Long list of issues (Please read)

[Cpt.Hissy]

Weight offsets and editor in general is glitchy atm.
It will count a part that's currently hanging on your cursor in placement mode as installed where cursor is
it "forgets" one gun in a pair sometimes and yells offset
some secondary hardpoints are bugged and create offsets
many parts just don't fit even where they were on prototype RL ship
and all the unreasonable limits...

...ehh, in current state the ship editor is literally just a joke and should not exist. I really hope they will make in properly, or i'll be very sad, as it's not steam and refund isn't a thing.
no panic yet though, game is in very early stage still.

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

1 hour ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Weight offsets and editor in general is glitchy atm.
It will count a part that's currently hanging on your cursor in placement mode as installed where cursor is
 

this is something I actually like, allowing me to fiddle with a part until the weight offset is as small as possible.

[Skeksis]

3 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Weight offsets and editor in general is glitchy atm.

Maybe if moving funnels had an impact in shifting offset weight, i.e. boilers weight location in approximate to funnels.

Such adjustments could give us that little bit more flexibility we seek.

Would also mean we would need more or finer funnel placements nodes.

[Cpt.Hissy]

6 hours ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

this is something I actually like, allowing me to fiddle with a part until the weight offset is as small as possible.

It can be confusing when you not trying to place anything, just have placement mode still active, and cursor somewhere off ship completely, and it counts that hanging turret that's  currently off screen as placed. And also causes heavy lag while moving it.
 

4 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Maybe if moving funnels had an impact in shifting offset weight, i.e. boilers weight location in approximate to funnels.

Such adjustments could give us that little bit more flexibility we seek.

Would also mean we would need more or finer funnel placements nodes.

Glitches are glitches, nothing to do with those hulls balancing (which sometimes weird too)

* * *

Thinking about it. Balancing feature itself, while looks interesting at first glance, absolutely demands that editor to be highly flexible and detailed. Otherwise it just won't work properly.

If they so much care about designer being accessible for invertebrates, maybe they should've stay with RTW approach. You just add things to the list (for example, main gun turrets - specifying gun caliber, number of guns in turret, turret's designation/number/howdoyoucallit) and game automatically generates a ship for you, using historical layouts as template.
That could both look good and work fine while staying simple. Also for AI, they tended to build ships similar to real ships of that nation, adjusted to their current in-game technology, and those ships looked like actual ships, and not like barges filled with random leftover cannons from scrapyard.
 

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Glitches are glitches, nothing to do with those hulls balancing

I figured when Dev's make a hull they've made it with a specific component layout in mind, even allowing for a few different layouts/combo's, and position the centre of gravity accordingly.

However we the players come along and have a few thousand different combo's in mind, all or most of which would be reasonable productions, but the weight offset is so far outta wrack that turrets have to be way forwards or aft to bring the offset to back into alignment. 

Rather than a "glitch" to be fixed per hull, maybe a secondary adjustment via boiler/funnel locations would give us and our designs (and hulls) more flexibility, like put the onus on us. 

2 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

... maybe they should've stay with RTW approach ... specifying ...

IMO, I wouldn't want Dev's to copy and paste RTW2 code! better if they branch out into new territory, create and add there own presence upon the game. And they have with the designer tool, to reverse designer tool flexibility now would be a mistake. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Skeksis

[DerRichtigeArzt]

since its the most recent thread ill leave it here.

we dont need an update every month or two.

but it would be nice if we got devblogs and screenshots.

some community members would probably make such a devblog for free every month. or find someone that does not have a copy of the game ond offer it to him in exchange for devblogs every month. would be nice. I would do it but I have never run a forum or wasnt realy active on one until this game came along. but I bet there are some people that could do it and do it well. 

[Cpt.Hissy]

On 8/17/2020 at 6:13 AM, Skeksis said:

IMO, I wouldn't want Dev's to copy and paste RTW2 code! better if they branch out into new territory, create and add there own presence upon the game. And they have with the designer tool, to reverse designer tool flexibility now would be a mistake. 

Nah, Mr. Skeksis, they don't copy anyone's code, why would they. I meant the basic concept itself, where you don't manually put together predetermined parts, but assemble a list of features and get a ship tailored to have them.

