>>>Alpha-7 Feedback<<<

[Cptbarney]

Just now, TAKTCOM said:

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 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

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.

We need some italians, spanish, chinese and i think russians. Probs still got some for the other nations still left to go. We need hulls for protected/armoured cruisers too as well. Theres quite a few german pre-dreads as well.

For modern hulls we still need, KGV, Repulse, schearnhorst, Kongo, Cleveland, des memes, worcester, belfast, leander, furutaka, amagi, izmail, littorio, zara, la galissionaire, graf spee, bayern, koenig, jean bart, alsace, alaska. And maybe some paper designs, like stalingrad, vladisvostok, smolensk, monarch/lion, Izumo, baijie, azuma, mince (mainz), alexander nevsky, saint louis, lexington (BC), and anything else i missed out.

Mind you im talking about unique hulls that will bring also, new stuff with them like turrets, towers, bridges etc.

Im also hoping the core mechanics get sorted as well, especially the armour and AP penetration problems and simulating more realistic shell drag and deviation. Plus aiming for velocity as well.

[Maty83]

6 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. 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).

The issue is, the game tries to encompass the outliers in each case, which just isn't possible. And then you take a look at the specs of most CAs and you realize that with 8" guns you could re-make then on CL hulls. So after contemplation of both sides, I believe it's better to add 8" guns to CLs, both for the ability to actually hurt well-designed CAs (As well as removing 4" guns from the primary gun category post-1922) and to help with designing said ships. Due to the treaties you have cases where literally the same hull was used to make both CLs and CAs (Wichita being a prime example), while the Japanese had the "Totally not suspicious" Mogami-class. That, and Edinburgh/Belfast displacing more than some County-class ships (As well as having belt armour in peacetime unlike some). This is why I'd advocate for the ability to place 8" guns on CL hulls. It'd differentiate the roles of CLs and CAs in a different manner. And it would set in the conundrum of CL 8" vs 6" guns (RoF vs. per-shell damage) as historically happened with the Royal Navy.
At the same, let's not forget about the fact that we still don't have 6" guns on DDs (German and French DDs).

[TAKTCOM]

2 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

We need some italians, spanish, chinese and i think russians. Probs still got some for the other nations still left to go. We need hulls for protected/armoured cruisers too as well. Theres quite a few german pre-dreads as well.

For modern hulls we still need, KGV, Repulse, schearnhorst, Kongo, Cleveland, des memes, worcester, belfast, leander, furutaka, amagi, izmail, littorio, zara, la galissionaire, graf spee, bayern, koenig, jean bart, alsace, alaska. And maybe some paper designs, like stalingrad, vladisvostok, smolensk, monarch/lion, Izumo, baijie, azuma, mince (mainz), alexander nevsky, saint louis, lexington (BC), and anything else i missed out.

Mind you im talking about unique hulls that will bring also, new stuff with them like turrets, towers, bridges etc.

Im also hoping the core mechanics get sorted as well, especially the armour and AP penetration problems and simulating more realistic shell drag and deviation. Plus aiming for velocity as well.

Italy, of course. Their shipbuilders built interesting vessels. Russia on the other hand... yes, the Russian Empire built the first true armored cruisers. But our battleships? nothing special. In my opinion, these was typical ships of their era. Destroyers... well, before Novik was built, in Russia there was there wasn’t so much worth mentioning. 

May be, except that guys

They were classified in the Russian Navy as "torpedo cruisers", but with their  displacement in ~700 t, 19,6 kn speed,  13mm armor and armament from half a dozen 37-47mm guns plus seven torpedo tubes, it was obviously an early version of the destroyer.

As for China... to the beginning first Sino-Japanese War all of their battleships and cruisers  were bought either in Germany or in England. I'm not sure that the game really needs a corvette and a gunboat.

The fleet of Spain at the end of the 19th century, of course, is something funny. These guys really loved the cruisers without armor. However, they have some medium armored cruisers, so why not. Yes, and this archaic battleship.

Edited June 22, 2020 by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT

[Cptbarney]

@TAKTCOM Ahh, miss kamchatka great meme.

they shou- 'iS tHAt tOrPEdO bOaTS oVeR tHEre?!'

ffs kamchatka...

would be hilarious to add into the game.

[DougToss]

2 hours ago, Maty83 said:

The issue is, the game tries to encompass the outliers in each case, which just isn't possible.

