doubles and a couple singles?) made up the rest. This was on a DD. I might see if I can replicate it later. 

 

torpedoes.thumb.png.f9636d2d1dc320a5edb23985fe61d7a4.png

So as you can see this is a 20 torpedo design, and indeed I was wrong, 10 reloads is simply what it felt like when I had to face similar designs, but still, carrying 108 torpedoes on a ship? Where are they for starters? In this design I could only imagine they're all stored in the raised sections beneath the tubes, but if that's the case I expect any hit to that region to send my ship into pieces of fireworks, it's just not realistic at all. 

Edited by Reaper Jack
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarifying again. Torpedo loads 3 to 5 according to torpedo round setting, means that we have 2 to 4 reloads, which is not so uncommon, based on historical facts. Small torpedo boats will not be able to carry many loads due to their weight. We can reduce this setting to be from 1 to 3 reloads in next hotfix.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Reaper Jack said:

Feels like significantly more when I've seen destroyers carrying over 100 torpedoes. Worst case was 112 on 20-24 tubes. The 4 quad launchers were carrying 80 between them and the remaining smaller tubes (I think it was a couple doubles and a couple singles?) made up the rest. This was on a DD. I might see if I can replicate it later. 

 

torpedoes.thumb.png.f9636d2d1dc320a5edb23985fe61d7a4.png

So as you can see this is a 20 torpedo design, and indeed I was wrong, 10 reloads is simply what it felt like when I had to face similar designs, but still, carrying 108 torpedoes on a ship? Where are they for starters? In this design I could only imagine they're all stored in the raised sections beneath the tubes, but if that's the case I expect any hit to that region to send my ship into pieces of fireworks, it's just not realistic at all. 

That's a great example. In comparison to a real ship, the Fubuki class you are very similar. It was about 1000 tons lighter, same speed, same guns, 3x3 24" torpedo mounts. But guess how many total torpedoes it had? 18. 108 vs 18 is a huge difference. The mounts alone are probably half that weight difference. Each 24" torpedo on Fubuki is almost 3 tons. So it could be doable from a weight perspective (figuring about 300 tons for 90 more torpedoes). So why did the Japanese not have more?...physical size. That seems to be the element the game is missing. They take up a lot of space, more than would be available on a ship that size. 

10 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Clarifying again. Torpedo loads 3 to 5 according to torpedo round setting, means that we have 2 to 4 reloads, which is not so uncommon, based on historical facts. Small torpedo boats will not be able to carry many loads due to their weight. We can reduce this setting to be from 1 to 3 reloads in next hotfix.

4 certainly is. I can't find a single DD with more than 2 per tube. 4 could be doable on larger ships, but as stated above we are missing the amount of space they take up. So it needs balancing for sure. The other real concern is reloading in combat. It just didn't happen. At least, we need reloading to be prohibitively more expensive, more risky, require a special module, or ideally make it only occur after battle (in the campaign). 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, madham82 said:

At least, we need reloading to be prohibitively more expensive, more risky, require a special module. 

+1

Or as an easier fix just making the weight of additional torpedoes reflect the realities. And increase the reload time by a fair amount. 

That way people can still have a focus on torpedoes with their ships, it is just at the significant cost of other things that you want. 

Edited by Staire
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, madham82 said:

That's a great example. In comparison to a real ship, the Fubuki class you are very similar. It was about 1000 tons lighter, same speed, same guns, 3x3 24" torpedo mounts. But guess how many total torpedoes it had? 18. 108 vs 18 is a huge difference. The mounts alone are probably half that weight difference. Each 24" torpedo on Fubuki is almost 3 tons. So it could be doable from a weight perspective (figuring about 300 tons for 90 more torpedoes). So why did the Japanese not have more?...physical size. That seems to be the element the game is missing. They take up a lot of space, more than would be available on a ship that size. 

4 certainly is. I can't find a single DD with more than 2 per tube. 4 could be doable on larger ships, but as stated above we are missing the amount of space they take up. So it needs balancing for sure. The other real concern is reloading in combat. It just didn't happen. At least, we need reloading to be prohibitively more expensive, more risky, require a special module, or ideally make it only occur after battle (in the campaign). 

Leningrad could do 10 reloads with 2 quads, but reloads would of been slow due to physically handling said torps rather than any specialised loading equipment (strange how they cant load torps the same way they loaded guns).

But that would cause huge problems if said ship got hit where the torps were. Could be a special russian trait to have more torp reloads than the rest, but far longer and higher chances of ship going boom due to that.

Otherwise ye, lower torpedo reloads. Although dat does mean you'll have a harder time doing some other missions. 🙃

Edited by Cptbarney
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Leningrad could do 10 reloads with 2 quads, but reloads would of been slow due to physically handling said torps rather than any specialised loading equipment (strange how they cant load torps the same way they loaded guns).

