>>>Alpha-7 Feedback<<<

[DougToss]

14 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

Why didn’t you write first that you just hate torpedoes?

I'm sorry but how is this the response to "I want torpedoes to be implemented well"?  If anything, attention to detail and a serious treatment of the subject comes from a place of affection, right? 

Others have responded to this better than I have, but how many warships were lost from surface torpedoes compared to naval gunfire during this game's period? Break it down into the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War, and The Second World War, the ratio doesn't change much. 

The threat of torpedoes was a huge force shaping naval thought, technology, doctrine and tactics. The combat effectiveness of torpedoes was never as decisive as heralded. 

This isn't so different from the 1960s where everybody thought missiles had made aircraft, tube artillery and MBTs obsolete. Yes, missiles are a major force on today's battlefields, but not even close to what was imagined at the time. 

[TAKTCOM]

9 hours ago, madham82 said:

You keep saying people "hate" things.

3 hours ago, DougToss said:

I'm sorry but how is this the response to "I want torpedoes to be implemented well"? 

You point: reducing torpedoes ammunition will make the game better

My point: TB&DD gameplay is already difficult and this changes will make it unplayable.

I see no reason to continue the discussion. Let the developers release new patch and we'll see what happens next.

I apologize if I was rude, my patience sometimes fails me. This seems to be one of these cases.

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT

[Steeltrap]

3 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

You point: reducing torpedoes ammunition will make the game better

My point: TB&DD gameplay is already difficult and this changes will make it unplayable.

I see no reason to continue the discussion. Let the developers release new patch and we'll see what happens next.

I apologize if I was rude, my patience sometimes fails me. This seems to be one of these cases.

 

Here's how I see it.

Any game is sort of like telling a story. Players are like the audience.

If your story is largely fiction and clearly marked as such, the only factor is whether players like the story.

If your story is claiming to relate "realistically" (with all the inevitable caveats of that term, lol) the story is more akin to giving evidence in a trial where the players are the jury. Suddenly the question of how believable the story is becomes rather important if you want to "convince" the jury you've giving good evidence.

Testers are something like the police or your legal counsel. Each design choice and element becomes a point of fact.

Every time you choose to bend the truth, it's more or less lying. Sure, it could be "a white lie", one designed to produce an effect considered kind or concerning a matter deemed unimportant or irrelevant. It's still a lie.

The more lies you tell, the harder it is to keep track of them. With enough lies, or potentially even only a few about matters that AREN'T trivial, your entire story might fall apart and the jury doesn't buy it.

That's why I'm of the view the best policy is NOT to lie at all. If reality is a known, stick to it.

OK, I realise the parallel is anything but perfect, but I hope it explains my own attitude to such things.

I DO agree it's entirely reasonable to stretch/bend/shape "the truth" so as to make the story more appealing. Devs don't want to sell to 12 people forced to be in a room listening, lol.

MY point is do the bending/shaping from a point of accuracy as opposed to building a system predicated on "lies".

It worries me considerably there's a chasing of our opinions on how xyz "feels" when there are clearly rather significant "lies" that won't cut it if your goal is to put "realism" as a major distinguishing characteristic.

Furthermore, many of these "lies" have been pointed out in considerable detail for 4-6 months or more. Bulkheads, nonsensical gunnery adjustment factors, etc etc. We point them out, then get "flash fires" instead almost as though intended to distract us with shiny things.

When it comes to torpedoes specifically, there's no mystery as to what "the truth" is when it comes to carrying reloads etc. START with that. As you've said, and indeed we've all discussed here and there, torpedoes are another rather complicated story because they require consideration of how many hits are scored which then flows to how the AI aims and fires them AND avoids them, and if they DO hit that leads to the damage model and damage control. I entirely agree with you on those issues, where "forcing reality" in only ONE aspect can lead to perverse consequences. All the more reason to build as much reality as you can everywhere as I see it.