I thought Rule The Wave 2 was quite clever with setting parameters for each class. What would you tweak about this list? 

It certainly accounts for larger guns on protected cruisers. 

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello all,

The hotfix has just become available:

*Hotfix v75*
=========
BALANCES

• Improved Auto-Design and balanced ship weights/costs further for even better designs.
• Ship design tonnage step reduced from 100 to 50 tons (provides more design flexibility, especially for smaller ships plus makes Auto-Design to be more effective).
• Improved AI auto-targeting, so that it switches target to nearest threats more actively.
• When shells hit strong armor at an angle they have bigger chance to cause at least partial penetration instead of zero-damage ricochets.
• Reduced dispersion of shells. Problem of too low accuracy at short ranges should be resolved. Destroyers need to operate at safer ranges but will still be dangerous and useful.
• Increased slightly the potential damage of detonations/flash fires. Their impact will become even more critical.
• Reduced maximum torpedo ammo to be from 2 to 4 rounds per tube, according to design setting.
• Torpedo reload time increased +25%.
• Engine repairs became somewhat faster according to type of engine (Fully flooded or damaged engine sections are not repairable).
• Improved the Hull form statistics of the modern Russian destroyers to aid them achieving higher speeds. The Destroyer leader hull shape has improved.
• Increased detection bonus of Sonar, so that it can trace electric torpedoes or other stealthy types, more effectively. Cost of Sonar has been increased.
• Fine tunings in base ship maneuvering characteristics (addressing issues that could cause slow ships to stall and become very unwieldy).

MISSIONS

• Increased time and reduced AI techs for mission: "Battleship vs Torpedo Boats".
• Added two Destroyer escorts and increased distance of AI reinforcements in mission: "The US Super Battleship". Tech level of AI opponent reduced. Now you need to destroy only 3 Battleships (instead of 4).
• Expanded time limit for mission: "Destroyers vs Torpedo Boats".
• Changed objectives of "Contest in the Black Sea" so now you need to sink 60% of enemies (instead of sinking the Battleship and Battlecruiser which was very difficult).
• Changed objective of mission: "The Modern Battleship" so that to win you need to sink 70% of enemies, instead of 100%.
• In mission "Destroy a Full Fleet" the enemy AI fleet has now less advanced tech level. Objective has changed so that now you need to sink half of enemy fleet but also protect half of your own fleet (instead of sinking 70% of enemy ships).
• Increased time and funds for mission: "Undefended Convoy".
• Other minor fund changes to some missions.

MINOR FIXES

• Fixed secondary cage mast not having adequate placeholder to fit in a USA battleship of 1899.
• Fixed issue of French “Semi-Armored Cruiser” of the 1890s that did not allow 2-inches guns to fit in casemates while no larger guns fitted. 

Enjoy!

[shieldy44]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello all,

The hotfix has just become available:

 

Thank you guys keep up the great and hard work you guys are doing, you have a beautiful game

[IronKaputt]

On 6/22/2020 at 7:39 PM, Cptbarney said:

and anything else i missed out

Normandie-class and HMS Incomparable (ಥ ͜ʖಥ)

[shieldy44]

lol you guys may have fixed the problem too well, the torpedo boat Academy mission i had been stuck on I just blew threw because none of the torpedo boats ever fired a torpedo even circling me at less then 2km so not sure what happened there lol

[AdmER]

I bouth this game with great expectetion as a good Dread/pre-Dread simulator and with a campaign ! The promo at the time let you thing you can build/module your ship, that was a great catch! Obviously it is a Alpha, I know,  but in this current status, the game is un-playable almost a joke. If you play any scenario 1890 -1910 with TB/DD agains anything else like BB/CA/CL you will sink them all wiithout any troubles with your torpedos. Small guns served nothing, the un-precision at 2km iand less s a mess you will see shell at very close range go anywhere, the last hotfix change mostly nothing on this matter. At this distance, those guns must have been man by a completly blind crew! If those navy at the time used 2-3-4-5 inch, they should have been for something, with some precision and capacity to do some reel damages! Just try 4 TB (30knts)  again 2BB and 2 CA 1895 they have no chance and at most I will loose 1 TB. At this state, if there is a campaign, it serve nothing to build something esle than DD. There is a lot of thinks to fix on this game to be at the level they advertised it!