But that would cause huge problems if said ship got hit where the torps were. Could be a special russian trait to have more torp reloads than the rest, but far longer and higher chances of ship going boom due to that.

Otherwise ye, lower torpedo reloads. Although dat does mean you'll have a harder time doing some other missions. 🙃

Think you made Hangar18's mistake as well. Reloads are viewed as for each tube, not the whole mount. Same principle as the gun mounts. You count shells not salvos in terms of storage. Found this on Leningrad:

"As built, the Leningrad-class ships mounted five 130-millimeter (5.1 in) B-13 guns in two pairs of superfiring single mounts fore and aft of the superstructure and another mount between the bridge and the forward funnel. The guns were protected by gun shields. Anti-aircraft defense was provided by a pair of 76.2-millimeter (3 in) 34-K AA guns in single mounts on the aft superstructure and a pair of 45-millimeter (1.8 in) 21-K AA guns mounted on either side of the bridge as well as four 12.7-millimeter (0.50 in) DK machine guns. They carried eight 533 mm (21.0 in) torpedo tubes in two rotating quadruple mounts; each tube was provided with a reload. The ships could also carry a maximum of either 68 or 115 mines and 52 depth charges. They were fitted with a set of Arktur hydrophones for anti-submarine detection.[3]"

 

Edited by madham82
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, madham82 said:

Think you made Hangar18's mistake as well. Reloads are viewed as for each tube, not the whole mount. Same principle as the gun mounts. You count shells not salvos in terms of storage. Found this on Leningrad:

"As built, the Leningrad-class ships mounted five 130-millimeter (5.1 in) B-13 guns in two pairs of superfiring single mounts fore and aft of the superstructure and another mount between the bridge and the forward funnel. The guns were protected by gun shields. Anti-aircraft defense was provided by a pair of 76.2-millimeter (3 in) 34-K AA guns in single mounts on the aft superstructure and a pair of 45-millimeter (1.8 in) 21-K AA guns mounted on either side of the bridge as well as four 12.7-millimeter (0.50 in) DK machine guns. They carried eight 533 mm (21.0 in) torpedo tubes in two rotating quadruple mounts; each tube was provided with a reload. The ships could also carry a maximum of either 68 or 115 mines and 52 depth charges. They were fitted with a set of Arktur hydrophones for anti-submarine detection.[3]"

 

Oh right, i read something somewhere, but it might of been the wording so i thought it was 10 reloads per mount rather than 1 additional for the 8 and another extra 2 reloads.

Is that still a thing for modern 'Destroyers'? (i put it in qoutations cus some of them are big bois).

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Will be addressed accordingly in hotfix, as well as some other things reported already by all of you.

No doubt. I'm quite confident in the teams ability seeing the final product of your other games. The core mechanics are all there and with the interplay of the campaign it'll be so much more that it's current state. Just comes down to finding that sweet sweet balance ever so elusive with so many moving parts. 

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

Oh right, i read something somewhere, but it might of been the wording so i thought it was 10 reloads per mount rather than 1 additional for the 8 and another extra 2 reloads.

Is that still a thing for modern 'Destroyers'? (i put it in qoutations cus some of them are big bois).

Yep an honest mistake. I had to check several different sources to be sure I had the use of the term "reload" correct.

I checked a modern US and Russian DD but didn't find the number carried. Typical armament today is a pair of triple tube launchers, mainly for ASW because of their short ranges in comparison to missiles. So I doubt they are carrying more than 1 or 2 reloads as well. Need to fire up CMANO or Harpoon to get a better idea. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

i assume that when you penetrate such a vital area you would cause major damage

This is partially handled in game sorta...when you pick citadel protection, its picking what protection a shell would face and the result. Naval engineers were aware that some things dont react to being shot at well, and had different way to protect ship vitals. Alaska for instance, you could penetrate the main belt, but the space behind that belt is not machinery. The space underwater below the belt is where the machinery is located. Steering gear is usually underwater in the stern, so that not behind the main belt either.

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

 

I removed any ship not a DD from the list since that is the issue. Cruisers and bigger ships frequently carried reloads since they had the space and crew to do so.

I think you have been reading reloads incorrectly (probably the 5am issue lol). When they mention 8 reloads, that's 8 torpedoes not 8 salvos. This was typical for their DDs to carry one reload per tube (Fubuki did too, but actually had 18 for it's 3 triple mounts). The two 1936 types, 2 reloads for each mount is not 8 torpedoes for each but 2 actual torpedoes. Z51 did carry 18 total for it's 6 tubes. So it had one and half salvos it could reload. Gnevny and Storozhevoy had only one reload for each tube (12 total on board). I couldn't find any confirmation that US DDs carried reloads. Not sure if the British did either. So they were not that common, and most certainly carrying more than a full reload was uncommon.