Again, my approach is to build whatever "truths" are known BEFORE looking at the full picture. Each element ought to be designed in and of itself to be as "truthful" as possible. Done perfectly (yes, LOL, I know) you'd need remarkably little "bending" to have a result worthy of the claim "realistic".

When you DON'T get perfection, which I trust nobody sensible expects, at least you've got pretty solid core elements from which to look to nudge/shape results.

Chasing the results before the basics are solid is, in my opinion and own professional experience, a waste of time, resources and frequently dangerous with respect to long term success. Fooling around with gunnery characteristics in specific cases, such as secondary guns, is a great illustration of this as I see it. How about addressing the basic truth that 10.2 knots of straight line speed causing a -2.2% hit chance while 28.5 knots causes -69.4% (I started capturing these the other day), which is to say a less than tripling of speed results in a greater than 30 TIMES increase in penalty, is, well, do I need to say it?

That's probably more than enough from me.

Personally, I'm likely to take a break because I've reached the point where the serious "lies" as I see them make any other consideration utterly unimportant to me. Sure, I could continue to capture details on the speed penalties and produce a nice graph, same for "manoeuvre" penalties, but what's the point when first of all the devs could simply give us that info if they truly wanted our input on the gunnery model, plus we've been saying this sort of stuff for quite some time?

Not that I am expecting them to, or demanding they do, or anything else silly like that.

I'm simply indicating my feeling is it's a waste of time and effort for ME to tell them things they already know and in the absence of any indication doing so is in fact of any value.

But that's just me.

Cheers

[Christoffer]

One small issue  i dont know if it should count as feedback or sugestion so i will dropp it here.

After a scenario is won/lost.  can we get a screen with the results.   

Stuff like list of ships with the posibility to look at each of them and se what happend. (damage taken/given ect)
And of course the ability so save this info localy.
this would realy help you when working on harder missions or playing around with different designs.

[SturmGewehr]

4 hours ago, Christoffer said:

One small issue  i dont know if it should count as feedback or sugestion so i will dropp it here.

After a scenario is won/lost.  can we get a screen with the results.   

Stuff like list of ships with the posibility to look at each of them and se what happend. (damage taken/given ect)
And of course the ability so save this info localy.
this would realy help you when working on harder missions or playing around with different designs.

At the end of the scenario, the game should just pause, allowing you to review the logs.

At the same time, battles should also begin paused. This would prevent a few dozen torpedoes launching at the very start, at long range and little chance to hit. And it would give the player a chance to turn off torpedoes first.

[DougToss]

Adding on what @Steeltrap said, each one of these lies makes it harder and harder to test as we drift away from any point of reference, while still not being done.

I've posted about this in a previous alpha, but I've decided to just repost it here since the situation is largely unchanged.

Were I to speculate, I would guess that the Devs are taking feedback from here - which is great - but are acting reactively - which is not. What I mean is, rather than trying to change each system to achieve the desired result when things go wrong, take the time required to get each system perfectly right. The balance between firepower-mobility-protection  will only be right when each leg of the tripod is fully developed. It's changing the input to get the right output, without looking at the other things at play.

    An undercooked protection system means that constantly shifting gunnery to achieve what appears to be a balanced result leaves you with deadly 2in shells in the last update, or secondary guns that hit harder and more often than they should. Unsinkable DDs and Torpedo Boats are not the result of firepower being "unbalanced" or "too weak/inaccurate/not useful etc." but are the result of protection, survivability, damage and sinking mechanics being out of whack. Some of that feedback is player perception not being grounded in knowledge of the subject in reality, but a large part of it is legitimate. The problem is trying to achieve realistic outcomes still leaves you using ridiculous inputs -  that we know are ridiculous because we can compare them to the real ones - because it is the only way to get the output that fits anything approximating the real results. 

