Long list of issues (Please read)

[draconins]

On 9/20/2020 at 2:19 AM, Steeltrap said:

The performance of capital ships was studied extensively by the navy that built them, including trials on ranges to determine turning circles, rates of advance in turns of varying sharpness of rudder applied as observed in test ranges designed to gather exactly those sorts of numbers, and a whole host of other things besides. It ought not be difficult to apply the generally understood performance characteristics to the various 'historical' hulls that are in the game plus have some general principles based on power plants etc.

Cheers

(source of info re RN war games plus HMS Hood's specific handling characteristics http://www.hmshood.com/ship/hoodspecs4.htm  )

While I generally agree that ships does not have linear acceleration like you said, it can be difficult to actually fully emulate historical values in the game. This is as engine and hull actually have different performance on different speed. Some hull form may not have fully known information.

For example IRL, Yamato, we don't know for example what is the bulbous bow design speed for Yamato, is it in intended for cruising speed or for top speed? This is as bulbous bow generally have specific handling characteristic which make the ship more efficient for specific speed but may be worse for another. Not counting even Musashi which is to my knowledge has even better reported sea keeping than Yamato.

Furthermore various ships which had different characteristic before and after refit of Torpedo protection (which can actually become better or worse). Further, ship with different propeller count, position, and design can have drastically different performance (due to interaction between propeller). For this try to look http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-036.php and see section about triple shaft mainly on German battleship.

I believe to some degree this is actually have been  in the game in form of engine efficiency. Though I am don't know whether this have non-linear curve or not. I think UAD can offer various curve option in engine or simply add same curve for all engine, but I think it can complicate things.

[Steeltrap]

On 9/23/2020 at 2:43 AM, draconins said:

I believe to some degree this is actually have been  in the game in form of engine efficiency. Though I am don't know whether this have non-linear curve or not. I think UAD can offer various curve option in engine or simply add same curve for all engine, but I think it can complicate things.

I'm fairly sure that "engine efficiency" simply modifies acceleration, although I may be incorrect on that.

With earlier tech levels, which is where I tended to play given that's where a large part of the playing experience in the campaign would be, I almost never bothered with achieving 100% efficiency.

It could be that the "loss of torque at high speed" penalty you get from lower efficiency shaves something off the achievable top speed, or maybe it goes into calculating the final acceleration number. Odd thing is you can have a bonus to acceleration AND a torque loss from the same engine efficiency.

I haven't studied it enough, although it wouldn't take too long to do so, but what I AM fairly certain of is once the acceleration number is arrived at it is applied as a constant in battle. In other words, you can accelerate from 18 to 22 knots in exactly the same time as 22 to 26 in a ship with a 26 knot top speed, or indeed a ship with a speed beyond 26.

The point is current speed appears to have NO effect on rate of acceleration. According to all that I've ever read on the subject that's simply not correct.

I agree that there's such a thing as being TOO exact on "realism", but from my perspective where there's a case of something clearly being unrealistic AND able to be addressed likely with little effort then it ought to be corrected.

Thus I'd add something like a final modifier that takes that "base acceleration" as shown in the shipyard and turns it into a curve where the rate diminishes as the speed increases.

Cheers

 

[Friedrich]

I'd like to echo some of the more popular suggestions made here, and also echo one of my own, RE: turret/barbette rings being erroneously conflated with gun caliber, for more visibility.

On 7/23/2020 at 1:13 PM, madham82 said:

Speed is just a variable like range, as long as it is known the value does not change the accuracy of the firing solution. A DD doing 40kts is no harder to hit than one doing 20kts. The speed only the moves the aim point ahead of the ship, so a faster ship has an aim point farther ahead than a slower one. That's it, there's no other factor to take into account. Think the issue is you are thinking about making these calculations in your head (like a sniper), but these firing solutions are computerized. Speed could be accounted for with no guesswork, the real factor was actually determining speed accurately. Hence why the penalty should reflect only when a ship's speed is not known precisely (something not in the game I've seen), or the ship is changing speed quickly to throw off the calculations. 

With that said, if you are planning changes we will wait and see how they play out and tweak from there.