Also, again, glitches are glitches. When hull seems to be too front heavy, it's just how it is. When you put a symmetrical pair of side guns and it creates a sideways offset for no reason, it's a glitch.

[K.u.K. Großadmiral]

Hello all. I am new here. I have been playing UA Dreadnoughts for about 2 weeks now. I have a few minor suggestions for making this game a bit more realistic.

1. Change the way shells/projectiles are displayed. In there current depiction they all look like lasers shots as seen in Star Wars. To the best of my recollection and experience, any large caliber artillery projectile appears briefly as a black dot as it rapidly disappears into the distance. Smaller caliber shells cannot be seen. Also, the large caliber shells do not make ANY sounds as they travel through air, reference any war movie with artillery rounds traveling overhead and they make whistling/humming sound.

2. Steam expansion engines make a hammering sound as opposed to steam turbine engines whirring sound. All the engines in all ships in this game make the same swooshing sound. 

3. When ships are listed as sinking they all stop on a dime, physics says that several thousand tons of metal plowing through the water do not instantly come to a halt.

4.  Minor issue, but I think that a ship at flank speed would have much more smoke billowing from the funnels as opposed to one moving at a slower speed, the smoke should be proportional to speed, and only in the case of coal burning ships. Fuel oil ships have little to not smoke in comparison.

5. For ships that are damaged and listing badly to port or starboard, the guns should not be able to make a shot at another ship on the side of the list, since they cannot elevate to a proper height to make a shot. 

6. Finally, if you view the ships underwater, none of the screws are rotating as they are sailing around 🙂 

 

Just some observations that if fixed, I think it would make the sim much more enjoyable....

 

Tks

 

 

 

[Skeksis]

1 hour ago, K.u.K. Großadmiral said:

Also, the large caliber shells do not make ANY sounds as they travel through air, reference any war movie with artillery rounds traveling overhead and they make whistling/humming sound.

About alpha 2 (maybe 1) large shells did sound off, but it has been disable since. If you set the camera at a radar ping you can hear the enemy engines, basically there has been a sound issue from selection to camera, altogether related and unfixed so far.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Skeksis

[Steeltrap]

First up, Damage Model and Damage Control

(more topics to come when I gather materials etc)

I and many others have been on about the crazy level of protection afforded simply by loading up MAX bulkheads for close to a year, but I'll point it out again just to be sure nobody has any doubts about the nature of the problem.

Witness our favourite, the Zombie Tranport:

So, there it is with flooding IN EVERY SINGLE COMPARTMENT. The damage log is limited in size but I assure you there were more hits (I drove up to it at about 1.3km with 3 x 2x6" guns firing at it).

I stopped firing so as to capture the issue. Here it is a few minutes later:

Floatation is now up to 56% (an increase of 19 on 37, or a 50% RELATIVE improvement in a matter of minutes).

During what can only be imagined as an exciting time for the crew, they ALSO managed to repair Engine 1.

Do I need to explain WHY I have issues with this?

Right now it's WoWS level stuff. "Push a button and everything's fixed like magic". Except in this case you don't even need to do THAT. Just make sure you build your ships with MANY bulkheads as a minimum, and MAX if you can, and you're all but indestructible.

Leaving aside the fact that ALL these TR class ships are FAR too large (there were only 21 ships in total with a GRT greater than 15,000t sunk by u-boats in WW2, and of those you have to get to number 18 on the list to find something that wasn't a passenger ship, troop transport or Armed Merchant Cruiser. Source: https://uboat.net/allies/merchants/largest.html ) it's plainly silly that a merchant ship can obtain this sort of durability. The simple, well known facts are that durability is in large part a function of the level of positive buoyancy, and that typically is a product of size. On top of that you've got compartmentalisation (yes, bulkheads included), available pumping capacity and crew. Armour, too, is relevant.

I've said MANY times that the degree to which having bulkheads affects your survivability should ALSO be TIED TO CLASS OF SHIP. As things stand, however, a MAX bulkheads TR class can be harder to sink than a MIN bulkhead pre-dread BB, and that, as I said earlier, is patently silly.

While there may be reasons why a player chooses to have standard levels of bulkheads on a ship, in my opinion the AI ought to be restricted so as NOT to build any capital ship (BB or BC) with lower than "many", and CAs to "standard".