   Even if there was a perfect ballistics system,  (input) the only way to achieve what would look like realistic results (output) would be to keep working on the other systems. Perfectly simulated, lovingly detailed 6in shells are not going to achieve anywhere near the expect result if ships don't sink, or conversely are too fragile. The temptation to "balance" the ballistics system, to deviate from what we know to be the historical inputs that informed warship design, tactics etc, etc only complicates everything else because now you have to design an armour system to cope with over-performing shells. 

    A good system will, when finished, take the real input and deliver the expected result. All of these parts are interconnected so I wouldn't expect to see the expected result for a while, but don't make things harder for yourself down the line by jigging the numbers now. For example, making guns more accurate and powerful now is only going to hurt you down the line when protection and survivability are more fleshed out. 

To reiterate, the problem right now:

On 2/7/2020 at 4:55 PM, Cptbarney said:

With new changes to guns effectiveness, some (previously passed) missions became unbeatable (or nearly so), because killing enemies takes too long.

    Will not be corrected simply by making guns kill enemies faster (by being more damaging, more penetrating more accurate, etc.). That's throwing all of the data you have on ballistics out the window for a quick fix. When ships have flooding, can capsize, have crews and so on, you will blow everything out of the water with 4in guns because you changed gunnery to correct the problem now. 

   I think a large part of the problem is that by having early access you can't take the time to get each component right with the goal of everything working as intended only when that is finished, because it won't be usable in the interim. Moreover, you have to divide your efforts constantly and can't focus on any one direction. 

    Think of it as designing a stool. You know roughly how it should look because you have patterned it after an existing stool. Determining how long to make the legs is hard and if you get the measurements wrong, it will not have the same dimensions as the stool you want to recreate. If you cut improperly, your stool will be wobbly and that's also no good. The important thing is to measure, cut and join to all three legs perfectly. If you are wrong in either the design or the execution not only would it not look like that stool you love, it would not be enjoyable to sit on.

     Luckily, you have some of the measurements used to make that other stool. You know how long each of the legs that made the stool were, but you still have to measure and cut them very carefully. It's also up to you to figure out how to join the legs and the seat together all by yourself.  If the legs aren't joined properly it will feel wobbly even if they are the right length. Since the joinery is so difficult, there's the temptation to simply cut the legs to make it balance. Not only would you be altering the length of each leg, but the dimensions of the whole stool would be askew. It would seem balanced, but with some legs short and others long it wouldn't look like the one you wanted to make.  

    You know that the longer you take to measure, and the more carefully you cut the closer the stool will be to the one you want.  How the legs fit together is tricky, and while you have the exact measurements of how long each leg should be, and know that the result is a beautiful stool, it takes a lot of work to get the legs right. In fact, it may be a while before all three legs are finished. When the stool wobbles you need to test it again, altering the joint but not the legs. When they are though, you know it will be a really good stool and people will enjoy sitting on it. 

 

 

[Skeksis]

Premise.

All ships are visible (eyeball) to the horizon, about 20-25 kyds, but in-game ship visibility is set by the distance to each other, and at a much reduced distance. Also target visibility is based on the target and not on the highest point of the observer.

Experiment.

I’ve done some custom battles, 10% Jutland – designed DD, results were mostly a battle of torpedo’s, why?

Conclusion.

Well both AIs closed to within torpedo firing range, ALL SHIPS, BBs included and that's why they started to sink from torpedo damage.

So is it a torpedo problem? No I don’t think so, it wasn't the fault of 'waves of torpedo’s', I think it’s the AI that’s based on a standard gaming visibility system. 

The visibility system caused all ships to pop in and out of visibility and therefore they close in on each other. Torpedo attacks could not be targeted and destroyed soon enough. Whereas in RL this didn’t happen (much!), the battle line would veer away or the torpedo attack would be destroyed, all ships were visible inside the horizon so thus was the threat or lack of.     

AI doesn’t allow for dreadnought battles because it doesn't have eyeballs on all the targets, screen visible targets. AI doesn't make a decision to veer away or destroy a 'torpedo attacking force', only on torpedo's that are already in the water and by then it's too late. This is the area that needs attention (but this type of AI is probably very hard to implement).        