[Maty83]

On 6/26/2020 at 12:35 AM, shieldy44 said:

lol you guys may have fixed the problem too well, the torpedo boat Academy mission i had been stuck on I just blew threw because none of the torpedo boats ever fired a torpedo even circling me at less then 2km so not sure what happened there lol

Torpedo range is less than 2 km probably... I found that out when trying to add torps to my CAs in 1895 in preparation for a custom battle against a BB.

[BobRoss0902]

10 hours ago, Maty83 said:

Torpedo range is less than 2 km probably... I found that out when trying to add torps to my CAs in 1895 in preparation for a custom battle against a BB.

Well yeah, the reason why Japan equipped it's destroyers, cruisers, and some Battlecruisers with so many torps is because the intent was to saturate an area as one set of long range torpedos would be easy to miss by simple standard battle movements.

 

Edit: I thought you meant effective range. Yea early torpedos have small AF ranges, but ya also gotta remember the only ships before post WW2 that had torps that could outrange their guns were some Japanese destroyers with Long Lance torpedos.

Edited June 29, 2020 by BobRoss0902

[shieldy44]

they were under 2km for almost 15 minutes and never fired a torpedo so idk, I just sat there and blew them out of the water

[OochyCoo]

Forgive me if I have missed an option or am posting in the wrong place - having just purchased the game I have to say it is very entertaining. I’ve settled into it pretty much right way and enjoy it immensely. For suggestions on enhancements would the following be feasible?  In no particular order just thoughts that occur:-

1.       Animation of crew/builders when in dockyard building the ship and prior to launch.

2.       When conducting custom battles I don’t seem able to save my ship designs – can a save option be added?

3.       When completing a custom battle I seem to exit much more quickly than a naval academy mission – so I don’t get chance to watch the ships sink or survey the damage – at least that is my experience on 1v1 battles. Can an exit battle button be added in the corner somewhere and I be left in the screen until I press it?

You guys have done a really great job all round – looking forward to enjoying this game for quite some time!

Edited July 1, 2020 by OochyCoo
double numbered the points

[Staire]

Hey again,

The only serious issue I currently have with the gameplay is the target fast speed penalty which is making targeting nonsensical and OP.

In this engagement I fought 3 CLs with 6 DDs and by looking at the hit percentages you can see how one sided it was. They have radar and decent fire control and cannot hit me. Speed is king and the mechanic is pretty game breaking at the moment imo.

 

 

 

This is the modern destroyer vs old destroyer mission. Here in my modern DD with max fire control & radar I still can't hit for shit at under a kilometer.

Also good work with increasing torpedo reload. I would say do it some more & increase weight of reloads _b

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

On 7/1/2020 at 1:54 AM, OochyCoo said:

Forgive me if I have missed an option or am posting in the wrong place - having just purchased the game I have to say it is very entertaining. I’ve settled into it pretty much right way and enjoy it immensely. For suggestions on enhancements would the following be feasible?  In no particular order just thoughts that occur:-

1.       Animation of crew/builders when in dockyard building the ship and prior to launch.

2.       When conducting custom battles I don’t seem able to save my ship designs – can a save option be added?

3.       When completing a custom battle I seem to exit much more quickly than a naval academy mission – so I don’t get chance to watch the ships sink or survey the damage – at least that is my experience on 1v1 battles. Can an exit battle button be added in the corner somewhere and I be left in the screen until I press it?

You guys have done a really great job all round – looking forward to enjoying this game for quite some time!

Just to throw that in quickly, 2. is one of the most requested features on the forum.

It is promised to come, but atm, only with the campaign, which will be some 6 months (don't ask me why the one is tied to the other, I don't understand it either)

[The Maned Wolf]

2 minutes ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

Just to throw that in quickly, 2. is one of the most requested features on the forum.

It is promised to come, but atm, only with the campaign, which will be some 6 months (don't ask me why the one is tied to the other, I don't understand it either)

None of us do. I mean, you think would be easy enough to add in on its own.

[akd]

On 6/20/2020 at 12:41 AM, 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.