So what we see is that having more than 2 reloads for each tube just didn't happen. So the game's default of 3 is completely unrealistic. 3 should be the max and 0 the default. Remember these torpedoes are many feet long, up to 2 feet wide, weight well over 1000lbs, and we expect a tin can with barely enough room for it's crew to hold absurd amounts of these weapons? Oh then we throw in the cherry on top, reloading in combat. In principle, only the Japanese had this ability (because of how they designed their mounts and storage). In practice I have never read where it was done. Their doctrine called for the DD to withdraw to a distance to begin reloading. Only makes sense since you are moving a 1000lb exposed warhead on an exposed deck. So the reality is we are seriously out of whack with number of reloads and ability from the real world. To the point that a campaign launched today, it will be easily exploited by swarms of cheap, fast, heavily torpedo armed DDs murdering everything.  

They were specified as sets in the shiratsuyu case specified removing a "set" dues to gun weight. Grammatically that is a struggle. but if anyone here is rich AF and has friedman on hand...

from what i found the USN DDs chose to not carry any spare torps as a weight saving.

Edited by Hangar18
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

They were specified as sets in the shiratsuyu case specified removing a "set" dues to gun weight. Grammatically that is a struggle. but if anyone here is rich AF and has friedman on hand...

from what i found the USN DDs chose to not carry any spare torps as a weight saving.

I found this book in the search results. Probably violating a copyright, but it confirms they carried only 16 torpedoes total as well. The Wikipedia pages shows the same. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=fXyXCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=shiratsuyu+class+number+of+torpedoes&source=bl&ots=ucwbiecxEN&sig=ACfU3U3r7jOJp5SDVUvhIZVlQen7Avpgug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisgeu684bqAhWfQjABHcchAlAQ6AEwDHoECA4QAQ#v=onepage&q=shiratsuyu class number of torpedoes&f=false 

Yea there probably wasn't much justification for US DDs to carry many. Seems smaller navies favored it more often. By the end of the WW2 most US DDs were removing mounts to replace with AA due to lack of a real surface threat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If making reloads historical then their destructiveness has to be historical too, else reducing reloading on DDs and torpedo boats would make them useless, it’s their only weapon, no AA options, no anti submarine options, ineffective guns, the only thing left is smokescreens.  

Without enough torpedo reloads or destructive power why would you even build them, any current DD battle simulation with reduced torpedo ammo proves this already.

Campaign is where it would be truly known, if worth building or using up recourses/time to create a viable DD attacking force. I suspect a fair amount of rebalancing during campaign playthroughs anyway and probably rebalancing (reversal) on this one, that is if Dev's want us building DDs.  

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

If making reloads historical then their destructiveness has to be historical too

I know nobody is shocked that I'm lobbying for this, but that's exactly what I'm saying. 

28 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Without enough torpedo reloads or destructive power why would you even build them, any current DD battle simulation with reduced torpedo ammo proves this already.

This applies to guns and armour as well, as I posted a few pages ago. Better to go all-in on historicity so we can research the numbers like number of stored torpedoes, armour thickness, gun hit rates and so on.

 5761c6ef7d540.jpg

Reloading torpedoes by hand is slow, hard work. Just look at the size of the thing! 

I seem to remember torpedoes posing a large risk to the ships that carried them, and ships jettisoning torpedoes while afire to prevent them cooking off. Does anyone know where to start looking? I'll read The Grand Fleet and Nelson to Vanguard. Would Kaigun have damage reports of Japanese ships? 

i_124.jpg

I know these photos are not under combat conditions, but as posted above, that may indicate that without special equipment, reloading in combat was very rare indeed. I wouldn't want to stand exposed on deck man handling thousands of pounds of oxygen, fuel and explosives. 

fig008.jpg

Does anyone know if torpedoes were kept in an armoured magazine? Was there a hoist? 

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

If making reloads historical then their destructiveness has to be historical too, else reducing reloading on DDs and torpedo boats would make them useless, it’s their only weapon, no AA options, no anti submarine options, ineffective guns, the only thing left is smokescreens.  

Without enough torpedo reloads or destructive power why would you even build them, any current DD battle simulation with reduced torpedo ammo proves this already.

Campaign is where it would be truly known, if worth building or using up recourses/time to create a viable DD attacking force. I suspect a fair amount of rebalancing during campaign playthroughs anyway and probably rebalancing (reversal) on this one, that is if Dev's want us building DDs.  

Yep all for it. They have been adjusted several times, but recently I have not seen people complaining. Last issue I saw was the torpedoes were causing magazine detonations on capital ships with anti-torp V, which isn't realistic. Think that was patched as well. At the same time I have not seen ships with torpedoes getting their share of detonations to correspond with their destructive power, as Doug is asking about below.