Edited June 19, 2020 by Skeksis

[Mutsu]

Dreadnought I hull needs some work, can't mount any large caliber guns on the wing turret spots.

[Cptbarney]

7 minutes ago, Mutsu said:

Dreadnought I hull needs some work, can't mount any large caliber guns on the wing turret spots.

Yeah wing turrets seem to be. Bit buggered atm.

[Joryl]

ok, so I have been getting insanely low hit % even at point blank range since the last update  

[madham82]

23 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Premise.

All ships are visible (eyeball) to the horizon, about 20-25 kyds, but in-game ship visibility is set by the distance to each other, and at a much reduced distance. Also target visibility is based on the target and not on the highest point of the observer.

Experiment.

I’ve done some custom battles, 10% Jutland – designed DD, results were mostly a battle of torpedo’s, why?

Conclusion.

Well both AIs closed to within torpedo firing range, ALL SHIPS, BBs included and that's why they started to sink from torpedo damage.

So is it a torpedo problem? No I don’t think so, it wasn't the fault of 'waves of torpedo’s', I think it’s the AI that’s based on a standard gaming visibility system. 

The visibility system caused all ships to pop in and out of visibility and therefore they close in on each other. Torpedo attacks could not be targeted and destroyed soon enough. Whereas in RL this didn’t happen (much!), the battle line would veer away or the torpedo attack would be destroyed, all ships were visible inside the horizon so thus was the threat or lack of.     

AI doesn’t allow for dreadnought battles because it doesn't have eyeballs on all the targets, screen visible targets. AI doesn't make a decision to veer away or destroy a 'torpedo attacking force', only on torpedo's that are already in the water and by then it's too late. This is the area that needs attention (but this type of AI is probably very hard to implement).        

Visibility definitely has some issues, but I don't think it is as simple as you suggest either. Take a read of my thread here and see what you think. The point of AI logic I agree, of course right now players are having to manually manage evading torpedoes as well. So both sides are being handicapped, just in different ways. 

 

[Skeksis]

12 hours ago, madham82 said:

Visibility definitely has some issues, but I don't think it is as simple as you suggest either. Take a read of my thread here and see what you think. The point of AI logic I agree, of course right now players are having to manually manage evading torpedoes as well. So both sides are being handicapped, just in different ways. 

My posts was more about defining roles for Destroyers and maintaining at least one role, 'torpedo attacks'. And based on a single role, how destroyers could be viable within a fleet of superior ships, CL etc, campaign-wise. And (something else) having them included by reason that's not cost driven, well not only.

In the next update Nick has limited torpedo's to 1-2 (low tech) torpedo salvo's per battle, increased reload time and on top of that, "reduced dispersion of shells", making them very weak as part of a fleet, or more to the point, making the reason to have them part of a fleet very weak. But again no campaign to be sure.  

We'll have to wait until after the update, maybe even until the campaign is out.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Skeksis

[madham82]

9 hours ago, Skeksis said:

My posts was more about defining roles for Destroyers and maintaining at least one role, 'torpedo attacks'. And based on a single role, how destroyers could be viable within a fleet of superior ships, CL etc, campaign-wise. And (something else) having them included by reason that's not cost driven, well not only.

In the next update Nick has limited torpedo's to 1-2 (low tech) torpedo salvo's per battle, increased reload time and on top of that, "reduced dispersion of shells", making them very weak as part of a fleet, or more to the point, making the reason to have them part of a fleet very weak. But again no campaign to be sure.  

We'll have to wait until after the update, maybe even until the campaign is out.