I'm saying that with respect to the current situation. When proper, fully fleshed out damage and damage control systems are implemented I'd expect the consequences to shift design imperatives, but even there it might be true the AI needs to be given class limits so it doesn't recreate Jutland with the RN having a load of BBs that sink after taking a penetrating hit to the bows and stern.

Any questions or comments, as usual feel free to fire away.

Cheers

p.s. these shots are from the latest version.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Steeltrap

[draconins]

On 8/27/2020 at 5:51 AM, Steeltrap said:

First up, Damage Model and Damage Control

(more topics to come when I gather materials etc)

I and many others have been on about the crazy level of protection afforded simply by loading up MAX bulkheads for close to a year, but I'll point it out again just to be sure nobody has any doubts about the nature of the problem.

Witness our favourite, the Zombie Tranport:

So, there it is with flooding IN EVERY SINGLE COMPARTMENT. The damage log is limited in size but I assure you there were more hits (I drove up to it at about 1.3km with 3 x 2x6" guns firing at it).

I stopped firing so as to capture the issue. Here it is a few minutes later:

Floatation is now up to 56% (an increase of 19 on 37, or a 50% RELATIVE improvement in a matter of minutes).

During what can only be imagined as an exciting time for the crew, they ALSO managed to repair Engine 1.

Do I need to explain WHY I have issues with this?

 

While I generally agree that the damage modelling can be more realistic, I disagree in your specific battle screenshot, as you basically over pen nearly everything, in close range where trajectory is almost flat. I don't believe this is simply issue of of damage modelling nor about bulkheads. You are shooting above waterline. If you are shooting from farther away, I think it is more believable.

This is a good reason to use even smaller guns with low angle capability, especially in the larger warship you use. Of course in real life the warship supposed to hit the waterline with smaller gun as bigger gun does not have low enough depression usually, so some guns in real life do have minimum range. Even in smaller gun, elevation of 2 degrees can have 4 km range with near flat trajectory. This is also why small gun often put on "pedestal" or on outer edge of the ship. Otherwise also smaller gun is useless.

Of course in real life there is of case of spalling, or dead crew, or electrical damage, or something important above waterline damaged, or even some flamable cargo/fuel, but I think this is too much to ask for current stage of game. And even in real world, over penetration is real issue. To be fair, in real life most transport ship would generally surrender, and even then warship would keep distance and instead send boarding party (as suicide bombing/ramming can be issue).

 

[Steeltrap]

On 9/6/2020 at 6:11 AM, draconins said:

I don't believe this is simply issue of of damage modelling nor about bulkheads. You are shooting above waterline.

Check the screenshot: every single compartment is flooding. How is that "above the waterline"?

Yet it recovers.

Transport with flooding in EVERY compartment survives because it has MAX bulkheads.

BB with MIN bulkheads sinks from as little as TWO penetrating hits, made worse by the seeming absence of a meaningful transverse bulkhead.

How is that NOT about the power of bulkheads, when a pre-dread BB with MINIMUM bulkheads can be sunk with TWO hits, one in the bow and the other the stern, if they cause flooding at the same time?

I have become quite good at assessing when I can afford to shoot at another target and with which guns, ALL of that based on the current flooding/fire state and the bulkhead level.

In fact I will ALWAYS shoot at the "min" or "few" bulkhead ships in any battle (provided I can realistically hit them) precisely because they ARE so easy to sink and thus it's a simple way to reduce the volume of enemy fire very rapidly.

Equally, I will NOT shoot at a MAX bulkhead target unless there's nothing else because I know, regardless of the class, just how much a damage sponge it will be.

As for "over penetration", I'm not aware of any 4" to 6" HE shell that could go through the broadside of a merchant ship and NOT explode before emerging the other side, ESPECIALLY if such a hit were to the engine spaces. If it were such a problem, how is it submarines could and did sink merchant ships using anything from 3.5" to 5" guns in BOTH world wars? I can assure you it didn't typically take 30 hits to achieve that.

Ironically it was oil tankers that were the most durable IF they didn't suffer a catastrophic fire, assuming they weren't carrying something like avgas in which case they generally blew up when torpedoed. That's in no small part due to their natural compartmentalisation through their cargo tanks. The most reliable way to sink them was typically to hit them in the engine spaces, as they were the largest, critical and necessarily not subdivided are. You don't need to take my word for it, that's me paraphrasing none other than Dick O'Kane, one of the greatest sub skippers of WW2.