There is a deep misrepresentation of the effect torpedoes had on tactics in the game because it is entirely focused on spotting torpedoes and then reacting to the torpedo itself.  This means that if it is spotted early (and the game gives very generous, even near fantastical [sonar], means of spotting torpedoes), the torpedo will miss and the destroyer will be ineffective.  If you are attacking the AI and torpedoes are not spotted early enough to dodge individually, the AI will be hit.  The AI won't take proactive action to prevent that from happening if it doesn't see torpedoes.  (There is of course a huge imbalance here between player and AI, as the player is given multiple "meta" means to know if and when torpedoes have been launched, but the AI must spot the torpedoes themselves in the water.) 

That is generally not what happened in fleet battles.   Maneuver and tactics were shaped more by the threat of torpedoes that would probably not be seen or not seen early enough for a  battle line to maneuver against.  If a destroyer division maneuvered to make a torpedo attack, an opposing fleet had to react, even if that meant spoiling its gunnery against an opposing fleet.  This meant that battles could be shaped by torpedo vessels even if they average torpedo vessel alone was highly unlikely to ever score a hit with a torpedo.  Individual vessels could be "ineffective" while still collectively shaping a battle.

RTW2 reflects this reality much better.  You have to react to the apparent intent to attack with torpedoes as you are not given any indication whether they have been launched or not.  The AI player likewise has to react to the threat of your torpedo vessels and has informational parity (although it is obviously far less capable of micromanaging attack and defense than the player).

Edited July 3, 2020 by akd

[Skeksis]

On 7/3/2020 at 12:07 PM, akd said:

If you are attacking the AI and torpedoes are not spotted early enough to dodge individually, the AI will be hit.  The AI won't take proactive action to prevent that

The industry/current game visibility system won't allow for destroyer strike group detection because its visibility system is "based on the target and not on the highest point of the observer" (meaning in the current visibility system destroyers can be undetected while attacking or advancing towards the enemy).

So as "information parity" dictates, the threat of destroyers carrying torpedo's can never be action against.

So where does this leave destroyers now?

Well possibly nowhere!

As noted there's no role, as convey by the 'realist camp' and now by Dev' reducing there effectiveness, as 'torpedo strike groups'. 
One role was convoy duties, but is there convoy fleets to protect in-game? probably not.
Mail runs, specialized raids, marine missions, etc etc etc, probably not.

Could be DD vs DD but most likely DD vs CL or something bigger, like why take a DD when you can take a CL. 
Another is sub-screening, this is featured... 

"their effect is calculated per turn according to the strategic situation on the map. Similarly, the ASW ability of your ships is auto-calculated according to the amount of destroyers" you have and what you've researched.

So it's 'arbitrary'. This is going to effect the design of destroyers in the most demeaning way, there inclusion in fleets is going to be arbitrary, not practical as fighting ships.

But of cause I don't really know since there's no campaign to go on, it's all assumptions. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Skeksis

[madham82]

9 hours ago, Skeksis said:

The industry/current game visibility system won't allow for destroyer strike group detection because its visibility system is "based on the target and not on the highest point of the observer" (meaning in the current visibility system destroyers can be undetected while attacking or advancing towards the enemy).

So as "information parity" dictates, the threat of destroyers carrying torpedo's can never be action against.

So where does this leave destroyers now?

Well possibly nowhere!

Could be DD vs DD but most likely DD vs CL or something bigger, like why take a DD when you can take a CL. 
Another is sub-screening, this is featured... 

So it's 'arbitrary'. This is going to effect the design of destroyers in the most demeaning way, there inclusion in fleets is going to be arbitrary, not practical as fighting ships.

But of cause I don't really know since there's no campaign to go on, it's all assumptions. 

As my thread the other week clearly showed, they are right now more deadly than any other ship class. With 40kt+ speed and absurd numbers of torpedoes/mounts, they cannot be hit much less destroyed quickly enough to prevent dumping huge numbers of torpedoes into an enemy fleet. So their role (outside of most of the restrictive missions) is a pure capital ship killer. There simply is no reason to build anything bigger than them at this point. The speed and target size penalty makes this so. The cherry on top is being able to mount, carry, reload and fire in combat more torpedoes than most fleets had in WW2. 

I agree with @akd about the spotting of torpedoes being broken. One of the jobs of the screening force (i.e. DDs), would be to detect and counter opposing fleet torpedo attacks. That should be one of the most important jobs of the DD, but right now with the detection range of sonar on all ships, not really needed. 