I follow you. Historically they were conceived to protect the fleet from the cheap, disposable TB. By WW2, there were 3 principle roles that apply to the game:

1. Guard against other DDs and TBs.
2. Scouting and flank protection (though we probably need some changes to visibility as mentioned)
3. ASW (campaign only)

You could consider a fourth, torpedo attack as the Japanese did. As far as I know, they were the only ones to really embrace and attempt to employ this doctrine as a primary role. This is the reason behind the Long Lance, the large numbers of turrented, slightly armored launchers, and a practical reload ability in combat. This strategy focused on night attacks to maximise the effectiveness of concentrated torpedo attacks on a fleet.  As someone mentioned earlier though, they never saw the hit rates to claim it successful. Point is this should be something a player could choose to do, but it should require cost to pursue it like it did for the Japanese. 

As for the upcoming changes, it won't affect my design of an arsenal DD or reduce its effectiveness significantly. The changes to dispersion I will be sure to test again, but the speed penalty is what really makes the whole concept work so well. 

It just seems like people want DDs to be more significant than they were during this whole time span. They focused mainly on support and escort duties, not offensive punch. You make one ship more effective, suddenly another is now obsolete. We have to find the happy medium. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by madham82

[roachbeef]

4 hours ago, madham82 said:

It just seems like people want DDs to be more significant than they were during this whole time span.

I want my hospital ships and ASW trawlers to be able to walk up to a DD and blow it up with their AA .303 Lewis guns. If a ship can't reliably sink the enemy, they obviously don't have any business being built and the game is imbalanced 🤣

Like @Skeksis mentioned, there's no point in bemoaning the lack of role for a DD until we see how they fare on the campaign map.

[Hangar18]

On 6/18/2020 at 12:58 AM, TAKTCOM said:

My point: TB&DD gameplay is already difficult and this changes will make it unplayable.

It will make the game accurate.

besides DDs have never been easier with the speed penalty. I wouldnt doubt it if i could 1v2 a battleship in one right now.

[HusariuS]

The most beautiful ship designed by AI I have ever seen in this game:

 

@Nick Thomadis In mission Wounded Beast, could you change those two Battlecruisers from two separate designs into a single one? Usually, it's one BC having top speed of 27,5 knots while the other one top speed is at 32 knots, it would be much better if they would have the same speed.

[Maty83]

I'd like to note a couple things: Gun barrels should count only to 50% lenght for firing restriction. As of now, you can easily increase most firing angles by rotating turrets in weird and wonderful rotations, thus by far increading what you can do. Honestly? If we could get the turrets to elevate over each other at long range too (Worcester-style), it would help with some of the later designs since you are restricted with barbette placement.

Secondly, same-caliber weapons should get the same accuracy measurement if they have different barrel counts, even if the reload is different. This would help with certain designs where you use more than one turret type of said caliber (E.G. Conte di Cavour-style, or being able to fit only single 3" guns in certain spots while in others you can use twins and triples elsewhere)

Lastly, on the subject of different hulls I'd like to see CLs be able to take up to 8" guns (Pensacola was classed as a CL for a time due to the armour she had). This would mean larger CLs could effectively engage the usually heavily-armored CAs in later-era battles with things other than torpedoes (Which are the only realistic way of whittling down AI designs with 10" belts and only 8/9" guns). Additionally, have you thought of separating the "Large cruiser" into its own category? While their role is still engaging cruiser screens, there were no designs for CCs with guns greater than 14" (B65, Alaska, Stalingrad all had theirs with 12" guns, plus one design of the B-65 called for their rearmament with Kongo's guns)

Edited June 22, 2020 by Maty83

[Maty83]

On 6/20/2020 at 5:05 PM, madham82 said:

You could consider a fourth, torpedo attack as the Japanese did. As far as I know, they were the only ones to really embrace and attempt to employ this doctrine as a primary role. This is the reason behind the Long Lance, the large numbers of turrented, slightly armored launchers, and a practical reload ability in combat. This strategy focused on night attacks to maximise the effectiveness of concentrated torpedo attacks on a fleet.  As someone mentioned earlier though, they never saw the hit rates to claim it successful. Point is this should be something a player could choose to do, but it should require cost to pursue it like it did for the Japanese. 