I think you are failing to take into account the effect of changes in direction at high speed. The more you have to lead to account for your target's speed, the easier it is for them to simply alter course and be in a completely different post code by the time your shells actually arrive. After a certain point your calculations don't even matter, since if your target is actively evading, even if just turning towards your shell splashes, actually landing a hit is literally impossible unless you get lucky with one of your strays.

So there are two factors at play here. The first is the accuracy of your firing solution and shots, that being how close your point of aim is to where the ship actually would end up, assuming course (or rate of change in course, if we are shooting at Bismark) and speed remain constant. The other half of that is just how well you execute, so whether your guns all fire at the correct target, how tight their shot groupings are, etc. The second, and this is where high target speeds become relevant, is if your solution is even still relevant once those shots actually arrive. The extreme example is the SR-71 Blackbird. That thing zipping along at mach 3+ can't turn for ****, but if it wants to evade it doesn't have to. All the pilot needs to do is make slight, random alterations in course and suddenly if you want to land a hit, your only hope is to launch a saturation attack which simultaneously aims at just about every location the Blackbird could possibly be once your shots arrive. And with the plane moving so fast that set of locations is going to span hundreds of square kilometers, not even accounting for the vertical aspect.

Now ships move along what, for our purposes, may as well be a 2D plane, and at only two digits of knots, things are nowhere near this extreme; but the same principles still apply.

[Friedrich]

On 7/20/2020 at 2:33 PM, Memo_collector said:

Armour quality of USN during WW2 corresponds to about Krupp III (1.9 multiplier) for Class A face-hardened armour and Krupp IV (2.0 multiplier) for Class B/STS homogeneous armour.

Uh... that's problematic, since the US armor was not nearly as good as British or German armor of the WW2 period.  If Class B is Krupp IV, British and German armor would be a VI or VII. I can't remember if US armor was 85% of British, or if the British was an 85% improvement, but either way it's a pretty significant improvement.

[madham82]

32 minutes ago, Friedrich said:

I'd like to echo some of the more popular suggestions made here, and also echo one of my own, RE: turret/barbette rings being erroneously conflated with gun caliber, for more visibility.

I think you are failing to take into account the effect of changes in direction at high speed. The more you have to lead to account for your target's speed, the easier it is for them to simply alter course and be in a completely different post code by the time your shells actually arrive. After a certain point your calculations don't even matter, since if your target is actively evading, even if just turning towards your shell splashes, actually landing a hit is literally impossible unless you get lucky with one of your strays.

So there are two factors at play here. The first is the accuracy of your firing solution and shots, that being how close your point of aim is to where the ship actually would end up, assuming course (or rate of change in course, if we are shooting at Bismark) and speed remain constant. The other half of that is just how well you execute, so whether your guns all fire at the correct target, how tight their shot groupings are, etc. The second, and this is where high target speeds become relevant, is if your solution is even still relevant once those shots actually arrive. The extreme example is the SR-71 Blackbird. That thing zipping along at mach 3+ can't turn for ****, but if it wants to evade it doesn't have to. All the pilot needs to do is make slight, random alterations in course and suddenly if you want to land a hit, your only hope is to launch a saturation attack which simultaneously aims at just about every location the Blackbird could possibly be once your shots arrive. And with the plane moving so fast that set of locations is going to span hundreds of square kilometers, not even accounting for the vertical aspect.

Now ships move along what, for our purposes, may as well be a 2D plane, and at only two digits of knots, things are nowhere near this extreme; but the same principles still apply.

You completely missed the issue, the game was (fixed with the last patch) providing a penalty to accuracy strictly on speed, not the target ship's maneuvering. So a DD at 2KM sailing in a straight line at 40+kts was near impossible to hit. Not at all realistic and nothing like your example.

Also a large fast ship is not exactly going to make sudden changes in course/speed. Here again the game was broken with the fact that any BC at 35+kts was impossible to score hits on reliably. Now with the new tweaks, that ship needs the ability to make significant course/speed changes to add a penalty to accuracy (exactly like you described). 