Everyone is hitting on good points, but it's not just one change that needs to be made. 

1. Spotting (and removal of player view of enemy gun/torpedo load status)
2. Remove current speed/maneuvering penalty (replace with one actually calculating change in bearing/range).
3. Remove torpedo reloading under fire or rough sea state (all ships would be able to reload after a battle however).
4. Create modules solely for reloading torpedoes in battle (to speed up reloading/should be costly and take up valuable space)
5. Torpedo reloads themselves should actually take up space, not just weight (most are around 20 ft long and almost 2 ft wide, where exactly do you put more than a couple of these on a 2000 ton tin can?)
6. Increase risk of carrying reloads for torpedo deck mounts (no ship carrying a 10 tons of warheads on deck would survive sustained fire, more reason to launch your torpedoes as well)
7. Increase risk (or fix) of carrying large numbers of torpedo deck mounts (same as above).
8. Finally, anti-torp protection at the higher levels needs some balancing (this really relates to the armor model issues I believe, i.e. repeated hits to the same side all reducing damage the same).

 

If I left anything out, mention it and will add. 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by madham82

[Skeksis]

On 7/4/2020 at 2:34 AM, madham82 said:

• 1 Spotting (and removal of player view of enemy gun/torpedo load status) In the battle instance there isn't alot to do and one of those things we do is reading/watching the stats/damage model of all ships, removing even the "enemy gun/torpedo load" info from the battle instance would have an impact, making it more challenging. 
• 2 Remove current speed/maneuvering penalty (replace with one actually calculating change in bearing/range). This mechanic has issues. 
• 3 Remove torpedo reloading under fire or rough sea state (all ships would be able to reload after a battle however). 
• 4 Create modules solely for reloading torpedoes in battle (to speed up reloading/should be costly and take up valuable space) While 3 & 4 are RL they have been reduced to suit gameplay.  
• 5 Torpedo reloads themselves should actually take up space, not just weight (most are around 20 ft long and almost 2 ft wide, where exactly do you put more than a couple of these on a 2000 ton tin can?) Subs for an e.g. SM U-151 carried 18 torpedo's, so I'm not so sure limited space arg's stacks up given that destroyers were typically larger.
• 6 Increase risk of carrying reloads for torpedo deck mounts (no ship carrying a 10 tons of warheads on deck would survive sustained fire, more reason to launch your torpedoes as well)
• 7 Increase risk (or fix) of carrying large numbers of torpedo deck mounts (same as above). 6 & 7. Does the damage model allow for deck modules to effect cells below?
• 8 Finally, anti-torp protection at the higher levels needs some balancing (this really relates to the armor model issues I believe, i.e. repeated hits to the same side all reducing damage the same). Damage saturation, WOWS has that, good mechanic. But wouldn't the damage model have problems if the top layer of cells can't relay damage to the cells below because of saturation, probably. 

Ah... but can actual RL naval simulation actually work in a video game? its the big question!
I'm assuming Dev' tested this a few years ago and their result is what we have today. While the theme is reality, the practice is gameplay.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Skeksis

[BobRoss0902]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Ah... but can actual RL naval simulation actually work in a video game? the big question!
I'm assuming Dev' tested this a few years ago and their result is what we have today. While the theme is reality, the practice is gameplay.

Thing is often times people who want reality don't actually want real, reality. Similar to how in XCOM the game actually rolls in your favor in every difficulty except the most difficult, and everyone calls the highest difficulty bullshit, as well as some of the lower difficulties.

Games sometimes have to work in your favor to be fun.

[Hangar18]

On 7/3/2020 at 12:56 AM, Skeksis said:

One role was convoy duties, but is there convoy fleets to protect in-game? probably not.

was in rtw 2, and we have the models, i dont see why not.

[Staire]

15 hours ago, BobRoss0902 said:

Games sometimes have to work in your favor to be fun.

Dark Souls is loved by many.

[Skeksis]

18 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

was in rtw 2, and we have the models, i dont see why not.

That would be very cool, managing 'fleets' per region rather than a single regional fleet.

E.g. sending supply convoys to re-supply ports to supply ships thereafter, which then entails designing convoy escorts. I example it this way cause I'm a big believer in the practical reason to include things, such as port re-supply via convoys.

Is that how rtw2 does it, multiple fleets per region?

Edited July 5, 2020 by Skeksis