DDs should be able to stall larger vessels and pose significant risk to them. There are examples of this. (Sinking of Glorious, the Battle of Samar). They are the reason BBs retained a fairly heavy secondary battery during WWI since a concentrated torpedo assault would have devastating consequences for BBs. I believe we should be able to designate how many torpedoes to carry manually to improve the experience (Up to 3 reloads potentially)

[Cptbarney]

5 minutes ago, Maty83 said:

I'd like to note a couple things: Gun barrels should count only to 50% lenght for firing restriction. As of now, you can easily increase most firing angles by rotating turrets in weird and wonderful rotations, thus by far increading what you can do. Honestly? If we could get the turrets to elevate over each other at long range too (Worcester-style), it would help with some of the later designs since you are restricted with barbette placement.

Any additions to the designer is great, wish we had miss worcester doe.

5 minutes ago, Maty83 said:

Secondly, same-caliber weapons should get the same accuracy measurement if they have different barrel counts, even if the reload is different. This would help with certain designs where you use more than one turret type of said caliber (E.G. Conte di Cavour-style, or being able to fit only single 3" guns in certain spots while in others you can use twins and triples elsewhere)

I guess that makes sense, i think the devs were going down the road of not making everyone choose triples or quads or whatever the max barrels would be. would allow for some interesting designs.

5 minutes ago, Maty83 said:

Lastly, on the subject of different hulls I'd like to see CLs be able to take up to 8" guns (Pensacola was classed as a CL for a time due to the armour she had). This would mean larger CLs could effectively engage the usually heavily-armored CAs in later-era battles with things other than torpedoes (Which are the only realistic way of whittling down AI designs with 10" belts and only 8/9" guns). Additionally, have you thought of separating the "Large cruiser" into its own category? While their role is still engaging cruiser screens, there were no designs for CCs with guns greater than 14" (B65, Alaska, Stalingrad all had theirs with 12" guns, plus one design of the B-65 called for their rearmament with Kongo's guns)

Only at first, they re-designated as heavies due to their gun caliber after 1931, the biggest guns any light cruiser should get is up to 182mm's (some russians had around this caliber for their lights), while the lowest for heavies should be around 190 or 200mm's and max 260mm's-280mm's. Although they could add an option to allow for heavy guns on a light cruiser hull, i don't think they will add that (should be allowed in custom battles however).

Supercruisers need their own designation and class (idk have the abbreviation SC or something). I agree with them having a max caliber of up to 356mm's to prevent them having Battlecruiser caliber guns (assuming cruiser like armour and speeds still). It allows for easier identification as well.

We also need odd calibers as well and different barrel lengths plus gun barrel space (so close together, far apart, somewhere in between), and different turret designs especially for higher and lower calibers.

The campaign patch must be bloody huge if its going to take 5-6months to do.

 

[madham82]

1 hour ago, Maty83 said:

DDs should be able to stall larger vessels and pose significant risk to them. There are examples of this. (Sinking of Glorious, the Battle of Samar). They are the reason BBs retained a fairly heavy secondary battery during WWI since a concentrated torpedo assault would have devastating consequences for BBs. I believe we should be able to designate how many torpedoes to carry manually to improve the experience (Up to 3 reloads potentially)

Who said they don't? Bottom line is a BB has to maintain it's distance from any torpedo carrying ship or it is under risk (except apparently if you have anti-torp IV or better, then you are practically unsinkable). The problem is the designer does not take into account the storage requirements of torpedoes. So you can end up with a 3K ton DD carrying more reloads than a 9K ton submarine tender. It should be costly and risky to have reloads, more than just having the tubes on the deck at least. We could also use some indication of where are spreads are going. Would make them more useful for stalling and forcing the enemy to turn back like you mentioned. 