[Friedrich]

1 minute ago, madham82 said:

You completely missed the issue, the game was (fixed with the last patch) providing a penalty to accuracy strictly on speed, not the target ship's maneuvering. So a DD at 2KM sailing in a straight line at 40+kts was near impossible to hit. Not at all realistic and nothing like your example.

Also a large fast ship is not exactly going to make sudden changes in course/speed. Here again the game was broken with the fact that any BC at 35+kts was impossible to score hits on reliably. Now with the new tweaks, that ship needs the ability to make significant course/speed changes to add a penalty to accuracy (exactly like you described). 

The changes in course don't have to be as large at high speed, so even if the ship alters course by only a few degrees upon receiving fire, at 35+kn it should end up outside the typical spread of most ships at long range.

I'm glad we agree on what the model ought to be though, and pleased that the current build is at least oriented in that direction. Does the ship AI actually perform balanced evasive maneuvering as I described, or is it not that responsive?

[madham82]

55 minutes ago, Friedrich said:

The changes in course don't have to be as large at high speed, so even if the ship alters course by only a few degrees upon receiving fire, at 35+kn it should end up outside the typical spread of most ships at long range.

I'm glad we agree on what the model ought to be though, and pleased that the current build is at least oriented in that direction. Does the ship AI actually perform balanced evasive maneuvering as I described, or is it not that responsive?

I've never seen any examples of them actively maneuvering in that sense. In the Alpha-9 thread there was some discussion over the fact the AI charges right in, without much thought to tactics. 

IRL trying to dodge shells wasn't really done anyway. For one, it impacts your accuracy to constantly be maneuvering. So you are making it harder for the enemy to hit you, but you aren't hitting them really either. So in reality the tactics dictated you either closed to your ideal engagement range, open the range to escape/reposition, or angle to outflank the enemy. 

Now if you were at a serious disadvantage (i.e. Graf Spee at the River Plate), active maneuvering was essential. But no Captain or Admiral ever plans to be outnumbered and cut off from escape. So I look at these engagements as exceptions to established doctrine. 

[Friedrich]

1 hour ago, madham82 said:

I've never seen any examples of them actively maneuvering in that sense. In the Alpha-9 thread there was some discussion over the fact the AI charges right in, without much thought to tactics. 

IRL trying to dodge shells wasn't really done anyway. For one, it impacts your accuracy to constantly be maneuvering. So you are making it harder for the enemy to hit you, but you aren't hitting them really either. So in reality the tactics dictated you either closed to your ideal engagement range, open the range to escape/reposition, or angle to outflank the enemy. 

Now if you were at a serious disadvantage (i.e. Graf Spee at the River Plate), active maneuvering was essential. But no Captain or Admiral ever plans to be outnumbered and cut off from escape. So I look at these engagements as exceptions to established doctrine. 

That's not actually true. I think it was against Bismark where a British ship evaded her fire by making slight course corrections into the splashes of the last salvo. The result was that Bismark would fire her guns, and the shells would land pretty much right on top of where her target would've been had those adjustments not been made. Now obviously this only works at long ranges, does nothing against torpedoes, and makes your own firing solutions require somewhat more frequent range corrections, but it's a real tactic, and an effective one at that, performed during at least one peer engagement. Plus, if you are trying to open or close the range to your target the few disadvantages basically disappear.

[Shiki]

19 minutes ago, Friedrich said:

That's not actually true. I think it was against Bismarck where a British ship evaded her fire by making slight course corrections into the splashes of the last salvo. The result was that Bismarck would fire her guns, and the shells would land pretty much right on top of where her target would've been had those adjustments not been made.

I think the term you're looking for is 'chasing salvoes', a method to frustrate accurate shooting in the days of analogue fire control. As nearly as I remember, it works on the principle that most mechanical FC tables used 'Up' or 'Down' rates, based on visual spotting of the fall of shot; the manoeuvring target would therefore 'chase' the last salvo fired, turning in that direction. If the salvo landed beyond the target, a 'Down' spot would be applied: the ship would then close with the last salvo fired, causing the next salvo to be short and an 'Up' spot applied, and then so on and so forth.