38 minutes ago, DougToss said:

I know nobody is shocked that I'm lobbying for this, but that's exactly what I'm saying. 

This applies to guns and armour as well, as I posted a few pages ago. Better to go all-in on historicity so we can research the numbers like number of stored torpedoes, armour thickness, gun hit rates and so on.

 

Reloading torpedoes by hand is slow, hard work. Just look at the size of the thing! 

I seem to remember torpedoes posing a large risk to the ships that carried them, and ships jettisoning torpedoes while afire to prevent them cooking off. Does anyone know where to start looking? I'll read The Grand Fleet and Nelson to Vanguard. Would Kaigun have damage reports of Japanese ships? 

 

I know these photos are not under combat conditions, but as posted above, that may indicate that without special equipment, reloading in combat was very rare indeed. I wouldn't want to stand exposed on deck man handling thousands of pounds of oxygen, fuel and explosives. 

 

Does anyone know if torpedoes were kept in an armoured magazine? Was there a hoist? 

Good questions Doug. The Japanese are who you are thinking of with the Long Lance. Do not recall the specifics, but want to say several of their ships suffered crippling damage from the detonation of the torpedoes by aerial bombs. It may have been the oxygen equipment too. So they started dumping them when under air attack. I also believe their reloads were kept above deck (for fast reloading) under light armor (think splinter protection levels). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a large disparity between large cruiser hits on CAs and the other way around. Not sure how to fix, perhaps some accuracy buffs for higher marks of 12-14" guns since their effectiveness drops remarkably during the 1920s era as main guns due to the higher displacement vessels you're able to produce (Effectively allowing thick enough armour to have a large immune zone to those guns).

Edited by Maty83
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the 1920s, navies generally had moved to larger guns. It's the way of the world. Compare tank guns in 1939 and 45 to see that play out over a condensed time scale, or MBT guns go from 90mm in 1950 to the 120-125mm guns of today.

e: Whenever I think we're counting rivets too much over here, I look at the IL2:BOS foru😐

I'd love if we had that many engineers contributing over here, but I am a little relieved that we are not yet arguing about the specific resilience of different types of wooden spars. 

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We are already very bold. We provide a game with features never seen before and we strive for realism and historical accuracy. But we do not want players to have torpedo boats that accidentally fire their single torpedo and then quit the battle because it missed. We do not also want torpedo boats to be a minimal threat. Already reloads take a good amount of time to reload according to tubes and I remind that most games of the genre, have unlimited ammo... It is really a minor issue that can become optimized during the campaign development.

Last I checked the role of destroyers were to screen large capital ships not just hunt them down with tons of torpedoes. Very early on you can have torpedo boats and torpedo boat destroyers which do have different roles, one to kill capitals and the other to screen. But when those types merged to become destroyers they took on both roles on the same hull. So a destroyer using up it's precious single torpedo salvo doesn't make it useless. They just screen their parent fleet. And also torpedo boats were bloody bad for most of their existence. 

Removing reloads adds a very nice tactical layer to the game. You have to choose to go in and risk missing with that one salvo or wait for a better opportunity. As of right now I can just stand off and launch waves of torpedoes at ships. Launch, sit there and wait then launch again, sit there wait, launch again. It's unrealistic, arcadey, and a little stupid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jatzi said:

then launch again, sit there wait, launch again. It's unrealistic, arcadey, and a little stupid

The problem that is unfolding now, is with the exclusion of aircraft and subs the realistic theme is ‘compromised’.

Especially for DDs of which some of their roles were AA and sub hunting/screening.

Without “waves of torpedoes” the only role left is smokescreens, maybe scouting campaign-wise, any other role is simply not applicable under historical proposals.  

We can’t have a game without DDs, there has to be 'balance' now, that’s the only way to give DDs value, a role. The game has to live with the ‘compromise’ or else Dev’s will have to revaluate their release goals.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

The problem that is unfolding now, is with the exclusion of aircraft and subs the realistic theme is ‘compromised’.

Especially for DDs of which some of their roles were AA and sub hunting/screening.

Without “waves of torpedoes” the only role left is smokescreens, maybe scouting campaign-wise, any other role is simply not applicable under historical proposals.  

We can’t have a game without DDs, there has to be 'balance' now, that’s the only way to give DDs value, a role. The game has to live with the ‘compromise’ or else Dev’s will have to revaluate their release goals.

They can fight other DDs, do ASW and AA on campaign, etc. No reason to break the game just because one class of ship doesn't have a role yet. The solution is to implement features like ASW, AA, and AI turning away in prediction of your DDs' torpedoes (which is a good bluffing game that could allow you to escape), not to give DDs an artificial and unrealistic number of torpedoes.

I don't get this fixation on "balance." This isn't World of Warships.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Nick Thomadis locked, unlocked, locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...