[TAKTCOM]

On 6/20/2020 at 6:05 PM, madham82 said:

I follow you. Historically they were conceived to protect the fleet from the cheap, disposable TB. By WW2, there were 3 principle roles that apply to the game:

1. Guard against other DDs and TBs.
2. Scouting and flank protection (though we probably need some changes to visibility as mentioned)
3. ASW (campaign only)

You could consider a fourth, torpedo attack as the Japanese did. As far as I know, they were the only ones to really embrace and attempt to employ this doctrine as a primary role

Soviet Leningrad-class, UK S/T-class and nazi type 1936A have 8x533mm torpedo tubes, french Mogador and famous Fletchers have even more - 10  tubes at each. So no, the idea of using torpedoes as the main weapon for destroyers was not exclusive to Japan. And yes, there is nothing bad in torpedo attack.

2 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Only at first, they re-designated as heavies due to their gun caliber after 1931, the biggest guns any light cruiser should get is up to 182mm's (some russians had around this caliber for their lights), while the lowest for heavies should be around 190 or 200mm's and max 260mm's-280mm's...

In my opinion, 178 mm and 180 mm is not a big difference. What upsets me more is the inability to do something like Furutaka. Displacement less then 10k and 8'' guns just don't fit in relevant shipbuilder.

[Cptbarney]

56 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:

Soviet Leningrad-class, UK S/T-class and nazi type 1936A have 8x533mm torpedo tubes, french Mogador and famous Fletchers have even more - 10  tubes at each. So no, the idea of using torpedoes as the main weapon for destroyers was not exclusive to Japan. And yes, there is nothing bad in torpedo attack.

In my opinion, 178 mm and 180 mm is not a big difference. What upsets me more is the inability to do something like Furutaka. Displacement less then 10k and 8'' guns just don't fit in relevant shipbuilder.

Well lets hope we get moar hulls and turrets to play around with.

[DougToss]

On 6/20/2020 at 11:05 AM, madham82 said:

It just seems like people want DDs to be more significant than they were during this whole time span. They focused mainly on support and escort duties, not offensive punch. You make one ship more effective, suddenly another is now obsolete. We have to find the happy medium. 

This board is rife with popular misconceptions plus confusing World of Warships for reality. 

I don't care about how things feel or balance. Let's just get it right. The historical sources are out there. As you learn more, your feeling and understanding of how things balance out will adjust. 

The only way to match historical results is with historical inputs and that means stamping out misconceptions. 

Edited June 22, 2020 by DougToss

[madham82]

1 hour ago, TAKTCOM said:

Soviet Leningrad-class, UK S/T-class and nazi type 1936A have 8x533mm torpedo tubes, french Mogador and famous Fletchers have even more - 10  tubes at each. So no, the idea of using torpedoes as the main weapon for destroyers was not exclusive to Japan. And yes, there is nothing bad in torpedo attack.

I wouldn't necessarily say the number of tubes is a reflection of their role. The Fletchers and the S/T Classes were multi-role in every sense. The others I would agree. They tended to be large, and primarily focused on attack (likely because all 3 of their navies were small and would go up against navies with far more ships than their own). 

Edited June 22, 2020 by madham82

[TAKTCOM]

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

Well lets hope we get moar hulls and turrets to play around with.

Oh, we'll surely get moar hulls and turrets. The question is how many of them will  be something new, and how many of them will be another copy-paste However, there are not many left. Most of the WW2 ships are covered, the main holes are in pre dreadnought cruiser classes. Like french multi-turrets raiders

or some Elswick cruisers

maybe some russian BB-size raiders

1 hour ago, madham82 said:

I wouldn't necessarily say the number of tubes is a reflection of their role. The Fletchers and the S/T Classes were multi-role in every sense. 

Yes, this was achieved by qualitative fire control system, radar and a dual-purpose guns. Still, their torpedo weapons were not weak. Everyone hoped that a cheap destroyer with a pinch of luck could sink an expensive cruiser, or even a very expensive battleship.

Edited June 22, 2020 by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT