Long list of issues (Please read)

[Steeltrap]

On 1/10/2021 at 11:03 AM, Bigjku said:

Ok we need to talk about some things that aren't modeled right as far as I can tell.

Range and Probability of Hit

As best I can tell hit probability is driven by some percentage of the range of the gun in question.  This leads to a HUGE advantage at range for the stupidly heavy guns (which is another gripe in that they aren't modeled right for weight as ships easily carry a dozen 20 inch guns at times) against the regular heavy guns.  This isn't really accurate to what is driving this equation.  It should be a function of fire control capability.

For example the Yamato technically has more range than an Iowa.  However the Iowa is generally expected to hit before the Yamato because it has better fire control technology (not just spotting technology but better fire control).  Regardless once you get within extreme range of the Iowa I don't think it has any less chance to make hits than does the Yamato.

I would suggest that you allocate fire control combo a maximum effective range and then dial down the hit probabilities from there rather than what I think you do which is raise the hit percentage as you use a lower percentage of the guns total range.  Yes an 18 inch gun should be slightly more powerful than a 16 inch one.  But it shouldn't accumulate more hits at the range over which both can fire and right now it does, generally by quite a bit as you close down that range.

Rate of Fire and Auto Loading

You shouldn't apply auto-loader technology to guns above 8 inches.  And historically that wasn't even done until the mid 1940's.  In general it just shouldn't even be an option.  I am unsure what semi-auto means but I personally think that should just apply to cruiser sized guns (8 inches) and down.  In my head it means using semi-fixed (ie non-bagged and fed as one piece).

Believe me, we have been banging on about these things and others for more than a year. Have picked away at the gunnery model for ages. Same goes for the point you raise about gunnery directors and fire control needing to be the MOST important determination of accuracy, not some crude % of any particular gun's range. Then there's the issue of propellant and bursting charges being the same, the fact 4" guns on transports cause "flash fires", and on and on.

Doesn't make any discernable difference. The Devs appear to be building their idea of "reality" and where it conflicts with clearly documented history they don't seem to care. Others will likely tell you not to get me started on the damage, armour and damage control models, LOL.

By all means see if you can achieve anything. I've pretty much moved on to other things. I don't even play this game any more given nothing at all that I care about has had the least bit of attention or, worse, when it has, it's gone in entirely the WRONG direction.

OK, I'll give a minor example of some of those favourite topics, LOL. Take the change to partial pen mechanics. After that was done, my BC was hit in its 18.2" effective belt armour by a shell with ~9" of pen (a 12" gun using that awful RN bursting charge). It did something like 20 damage from memory. Not a big deal one might think. Well, yes, except my 12" AP round that penetrated did 57 damage. So a shell with half the pen of the armour it strikes still gets partial penetration and does about 1/3 the damage of a same calibre shell that did penetrate (the belt, I might add). Does that make sense to anyone? It sure as hell doesn't to me. That was the last time I played.

Then they also announce that "calibres less than 11" altered to do more meaningful damage to BBs" or similar. WHY? Where's the evidence that ought to be true? Not that they defined what they mean by "more meaningful" or how that translates to game play. They almost never do. You can see why I find the idea of massed 6" spam becoming effective BB killers a terrible idea, because I worry the devs are already far too inclined to head in those directions as it is.

I could go on but won't. Popped in to see if anything of note had happened. I think it's great you and others are still discussing these things. I wish you luck.

Cheers

[admiralsnackbar]

I'm not super worried about gun caliber damage levels/armor  weight and penetration provided these things can be changed with mods.  But i do worry about some of the game features that appear to be more hard coded. 

A lot of the effort that goes into realism mods amounts to hundreds of hours of unpaid work that would not be viable for a team of a dozen developers. 


 

[Cptbarney]

1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I'm not super worried about gun caliber damage levels/armor  weight and penetration provided these things can be changed with mods.  But i do worry about some of the game features that appear to be more hard coded. 

A lot of the effort that goes into realism mods amounts to hundreds of hours of unpaid work that would not be viable for a team of a dozen developers. 


 

Hopefully we can get some Hard modding features and access to source or failing that core script files to edit the various parameters of the game, to make it more realistic and/or arcadey if needed. Or if unable to do this maybe some soft coding with a bit of hard coding as well.

[Skeksis]

17 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

core script files to edit the various parameters of the game, to make it more realistic and/or arcadey if needed

With War on the Sea you can give yourself some extra command points, create an extra fleet or two with them. 😊

[Cptbarney]

1 minute ago, Skeksis said:

With War on the Sea you can give yourself some extra command points, create an extra fleet or two with them. 😊

Ye, some of the core stuff needs to be addressed and some other things should be added in, but if the devs can't do some or most of it then hopefully mods should be able to fill in the gaps.

[Skeksis]

At this stage and with UAD team, I’m a bit surprised that moddable (text, config) files isn’t a thing already. Would have been a better way to go for changing things like Custom Battles 'unlock' mode.

[quarkus]

I have a bug in a custom battle.

when it's loading the battle, it takes extremly long time to build a light cruiser or destroyer.

Thanks !

[Andrzei81]

On 3/5/2021 at 8:06 PM, quarkus said:

I have a bug in a custom battle.

when it's loading the battle, it takes extremly long time to build a light cruiser or destroyer.

Thanks !

Same thing happens in campaingn too. Infinitely builds a light cruiser. Restart help though.

Other: I've just finished the battle where you need to kill 2xB,xCA,2xCL with a BB. That's a major pain to finish the mission because of the very low hit probability. You basically need to close in to 2-3 km to get a decent probability to hit against a battleship sized target, and even closer for cruisers. (with the best towers on the ship of course) All the while they spam you with 15-18 torps per cruiser... I think that's a major flaw, as you can't really use a battleship as a battleship should be used, that means staying out of torpedo range at any time. I get it that in the 1910s fire control was not really existent, but I'm sure as hell that they could hit anyting within 10km with decent accuracy. FYI in the battle of Jutland the germans had no problem to hit british battlecruisers from 14-15km with deadly fire. So please change the hit probability mechanics, because how it works right now is really annoying.

[Andrzei81]

Another annoying feature I've found in the mission where 2x american BBs are attacked by my 3x japaneese BBs.

1. I can hit the destroyers from within about 6-8km (where they appear) with 14" batteries without problems, but I can't hit them with the secondary 5-6" batteries althouh their main job should be to destroy light ships at close range. That should be corrected, as I wrote in my earlier post, big guns should hit more at long ranges, and big targets, but shouldn't track small fast ships at close ranges well. Secondary light batteries on the other hand should be able to hit those targets more often.

2. The destroyers can apparently survive multiple penetrating HE hits from 14" guns which is in my opinion totally unrealistic. I don't think that an ordinary destroyer which has virtually no armor can survive even a single 14" HE shell (which is over 500 kg) hit no matter how good damage control they have. I shouldn't mention if the 6" secondaries somehow hit them that causes virtually no damage too. So as I said in point 1, 14" batteries shouldn't even hit close range destroyers, but if they do that should be much more devastating to them. Also secondaries should do way more damage on hit, as right now there's absolutely no point to even install them. Yes another thing: in the same mission I could sink their BBs with about 5-6 penetrating hits which is totally ok. When I compare that to the destroyers which survive 2-3 hits and still kicking, now that's not ok. 

[madham82]

14 hours ago, Andrzei81 said:

Another annoying feature I've found in the mission where 2x american BBs are attacked by my 3x japaneese BBs.

1. I can hit the destroyers from within about 6-8km (where they appear) with 14" batteries without problems, but I can't hit them with the secondary 5-6" batteries althouh their main job should be to destroy light ships at close range. That should be corrected, as I wrote in my earlier post, big guns should hit more at long ranges, and big targets, but shouldn't track small fast ships at close ranges well. Secondary light batteries on the other hand should be able to hit those targets more often.

2. The destroyers can apparently survive multiple penetrating HE hits from 14" guns which is in my opinion totally unrealistic. I don't think that an ordinary destroyer which has virtually no armor can survive even a single 14" HE shell (which is over 500 kg) hit no matter how good damage control they have. I shouldn't mention if the 6" secondaries somehow hit them that causes virtually no damage too. So as I said in point 1, 14" batteries shouldn't even hit close range destroyers, but if they do that should be much more devastating to them. Also secondaries should do way more damage on hit, as right now there's absolutely no point to even install them. Yes another thing: in the same mission I could sink their BBs with about 5-6 penetrating hits which is totally ok. When I compare that to the destroyers which survive 2-3 hits and still kicking, now that's not ok. 