Of course, this all goes out with the advent of more sophisticated radar fire control and remote-power controlled mountings. By the time of the 1940s, ships could both manoeuvre and fight, rather than just one or the other.

[Friedrich]

Just now, Shiki said:

I think the term you're looking for is 'chasing salvoes', a method to frustrate accurate shooting in the days of analogue fire control. As nearly as I remember, it works on the principle that most mechanical FC tables used 'Up' or 'Down' rates, based on visual spotting of the fall of shot; the manoeuvring target would therefore 'chase' the last salvo fired, turning in that direction. If the salvo landed beyond the target, a 'Down' spot would be applied: the ship would then close with the last salvo fired, causing the next salvo to be short and an 'Up' spot applied, and then so on and so forth.

Of course, this all goes out with the advent of more sophisticated radar fire control and remote-power controlled mountings. By the time of the 1940s, ships could both manoeuvre and fight, rather than just one or the other.

Well first, most of the game takes place before then, so developments that only arise in the 40's are endgame content not representative of the 1890 to 1940 (not sure what the actual end date is, but it's 1940 in custom battles ATM) timeframe the game is set in.

Second, that doesn't actually help, since you are mostly accounting for your own manuver, which just makes this tactic even more of a no brainer since now there's basically no downside to it. You don't even need to restrict yourself to slight course adjustments, you could be swerving and weaving your way through the oceans and since your own course and speed is far easier to know than your opponents, the fire control computers can account for it.

By contrast a hostile doing the same couldn't be hit with anything but strays, since if they change speed and/or course every 30 seconds, and it takes about that long for your shots to arrive, it is literally impossible to hit them without relying on lucky shots going stray, the enemy captain forgetting to continue maneuvering, a saturation attack against every possible location the enemy could be once the shots arrive, or guided ordinance capable of making mid-flight course corrections. And even then there's a limit to how much can be done. Going back to my extreme example, the SR-71 was doing the exact same thing to evade guided hypersonic AA missiles, so I don't think a more advanced fire control is going to do anything to help you hit an evading target. It might make salvo chasing less optimal on the receiving end, (although correcting for rangefinding errors based off where shot are actually landing isn't going to go away... pretty much ever) but for the user it just makes your own manuvering not interfere with firing solutions, or at least not to anywhere near the same degree as it would otherwise. So instead of subtle corrections of only a few degrees you could be dodging torpedoes and still use your main guns at least somewhat effectively.

[madham82]

1 hour ago, Friedrich said:

That's not actually true. I think it was against Bismark where a British ship evaded her fire by making slight course corrections into the splashes of the last salvo. The result was that Bismark would fire her guns, and the shells would land pretty much right on top of where her target would've been had those adjustments not been made. Now obviously this only works at long ranges, does nothing against torpedoes, and makes your own firing solutions require somewhat more frequent range corrections, but it's a real tactic, and an effective one at that, performed during at least one peer engagement. Plus, if you are trying to open or close the range to your target the few disadvantages basically disappear.

Look at the ship plots for the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Hood had every reason to want to "evade" fire while it was trying to get under the danger zone for plunging fire. Yet the course the Brits took was straight to their ideal engagement range. Why? The time being exposed to fire is more important than maneuvering to avoid it. Chasing splashes would have bled off speed dramatically. Hood had actually just completed a turn to broadside after reaching the range they thought was ideal when the fatal shell hit. 

It just didn't happen like people envision it. You made slight course changes if you are trying to fire accurately. You only made abrupt changes if things were going badly, in which case your accuracy is the least of concerns. I did read the Escort Carriers of Taffy 3 were using the "chasing salvos" tactic, but again they are not in control of the engagement. They are running for their lives and have no guns in the fight. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by madham82
grammar

[Friedrich]

6 hours ago, madham82 said:

Look at the ship plots for the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Hood had every reason to want to "evade" fire while it was trying to get under the danger zone for plunging fire. Yet the course they Brits took was straight to their ideal engagement range. Why? The time being exposed to fire is more important than maneuvering to avoid it. Chasing splashes would have bled off speed dramatically. Hood had actually just completed a turn to broadside after reaching the range they thought was ideal when the fatal shell hit. 