No, sorry, the issue of "over pen" of small calibre rounds coupled with the magic damage control properties achieved through unrealistic levels of compartmentalisation, especially for a transport, is exactly as I've described it. Merchants are FAR too large displacement wise and have damage control abilities seemingly IDENTICAL to that of capital class warships, and that's simply nonsense.

Cheers

[Cptbarney]

Titan class merchant transports guaranteed to make anyone rage!

Comes with the ability to resurrect itself! And shrug of rounds from god himself!

extra £10.00 for 3 smoll babies to pilot the ship.

 

[IronKaputt]

On 9/9/2020 at 2:28 PM, Cptbarney said:

extra £10.00 for 3 smoll babies to pilot the ship

Petition for "Powered by a Forsaken Child" propulsion option.

[Steeltrap]

On 8/26/2020 at 5:11 AM, K.u.K. Großadmiral said:

4.  Minor issue, but I think that a ship at flank speed would have much more smoke billowing from the funnels as opposed to one moving at a slower speed, the smoke should be proportional to speed, and only in the case of coal burning ships. Fuel oil ships have little to not smoke in comparison.

Technically the amount of smoke ought to be proportional to the number of boilers that are lit and the level of firing. Yes, a ship at maximum power by definition ought to be emitting the largest amount of smoke (all other things being equal), but a ship could also be doing so well before deciding to go to flank speed.

That's before considering the 'dangers' when firing additional boilers, as it was possible to emit much more smoke than usual if the firing were not done with appropriate care. Damage, too, could alter such things. There's a famous shot of one of the WW2 Scharnhorst class belching an incredible amount of smoke during the 'Channel Dash', and I think that may have been when she was getting underway after having some boiler rooms damaged by a mine (I'm going from memory so may be incorrect, but the pic certainly is famous).

It took HOURS from a cold start to raise steam, and the larger the power plant the more forward planning required as there were more boilers from which you'd need to raise steam.

Capital warships typically steamed around with as many boilers lit as were necessary for the desired expected speed. That means travelling from A to B in peace time they'd run the bare minimum. In war time, however, they'd have others potentially lit but at a minimum so they could raise additional steam and thus power/speed relatively quickly.

The official HMS Hood site has an interesting page about various boiler numbers etc used when steaming under different conditions.

Source http://www.hmshood.com/ship/handlingnotes.htm

2. Number of Boilers required.

(a) Leaving harbour in ordinary weather and simple conditions - 12 boilers.

(b) Entering Malta or Gibraltar - 12 or 15 boilers.

(c) Cruising - up to 15 knots - 9 boilers.

(d) In fog - not less than 12 boilers.

(e) For short bursts of speed, such as are required for Firing Practices:-

(1) 25 knots can be reached with 15 boilers.

(2) 26½ knots can be reached with 18 boilers.

These are at full power and consequently uneconomical.

(f) With the 24 boilers Full Power, 144000 HP can be exceeded leaving sufficient power for auxiliary machinery required in Action.

The fact is the game grossly simplifies and grossly misrepresents the performance characteristics of large ships of this era, something about which I've already written. While I understand there are limits to the value of being too detailed, the current apparently linear rates of acceleration are IMO a step too far in the direction of unreality.

While not as absurd as WoWS levels of speedboat performance, I believe the current system could be amended to be considerably more realistic without a lot of effort on the part of the devs. That they don't see it as a high priority is entirely understandable. I simply hope they'll address it some day by replacing linear acceleration with a curve of diminishing acceleration as speed increases. Note, for example, that the details about HMS Hood I provided show she required am additional 20% boilers lit to reach 26.5 knots over 25 knots (18 v 15 boilers respectively). That diminishing rate of acceleration has considerable implications for the way in which ships are likely to manoeuvre because getting back the 5-10 knots you may have lost in a sharp turn could take a surprisingly long time in a BB class, for example.

No doubt far more info than you were ever looking for, lol, but thought I'd chuck in some details as I think it's interesting and thought you may as well.

I'm going to raise the matter of ship manoeuvres and performance within this thread, referring to the specific topic I once made regarding it.

Cheers

Edited September 15, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Steeltrap]

Damage Model and Damage Control (continued)

In case people may feel I hadn't made my case sufficiently well when it came to asserting  that under the current model MAX bulkheads are far and away the most significant thing you can do for your ship's survivability (I don't even bother with Citadels, for example, as the costs and weight penalties vs the returns almost never are better than simply piling on more slabs of armour instead), here are a few more pics:

This is a CL with MAX bulkheads. It's had 3 Flash Fires (more to say on that mechanic in another post) and perhaps 20 seconds ago its floatation was at 7%. Despite things popping off like fiery champagne corks, multiple compartments entirely destroyed and something like 13 compartments on fire at once, the crew is still extinguishing those fires and pumping out water like crazy (floatation is increasing).

Here's a different ship from the same mission:

Yes, a pre-dreadnought BB with MIN bulkheads. It's just sunk from taking I think 2 penetrating hits within 30 seconds of each other that caused flooding, one of which I recall was a 6" hit to the stern belt extended zone. Note its structure is still 94%.

In my opinion it's simply a FACT that bulkheads are THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR for a ship's survivability. That pre-dread BB would have been far more durable with NO armour yet MAX bulkheads because, as the CL and indeed TR class ships with 0 armour demonstrate frequently, you frequently have to blast them with a truly astounding amount of ordnance that scores hits in the right places within a concentrated time period to sink them. Anything with MIN bulkheads is relatively, absurdly easy to sink, far more than in fact they ought to be.

This needs to be changed. At the very least, the issue of proper transverse bulkheads needs to be fixed, but even that's insufficient. Alternatively, if it's not going to be addressed, various ships MUST NOT be built by the AI with fewer than "MANY" bulkheads; if players are foolish enough not to do that, that's their choice, LOL.

I might add I'm fine with people who'd like to disagree, but I'd ask they take the trouble to gather some evidence with which to make their case.

Cheers

Edited September 15, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Cptbarney]

Yeah shineyhorse got smacked by two magnetic mines and only got spotted due to a fighter plane (i can't remember what it was but ill just a fw-190 for now) and the two marine spitfires chasing it spotted her flying through the channel.

Haven't played for awhile, but ships should have a more gradual pace when starting up and then start speeding up as the boiler and screws start going (titanic is a good example for that). Although we never start in a harbour or near a harbour, i guess the devs just want to focus on other things first (Campaign is top priority, but armour and the design should next straight afterwards). 

We defo need internal component models and also spaced-armour and a more customizable armour builder (so changing the belt to different shapes, sizes on a Y,X,Z axis). Kinda like warthunder and world of warships, but more in-depth.

Oh and the torpedeo thing were you can't control your ships properly because of torps or the werid forced slow down of your ships when it comes to ramming any an enemy either needs to go or be paired with crews/captains as a trait or something (subordination basically).

[Steeltrap]

^

Any mechanic such as flags or commanders that grant "magical" behaviour ("hey, look, my ship suddenly exceeds its trial speed by 10% because of a flag" said no ship's captain, ever) a la WoWS needs to be killed with fire before it ever makes it into this game.

That is, of course, if the devs are going to continue to claim their goal is "realism" in so far as that is a reasonable goal.

[SonicB]

21 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

^

Any mechanic such as flags or commanders that grant "magical" behaviour ("hey, look, my ship suddenly exceeds its trial speed by 10% because of a flag" said no ship's captain, ever) a la WoWS needs to be killed with fire before it ever makes it into this game.

That is, of course, if the devs are going to continue to claim their goal is "realism" in so far as that is a reasonable goal.

I could not agree more. I'm glad to see they'll be removing artificial formation bonuses in the next patch, which is encouraging, as I hope that means that other performance buffs and nerfs will eventually all be done in the same 'organic' way as the game engine and balance matures.

Next, I'm hoping for smoke to get a serious re-work - now the speed targeting malus has been largely fixed, it's the most obviously arcadey mechanic in the game.

[Skeksis]

4 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

needs to be killed

Anything that gives the game another layer of gameplay, more depth, is gotta be worth it.

Admirals, captains and crews would add an engagement factor for players, similar to leveling up tech trees.

Especially named historical officers.

It’s a must have.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Skeksis

[Cptbarney]

4 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

^

Any mechanic such as flags or commanders that grant "magical" behaviour ("hey, look, my ship suddenly exceeds its trial speed by 10% because of a flag" said no ship's captain, ever) a la WoWS needs to be killed with fire before it ever makes it into this game.

That is, of course, if the devs are going to continue to claim their goal is "realism" in so far as that is a reasonable goal.

No not really. You can have Captain traits and crew skills, there is nothing wrong with that it adds another layer to the game, and frankly we have no clue what they have planned for this game in terms of crew and captains or even if it will actually be split into two groups and only focus on crew members. 

Even RTW has its only little skill tree thing where you 'train' your crew for gunnery and they magically get better at gunnery, so ironically enough applying bonuses through little mini games or background calculations is just the same as having a captain being better at keeping his crew steady than most (you know real life personalities etc).

This is an alpha being made by a few people, it seems like everyone is forgetting that and the recent team shuffle. 

You can do the crew skill thing through how RTW's does, but expand upon it or assign random traits (good and bad) like Stellaris, HOI4, EU4 does. It kinda makes sense if the same crew survives multiple battles they learn new tricks to reload that little more faster and be far more brave in battle and be that much more accurate.

wows is its own thing an arcade game, and it will remain so an arcade game that was obvious from wargamings previous titles especially world of tanks (which makes me laugh when peeps thought it would be a very realistic simulator like tactical shooter, when in reality they want a big playerbase to milk from hence the arcade approach as that brings in more people).

Development is going to take awhile so we might as well help the devs where we can and hope they listen. And so far they seem to be doing so in some-most areas.

Atm we have to wait for the campaigns release and a few versions after that before they start to shift their focus. Game development even when being done by very competent and passionate people is bloody time consuming and can be pretty stressful (bugs, errors, corrupted data/folders/files, re-doing assets, deadlines, testing iterations etc.).

As long as 70%-80% of the mechanics are realistic it will be fine, but the designer still needs a major amount of attention as thats what sets it apart from every other naval game out there atm.

I get the passion, but we must be patient, and if they don't go down the appropriate route then.

Oh well.

[Steeltrap]

8 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Anything that gives the game another layer of gameplay, more depth, is gotta be worth it.

Admirals, captains and crews would add an engagement factor for players, similar to leveling up tech trees.

Especially named historical officers.

It’s a must have.

TL;DR?

Of course it's just my view, one of many, but I didn't mean a blanket "nope, no room for any variation" as that itself would equally be unrealistic; crew training and officer characteristics DID matter. I just don't want them to be ridiculous when it comes to what aspects they can alter or the degree to which they can do so.

========================================================

I believe you and others may have misinterpreted what I was saying, which is my fault as I didn't emphasise the important point sufficiently.

My objection is to MAGICAL bonuses, things NO commander can change.

Let's consider the core performance metrics of the power plant.

HMS Hood was known to be in dire need of another refit/service, ironically including an increase of the horizontal armour protection of the aft section of the ship (obviously with a focus on the aft propellant and shell magazines) as had already been done to the equivalent forward spaces in the previous one, and her speed at the time of her loss was limited to about 29 knots, down from the 31 knots she'd reached in her trials in 1939 following her last service. That speed reduction was largely down to engines and boilers, in fact much of her machinery, needing a major overhaul.

It CANNOT matter what captain or admiral is on board, they cannot make the machinery work better because even under ideal conditions with the best trained crew (there's no suggestion her engineers didn't know what they were doing) she isn't going to exceed that 29 knots without the necessary work being performed.

As an aside, that's not to say there can't be room for "full/emergency power", but that ought to be constrained by the hull shape and machinery in terms of effects, be limited as to how long it's possible, and carry its own risks too. Even then I'm not sure I'd do it as an argument can be made that the maximum speed achieved in trials usually IS an illustration of the greatest possible performance (and usually under less than full combat loads, too). We're not dealing with power plants that go to 11 (who's old enough to get that reference immediately? 😜 )

Similarly, you don't magically get better or different shell performance because of hoisting a flag or having an admiral. In fact the "national flavours" such as HE performance and fire chances and the likes that infest WoWS are largely bullshit and in many cases ironically directly at odds with the truth.

If, on the other hand, the devs want to include training levels of crew (which they've said they do), even perhaps having a concept of "doctrines" you may choose to go down in your research, similar to the system found in Hearts of Iron games for example, then I have no issue with that.

What I want is for the sorts of differences crew levels and commanders can have on a ship TO BE REALISTIC.

Higher level of training giving better accuracy? Sure, that's fine and indeed historically accurate (look at the gunnery of RN BCs vs the BBs at Jutland; the causes of the differences in performance are pretty well known and make sense).

Ships starting fires more often or exceeding their trial speeds compared with other ships sailing next to them with identical class ships using identical shells? Nope, rubbish.

If people DO want I regard as "magical crap", of course they're entitled to ask for it. If they can find real-world illustrations that demonstrate that something that appears to be magical bullshit may not be, great, we might even agree on those and I'll add my voice in support.

Use your equipment better and thus gain slight improvements over accuracy, for example? Sure. Alter the laws of physics, chemistry and engineering? Never.

I for one, however, hope the devs hold faith with their "realism" claims made to the public and draw the line between what was possible and what wasn't.

Hope that's a bit more clear.

Cheers

Edited September 16, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Hangar18]

On 9/15/2020 at 8:25 AM, Cptbarney said:

ships should have a more gradual pace when starting up and then start speeding up as the boiler and screws start going

They do but running engine efficiency at 100% gives you really big boosts.

On 9/15/2020 at 10:51 PM, Steeltrap said:

exceeding their trial speeds compared with other ships sailing next to them with identical class ships using identical shells? Nope, rubbish

Technically HMS Cavalier did exactly that by having the crew stand on the back of the boat to get more depth on the screws.

[Steeltrap]

On 9/19/2020 at 9:02 AM, Hangar18 said:

Technically HMS Cavalier did exactly that by having the crew stand on the back of the boat to get more depth on the screws.

I suppose we could have an option such that players may choose to have their entire BB crew (other than the engineering and bridge watches) on the stern for the sake of an extra knot, but I suspect there'll be a price to pay in terms of gunnery, fire control, damage control or indeed anything else they ought to be doing.

🤣

[Steeltrap]

On 9/15/2020 at 10:25 PM, Cptbarney said:

ships should have a more gradual pace when starting up and then start speeding up as the boiler and screws start going

Managing boiler numbers the engineering crew had lit but more or less in reserve or low power would be getting a bit much. While realistic, it would soon become a terrible pain for players.

My issue is even WITH all your boilers on full power you ought to see greatly reducing rates of acceleration as your speed increases. The relevant physics are notoriously complicated in many respects, but it's not unreasonable to simplify them in terms of the principles that resistance increases due to increasing speed through the water and thus the thrust from the screws produces ever DECREASING rates of acceleration.

According to the chart used by the RN for their war games of 1929, it took HMS Hood 30 minutes to reach 28 knots from a standing start. It took a further 15 minutes to go from 28 to 31 knots.

I've little doubt they weren't directly accurate numbers (the various performance lines for classes of ships have two different rates of roughly constant acceleration that pivot around a certain speed whereas a more accurate one I'd have expected to be more of a smooth arc of diminishing acceleration) yet I've also little doubt they aren't entirely nonsense, either.

Equally, to turn through 180 degrees while at 31 knots, 15 degrees of rudder would see her speed drop to 26.4 knots through the 4:13 it would take whereas the same turn with 30 degrees of rudder would complete the turn in 3:01 yet result in a final speed of 19.5 knots. That's a pretty huge difference in speed loss for not a lot of gain in terms of time taken to reverse course. Then consider the time it would take to get back to high speed from the 19.5 knots and it becomes clear you'd probably not be using 30 degrees of rudder unless there were truly exceptional circumstances.

In game, however, I use maximum rudder on a great many occasions because the costs appear rather the reverse of what I think they ought to be. The time taken to turn through a certain number of degrees is much more greatly affected by the rudder used than the speed lost and time taken to regain it through using much greater rudder angles.

IMO the way capital ships can execute abrupt turns then get back to their top speed is a significant issue. Acceleration CANNOT be a constant rate regardless of the current speed . That's simply not tenable given the relevant physics.

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  )

Edited September 20, 2020 by Steeltrap