Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, roachbeef said:

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

That's where I sit as well. 

Regarding the role, from the first day of destroyers to the present day, their job was to screen. A destroyer in 1905 was an effective and useful screen despite there being no such thing as AAA or ASW. Making the enemy think twice before committing to what may be their one chance to fire torpedoes is effective screening, and a valuable role.

Destroyers conducting this mission also fits in with my other main argument, secondary armaments were not nearly effective enough for capital ships to wholly, or even adequately, protect themselves.  

I don't see how providing smoke screens and screening the fleet is seen as not enough, that was the battle role of destroyers, beyond their auxiliary and fleet support roles as convoy escorts or in independent flotillas. 

Look at the role the DDs played in Jutland and the terrible cost they paid for an example of their stalwart service. That battle was not decided by waves of torpedoes, nor submarines or aircraft. 

It's like people have blinders on and only see 1935-45 and ignore the bulk of the time period covered by the game. 

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 7
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

47 minutes ago, DougToss said:

I don't see how providing smoke screens

Smoke screens have no effect on anything not IN them. You can fire THROUGH them to ships behind without penalty at all. Plus smoke screens ought not be of any use to the ship laying them UNLESS the wind direction plus the bearing to the enemy means the trailing smoke moves to obscure them. Travelling semi-cloaking devices? Please.

The vision system is also somewhat like WoWS with its "Borg sighting", where one ship can spot and everything else can engage even if they can't see the target directly according to their tower bonuses and the target's signature.

Two more things to put on the list.

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

The vision system is also somewhat like WoWS with its "Borg sighting", where one ship can spot and everything else can engage even if they can't see the target directly according to their tower bonuses and the target's signature.

Two more things to put on the list.

Yeah I've noticed that as well. It would be much better to have an individual basis for spotting and identification, with modifiers for damage and fear that makes complex maneuvers dangerous for both friend and foe. 

It was doctrinal for awhile that destroyers, after attacking the enemy battle line, would escape the area entirely because the battleships would have trouble identifying their own from the enemy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DougToss said:

That's where I sit as well. 

Making the enemy think twice before committing to what may be their one chance to fire torpedoes is effective screening, and a valuable role.

AI сan't think even once and you’re talking "twice". Reducing the number of reloads for destroyers in game (sic!) is a catastrophe recipe. And all due to the fact that someone does not distinguish the game from reality.

In reality, the destroyers were one shot weapon. And that was normal, because most of them had never even made that one single shot - never fired a torpedo at the enemy. In the game, the player expects the destroyer WILL do some damage on his opponent with torpedoes. Torpedoes that are fully controlled by AI. Torpedoes that need to be released in dozens to get into at least something. Do you know what chance the real Japanese fleet had with their best torpedoes in the world? 6.71% Do you really think 6-7 hits from 100 in game is OK?

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

Do you know what chance the real Japanese fleet had with their best torpedoes in the world? 6.71% Do you really think 6-7 hits from 100 in game is OK?

6-7 Long Lances is enough to sink as many cruisers/destroyers or on average 2-4 Capital Ships. 

100 fired is if we're still talking IJN, a single volley from two 6 ship squadrons of a DD group leader (CL) and 5 DD's

If that was my result I'd be overjoyed as the IJN admiral. 12 ships of 2 CL's and 10 DD's equates to about 35,000-40,000 tons of steel, or the same as a single Colorado. If those ships can get into range like that, fire, and sink that amount of warship every time they do then even if this happens only once a year those ships have paid for themselves 4 or 5 times over while making Juane Ecole very happy in his afterlife. 

It's easy to forget how many torpedoes were actually being carried around by ships at sea during the war, the number is in the tens of thousands at any given time, increasing as time went on, they were and are a lethal weapon system, far more so than guns ever were. and therefore need to be balanced as such. Spending every battle in game dodging torpedoes every 2-5 minutes from ships that don't have the room to carry them or the ability to reload them mid combat irl is tedious, frustrating and unrealistic. They *should* be powerful yes, and more accurate and harder to detect than they are now, just as was the case in real life, but they should also be just as limited as real life and have the same weaknesses (you hit torpedo! It cooks off! Enemy ship goes big boom!) to balance that out. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ agreed. the best balance for the realisticly high damage of torpedoes is the realistic logistics and risk of carriage. If i wanted to get pissed off at arcadey like game mechanics I'd play World of warships, WarThunder, or Wargame red dragon.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

Spending every battle in game dodging torpedoes every 2-5 minutes from ships that don't have the room to carry them or the ability to reload them mid combat irl is tedious, frustrating and unrealistic. 

Why didn’t you write first that you just hate torpedoes? This is the answer to all my questions.

4 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

If that was my result I'd be overjoyed as the IJN admiral.

And no, IJN admiral were not "overjoyed". This 6,71% hits was one of the reasons why the Japanese lost war.

...The night attack force was to launch an intricately coordinated long-range salvo of 130 torpedoes from 11 different groups using half their ready torpedoes. This salvo was designed to converge upon and hit 10 American capital ships with 20 weapons (a rate of ~15%)...

 

...IJN hit 30 enemy ships with 44 Type 93, 1 Type 8 and 2 Type 6 torpedoes in these battles, sinking 18. The average hit rate was 6.71%, far below the required 15%...

...To answer the question posed by this article; the IJN did not achieve the necessary hit rate or efficiency in action to make the Decisive Battle strategy a success, had that course been pursued. Even the world's best surface torpedomen were not good enough to bring the Decisive Battle to fruition for the IJN. All they could do was make it costly, and die fighting.

4 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

It's easy to forget how many torpedoes were actually being carried around by ships at sea during the war, the number is in the tens of thousands at any given time, increasing as time went on

There were no "tens of thousands at any given time, increasing as time went on". You are mistaken 10 times . 

Torpedo_production_US_WWII.jpg

4 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

...they were and are a lethal weapon system, far more so than guns ever were...

And this is why most battleships in ww1 was lost by from artillery fire and  in ww2 from air strikes. But whatever.

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

And all due to the fact that someone does not distinguish the game from reality.

Strikes me as somewhat uncalled for in personal tone.

It's not "someone", either. I suspect it's a good number of people, myself included.

Just because some people would prefer a game to be a certain distance from reality and another a shorter or greater distance doesn't mean any of them are "not distinguishing the game from reality", merely that they would like the game to settle on a different point along the "as realistic as possible to clown-car arcade" spectrum.

Arguing over where we ought to land ultimately is all well and good, of course.

Cheers

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

AI сan't think even once and you’re talking "twice". Reducing the number of reloads for destroyers in game (sic!) is a catastrophe recipe. And all due to the fact that someone does not distinguish the game from reality.

No what is a catastrophe is to build a game around Dreadnought era combat in a campaign, but give absolutely no reason to build such ships because torpedo arsenal DDs carrying 100+ torpedoes are many times more effective than any other ship. Can you really justify that for a game?  Hell WoWS at least balances it with reloads times that ensure their DDs only get off a couple of salvos in a 20 min match (they also can actually be hit by anyone with decent aim too). Battles in this game last an hour or more. That means means that DD carrying 100 torpedoes has enough time to launch them all. How is that remotely balanced versus gun accuracy? (which many argue is too high and uses realistic reload/shell storage numbers)  So not only are we not "realistic or historical", we are poorly balanced in any game sense. 

I'd be willing accept larger number of torpedoes, with more cost/explosion risk associated to reloads, but that means torpedo damage would need to be reduced some to lower their damage potential. But then we start getting farther and farther from reality and tactics/designs/technology become completely different from the time period. 

We'd also need to get rid of the speed penalty and balance it with maneuvering/ship size to force DDs to launch at the ranges they would, not be able to charge into formations at 45+kts and be near untouchable. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, madham82 said:

torpedo arsenal DDs carrying 100+ torpedoes are many times more effective than any other ship...Battles in this game last an hour or more. That means means that DD carrying 100 torpedoes has enough time to launch them all...torpedo damage would need to be reduced some to lower their damage potential. B

We'd also need to get rid of the speed penalty and balance it with maneuvering/ship size to force DDs to launch at the ranges they would, not be able to charge into formations at 45+kts and be near untouchable. 

I understand that you hate the torpedoes and their carriers. But if you had ever tried a mission like

Arwz9v1.jpg

you would know that the destroyer gameplay is not a piece of cake. Largely due to the lack of player control over the aiming of torpedoes and bugs. When launched, torpedoes can disappear, or explode your own ship. AI doesn’t shoot them at the right moment and shoots at the wrong time. All this is terribly annoying. If you have spare torpedoes, you can try again. If not ... No one will play them.

And  I don’t understand why the destroyer 45+kts is worse or better than a cruiser 45+kts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Koogus said:

Any plans to update/improve the ship builder anytime soon?

I hope so, besides the campaign some other garring issues (gunnery, precision, zombie hulls/ships, bulkheads), we could do with more hulls, towers, turret types, etc and even barbette types as well (unless they were pretty much universal in terms of looks).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I hope so, besides the campaign some other garring issues (gunnery, precision, zombie hulls/ships, bulkheads), we could do with more hulls, towers, turret types, etc and even barbette types as well (unless they were pretty much universal in terms of looks).

Would also love some tools for the ship builder like a offset and a rotate tool (this would help you precisely place things where you want).

Also things like towers and barbettes should be a lot less restrictive on their placement too. (I probably sound like a broken record saying that but this is probably the biggest thing I want to see be changed)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Koogus said:

Would also love some tools for the ship builder like a offset and a rotate tool (this would help you precisely place things where you want).

Also things like towers and barbettes should be a lot less restrictive on their placement too. (I probably sound like a broken record saying that but this is probably the biggest thing I want to see be changed)

Yeah and tools to extend the length and width of hulls and maybe even towers, turrets, barrels etc. would be cool. I think @HusariuS Made a really cool idea of having a giant line on the hull instead of the placement points we have now, which would give us a lot more freedom, plus having the towers split into 2's maybe 3's would be cool and when you select a tower you can choose from say like 3 different ones for aesthetic reasons.

shame the modular builder isn't a thing looked really cool as well.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Yeah and tools to extend the length and width of hulls and maybe even towers, turrets, barrels etc. would be cool. I think @HusariuS Made a really cool idea of having a giant line on the hull instead of the placement points we have now, which would give us a lot more freedom, plus having the towers split into 2's maybe 3's would be cool and when you select a tower you can choose from say like 3 different ones for aesthetic reasons.

shame the modular builder isn't a thing looked really cool as well.

At least two people (including me) proposed idea of using "Line" system instead of "placement points", there was also one guy that enhanced "placement points" by adding more than we have currently (basically, it was Line but with Points.).

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HusariuS said:

At least two people (including me) proposed idea of using "Line" system instead of "placement points", there was also one guy that enhanced "placement points" by adding more than we have currently (basically, it was Line but with Points.).

I can't remember the other person, but the line version sounds better too be honest, means you can slide the components up and down with far greater precision, good for dem odd designs too.

Are we going to start the predictions for the campaign? lol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

6.71% Do you really think 6-7 hits from 100 in game is OK?

Yes, it is what drove real tactics and technology of the time, but:

  • They should not be so easy to spot.
  • They should not be so easy to store in huge numbers and reload.
  • The threat of torpedoes shaped battles more than known torpedoes themselves.
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I can't remember the other person, but the line version sounds better too be honest, means you can slide the components up and down with far greater precision, good for dem odd designs too.

Are we going to start the predictions for the campaign? lol.

Alpha 10

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

I understand that you hate the torpedoes and their carriers. But if you had ever tried a mission like

you would know that the destroyer gameplay is not a piece of cake. Largely due to the lack of player control over the aiming of torpedoes and bugs. When launched, torpedoes can disappear, or explode your own ship. AI doesn’t shoot them at the right moment and shoots at the wrong time. All this is terribly annoying. If you have spare torpedoes, you can try again. If not ... No one will play them.

And  I don’t understand why the destroyer 45+kts is worse or better than a cruiser 45+kts.

You keep saying people "hate" things. Do you hate BBs, BCs, CAs, and CLs? Do you hate guns? Did I saying anything about CVs? How about dropping a pointless statement that has no bearing on the discussion.

So your justification is because a mission is unbalanced/unrealistic, you should have unbalanced/unrealistic numbers of torpedoes?  How about fixing the game first (and all those bugs you just described, which I agree are big issues too), then balance the mission. The campaign is going to be the core piece and what gets all the replay in this game, not these missions. You can't balance the game to fit these tightly scripted missions, then leave the open-ended campaign unbalanced. Many have argued, the missions should not teach tactics and design that will be completely out of sync with the campaign. There has to be a balance between the two. I mentioned before I am open to finding a middle ground between realism and fun, but we are severely skewed on how torpedoes are implemented (we haven't even discussed duds either). I personally am happy to wait to see what changes Nick and team come up with. He definitely seems to understand both sides of the issue. 

Cost is the reason. It will be far easier to build swarms of fast DDs with lots of torpedoes than cruisers, but they do both have the same core problems. Far too many torpedoes at the 3 different storage options, questionable ability to reload in combat (both in cost and risk), and speed penalties that make high speed ships untouchable even at close ranges.   

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love torpodoes.

But not the way they are implemented in the game.

In capability and risk/reward they need to be much closer to how they were in real life. As ships don't react too smart in this game on their own, big battles become unplayable if you have to order all those ships to manually evade.

Basically, I agree with what most people said before me.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Donluca95 said:

My prediction will be alpha 15 or 16 not early, this devs required lot of time.

You seem to be a new name around here...

 Basically from what I've gathered campaign will be extremely soon, in case you weren't here b4, this most recent update was pretty disappointing and tbh could be hardly called an update as it's closer to hotfix material, or just "under the hood" devwork that gets some really long list somewhere of all the changes that hardly anyone reads. (and yes I do get that this work is equally important as new hulls, its just usually balance is not worthy of being called a whole new alpha or would be qualified as alpha 6.1 rather than a whole new alpha)

Reasons for this are many, a dev got sick, campaign wasn't quite up to par, and most glaringly combat balances were all outta wack. So I personally am putting a campaign date for next alpha as the way it sounded it didnt seem like they have far to go. Remember that alpha's are ment to test, not full release so they probably want to have campaign out for testing.

I personally am not going to play until campaign as I find custom battles in any game to be unfun since there are no real consequences, same goes for naval academy. 

Edited by BobRoss0902
  • Like 1
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...