It just didn't happen like people envision it. You made slight course changes if you are trying to fire accurately. You only made abrupt changes if things were going badly, in which case your accuracy is the least of concerns. I did read the Escort Carriers of Taffy 3 were using the "chasing salvos" tactic, but again they are not in control of the engagement. They are running for the lives and have no guns in the fight. 

First, that was their ideal. The fatal shot shouldn't have been able to pull the plunging fire through the deck armor into the magazines at that range, though at a longer range it would've been vulnerable to just that. So b-lining it into their presumed zone of immunity was the only sane thing to do, wasting no speed on major turns. Second, at sufficient ranges slight adjustments are all you need. Third, what do you mean the escort carriers didn't have any guns in the fight? They were suckering them into 40mm range! Goddamn, Taffy 3 was awesome.

[Cptbarney]

So after alpha 9 has gone through i wouldn't mind seeing a focus on, game mechanics such as bulkheads, the AI, gunnery and spotting since i have noticed cases where you can get spotted by the enemy and they can fire at your ships (this usually occurs below 1904) and you can do anything since they can't see them.

Also we need a better armour system, and a more complex AI so that it is able to pull off various different tactics in the heat of battle or plan accordingly, on what the player has vs what they have (mainly the campaign as i don't expect the AI to retreat randomly in missions or custom battles).

Whether or not you can do all these things in one patch is fine, but they have to be addressed at some point along, with a far less restrictive designer as well. 

Although if you guys are focusing on the campaign mainly then thats fine, i can wait. 

[Steeltrap]

On 10/10/2020 at 7:48 AM, madham82 said:

It just didn't happen like people envision it. You made slight course changes if you are trying to fire accurately. You only made abrupt changes if things were going badly, in which case your accuracy is the least of concerns

I took the points @Friedrich was making as an illustration of how the current gunnery model has significant issues because you're often better off doing manoeuvres for no other reason than the penalties they apply given they are greater for what's shooting at you than for you shooting back.

In other words, aren't you both sort of agreeing? One saying "this is what the model encourages" and the other saying "well that's dopey because it's NOT generally how things were done".

Yet another example of the chronic issue of "we KNOW many of these things, they are well documented. Why aren't you building a model that accurately portrays it to match what is known?".

Cheers

[ReefKip]

On 10/19/2020 at 7:26 AM, Cptbarney said:

So after alpha 9 has gone through i wouldn't mind seeing a focus on, game mechanics such as bulkheads, the AI, gunnery and spotting since i have noticed cases where you can get spotted by the enemy and they can fire at your ships (this usually occurs below 1904) and you can do anything since they can't see them.

Also we need a better armour system, and a more complex AI so that it is able to pull off various different tactics in the heat of battle or plan accordingly, on what the player has vs what they have (mainly the campaign as i don't expect the AI to retreat randomly in missions or custom battles).

Whether or not you can do all these things in one patch is fine, but they have to be addressed at some point along, with a far less restrictive designer as well. 

Although if you guys are focusing on the campaign mainly then thats fine, i can wait. 

Designer definitly needs improvement.its the main atraction for many interested in the game.  More freedom is great. We definitly need Taller  primary gun barbettes and hull width slider. 

 

I am also experiencing a weird bug with enemy tags like BB,CA etc not showing up properly on long range combat at 25KM+. They only show up at the edge of my screen when i change my view. So the game only renders the tags when viewed from a certain angle which is strange.

 

 

 

 

[Steeltrap]

Gunnery Model Issue: Losing and Reacquiring "Target Locked" Modifier

Some aspects of the gunnery model/aiming have bothered me for a long time, one of which is the VERY slow regaining of "target locked" status if you've turned so the target is now on the opposite side of your ship.

What often happens is if you fire while some of your guns are obstructed, you lose lock. After that happens, it can take AGES to achieve lock again.

Here's the problem, however.

If you tell your ship to target something else, then tell it to target the original target on which you just lost locked status (and regardless of how long you may have had lock), it IMMEDIATELY LOCKS once a single turret fires at it.

I fail to see how that make sense.

First of all I don't see WHY you lose lock if you move a target from broadside to your forward arc at least. I don't think the main fire control director typically was limited to broadside firing arcs, although I suppose that might depend on the tech and class of ship. Even if you DID, why couldn't you quickly reacquire lock with the fore or aft fire control director as relevant?

Regardless of that question, however, it CANNOT be the case that it takes longer to gain lock on that SAME target than it does to lock on another with one shot then lock back on the original one with the next shot. How can the system lock on TWO DIFFERENT TARGETS more rapidly than it can on the ONE target on which it was originally locked?

I make extensive use of the 'exploit' to avoid it, or otherwise I change the main guns to "stop" until I've finished the sharp turn and then turn them back to 'Normal'. The turrets turn and then fire without ever losing lock.

Neither of those techniques are exactly user friendly if you've a fleet with several elements, yet NOT micromanaging it can mean you have ships firing at targets and not achieving lock.

As an aside, I will add that the AI's fixation on pointing its bow at you (presumably for "angling of armour" nonsense), it LOSES lock and frequently NEVER regains it. I've had battles where half the enemy fleet is stuck with the "Ladder Aiming" penalty for as long as their ships are pointing their bows at me, which, as we all know, can amount to a VERY large part of the battle. I don't think the AI needs that additional handicap, and it doesn't make much sense that it occurs at all.

Cheers

[Dalbhuie]

In Academy tutorials, when you click on the difficulty button, It changes from medium to hard, but it won't change back or offer any other options.

[Steeltrap]

16 hours ago, Dalbhuie said:

In Academy tutorials, when you click on the difficulty button, It changes from medium to hard, but it won't change back or offer any other options.

I noticed that, but it also says in the version notes that difficulty is a placeholder and has no effect, which is probably why you can't change it back.

[themadpizzler]

I just bought the game two days ago and I'm impressed with many things; there's so much potential with ship design, but shmoley holey! There some large basic issues with it.   Ship design has become unfun because of Front/Back Tower size-shape being so large and concrete in placement.  I'm cool with weird AI behavior and a UI that needs a few tweaks ....but d@mn, this game is supposed to be released within the next two months!  The Front/Back Tower size shouldn't be an issue at this stage.

I think I would have been wiser to wait until after the game had officially published and then patched a couple of times.

Here's hoping!

[madham82]

6 hours ago, themadpizzler said:

I just bought the game two days ago and I'm impressed with many things; there's so much potential with ship design, but shmoley holey! There some large basic issues with it.   Ship design has become unfun because of Front/Back Tower size-shape being so large and concrete in placement.  I'm cool with weird AI behavior and a UI that needs a few tweaks ....but d@mn, this game is supposed to be released within the next two months!  The Front/Back Tower size shouldn't be an issue at this stage.

I think I would have been wiser to wait until after the game had officially published and then patched a couple of times.

Here's hoping!

Who said releasing in 2 months? We are still in Alpha. At least a year away is more likely. 

[Cptbarney]

26 minutes ago, madham82 said:

Who said releasing in 2 months? We are still in Alpha. At least a year away is more likely. 

I would say about 2-3 years, thinking of the forest and how long that took before it left early access, wish it had better mod support doe :/

Shows a great game, that is kinda left bare due to the lack of things other peeps could do in-general with it after official release.

Hope the devs give us mod support on the level of garrys mod or left 4 dead 2 or hoi4 etc.

[themadpizzler]

The Steam mythological release info has it listed 2020

[madham82]

16 hours ago, themadpizzler said:

The Steam mythological release info has it listed 2020

I see the confusion. It does say release date TBA 2020, but the page also shows early access and isn't available on steam yet. You can't be launching early access if the game is finished before it is available on steam. So the release is just meant to state when it will be available for early access, not full release. 

[Cptbarney]

From discord not my image, but something that needs addressing on the supercruiser hull (large cruiser hull) for japan since you can't rotate that secondary gun too have a decent gun arc as well.

[DerRichtigeArzt]

WE ARE LIVE BOIS