1. BB caliber guns are far more accurate at all ranges than smaller ones. They also would have no problem tracking even a small, fast ship at close ranges. Most could turn the guns from 2 to 4 degrees a second. Even a 40kt DD at 5km (which is suicide range for a DD) isn't going to be moving that fast across the horizon. The issue would come if the BB was turning at the same time, so not saying it couldn't be a factor. But the real limiting factor would be rate of fire. Secondaries were designed to engage them through sheer volume of fire (not accuracy). That made up for their lack of accuracy compared to the main guns, and would dissuade most from staying in range. 

2. You are correct here. If you noticed, the ones that typically shrug off repeated BB gun hits have maximum bulkheads (at least that is consistent in my experience). These give any ship magical abilities to survive massive damage and seemingly recover from catastrophic flooding. It is definitely a balance issue as it should not matter how many bulkheads you have if you have no armor to resist the explosion. 

[Steeltrap]

On 3/17/2021 at 12:18 AM, madham82 said:

2. You are correct here. If you noticed, the ones that typically shrug off repeated BB gun hits have maximum bulkheads (at least that is consistent in my experience). These give any ship magical abilities to survive massive damage and seemingly recover from catastrophic flooding. It is definitely a balance issue as it should not matter how many bulkheads you have if you have no armor to resist the explosion. 

Now where have I heard that before?

😝 😁

[Steeltrap]

On 3/15/2021 at 8:24 AM, Andrzei81 said:

Other: I've just finished the battle where you need to kill 2xB,xCA,2xCL with a BB. That's a major pain to finish the mission because of the very low hit probability. You basically need to close in to 2-3 km to get a decent probability to hit against a battleship sized target, and even closer for cruisers. (with the best towers on the ship of course) All the while they spam you with 15-18 torps per cruiser... I think that's a major flaw, as you can't really use a battleship as a battleship should be used, that means staying out of torpedo range at any time.

Am curious to know what scenario that is.

Believe it or not, the fact is this game greatly OVERSTATES how accurate these guns were.

The final iteration, supposedly late WW2 tech integrated radar fire control direction, have hit rates that are utterly absurd.

We've said over and over that THE most significant governing factor when it comes to accuracy between same calibre guns on different ships ought to be fire control tech yet for most of the tech development it appears that is NOT the case.

No, it's simply "bigger is better" because accuracy is tied largely to the guns you're using and NOT the directors that aim them, which makes very little sense when you think about it. To highlight that, the 12" guns for some reason are magically more accurate than 10-11" or indeed 13-14" (or at least has been for the past 6 months at least; I've not played for some time, but I doubt that's changed). Why? No idea.

The main factor that OUGHT to be relevant to the guns is how well they go where you think you are aiming them. In that respect there's no reason why a 14" shell ought to be any better at hitting a spot at which you're aiming, which is what your gunnery solution is, than an 8" shell.

The GREATEST difference ought to be a reflection of how well your tech takes the factors that go into producing a solution and generates a good one. Yes, shell flight characteristics are a contributor both for accuracy AND flight time reasons, but the fact is a properly calibrated fire control system has all those built into it, kind of like bore sighting an infantry rifle with a scope. Factors such as how the Italian 15" of WW2 had issues both due to the mount but also inconsistency of propellant quality can affect how well you can take advantage of a good firing solution, obviously, because if your guns can't fire shells that will go where you believe you are telling them to then the solution becomes less relevant to some degree. That could be put into the game or not, or the player given an option.

That DOESN'T change the main point about fire control systems being of greater significance.

To use an example, consider the final battle of Scharnhorst. When it came to the ability to hit Scharnhorst in atrocious visibility and bad sea conditions, which was more relevant, the fact that HMS Duke of York was using 14" guns, or that she had very sophisticated radar tied to her fire control systems, radar that detected Scharnhorst at ~41km or over 45,000 yards?

OK, that might not be quite a fair question because, as I said before, the bizarre thing is just how crazily accurate radar makes the late war tech ships. Yet it remains true that the accuracy is tied more to the gun calibre and version (marks 1-6 from memory) than the directors.

It's annoying and frustrating, but there's little evidence it's going to change.

Cheers

Edited March 29, 2021 by Steeltrap

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

17 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Am curious to know what scenario that is.

Believe it or not, the fact is this game greatly OVERSTATES how accurate these guns were.

The final iteration, supposedly late WW2 tech integrated radar fire control direction, have hit rates that are utterly absurd.

We've said over and over that THE most significant governing factor when it comes to accuracy between same calibre guns on different ships ought to be fire control tech yet for most of the tech development it appears that is NOT the case.

No, it's simply "bigger is better" because accuracy is tied largely to the guns you're using and NOT the directors that aim them, which makes very little sense when you think about it. To highlight that, the 12" guns for some reason are magically more accurate than 10-11" or indeed 13-14" (or at least has been for the past 6 months at least; I've not played for some time, but I doubt that's changed). Why? No idea.

The main factor that OUGHT to be relevant to the guns is how well they go where you think you are aiming them. In that respect there's no reason why a 14" shell ought to be any better at hitting a spot at which you're aiming, which is what your gunnery solution is, than an 8" shell.

The GREATEST difference ought to be a reflection of how well your tech takes the factors that go into producing a solution and generates a good one. Yes, shell flight characteristics are a contributor both for accuracy AND flight time reasons, but the fact is a properly calibrated fire control system has all those built into it, kind of like bore sighting an infantry rifle with a scope. Factors such as how the Italian 15" of WW2 had issues both due to the mount but also inconsistency of propellant quality can affect how well you can take advantage of a good firing solution, obviously, because if your guns can't fire shells that will go where you believe you are telling them to then the solution becomes less relevant to some degree. That could be put into the game or not, or the player given an option.

That DOESN'T change the main point about fire control systems being of greater significance.

To use an example, consider the final battle of Scharnhorst. When it came to the ability to hit Scharnhorst in atrocious visibility and bad sea conditions, which was more relevant, the fact that HMS Duke of York was using 14" guns, or that she had very sophisticated radar tied to her fire control systems, radar that detected Scharnhorst at ~41km or over 45,000 yards?

OK, that might not be quite a fair question because, as I said before, the bizarre thing is just how crazily accurate radar makes the late war tech ships. Yet it remains true that the accuracy is tied more to the gun calibre and version (marks 1-6 from memory) than the directors.

It's annoying and frustrating, but there's little evidence it's going to change.

Cheers

 

Yeah... I would like to use the 406mm guns more often, but accuracy is very important to me, and, since 381mm are for some reason far more accurate, and then 432mm are less accurate again, and then 457mm are more accurate again... seems kinda arbitrary tbh

Edited March 29, 2021 by SPANISH_AVENGER

[Hardlec]

UNFIXED PROBLEMS

 

Diesel Engines do not need boilers, but in the Ship designer, I need boilers and funnels equivalent to steam engines.

There are some engine configurations where it's impossible to have enough funnel capacity.

A ship traveling in a straight line offers no difference in target difficulty due to speed.  Delta-V is significant, V is not.  Change in vector is more significant in any case.

Why won't you tell me the enemy's course and speed?  if a ship can be seen, it is pretty easy to calculate their course and speed, but not on a 2D screen. If my enemy is travelling North, I can adjust to adopt a parallel course.  

The AI human player can use is a coward.  It moves your ships away from the enemy.  As it is very hard to control multiple formations individually, the ineffective AI means I usually have only one line of ships. 

"The Enemy Never Retreats" is a lie.  If your ship gets hit and loses enough speed, the computer enemy will leave the battle area and time you out. 

You really need a second display where the human can see all of his ships and all spotted enemy ships at once. While I love the close-up views and even the battle damage, you won't tell me the enemy's course and speed and you won't give me a large enough context to all me to make decisions for a fleet.

 

You should be able to save scenarios in the middle.  Like on Mario Brothers.

 

[Skeksis]

3 hours ago, Hardlec said:

and funnels equivalent

good point. Diesel engines don't need super big funnels, model-wise.

Technically, there should be a selection of top tier, max out capacity carrying but much smaller sized funnels. 

[Masonator]

 This might be just a nitpick, but I find it really annoying when the AI builds superbattleships as soon as the hulls become available, even if the player isn't using their own super hulls.  Building historical ships is pointless, because the AI will always come out with a super-Yamato mounting 19- or 20-inch guns and all the module trimmings - even on obsolete dreadnought hulls, which just looks ridiculous and totally breaks the immersion.

 It would be very nice if the AI maximum fleet tonnage and gun calibre scaled according to the player's own tonnage and guns, perhaps up to a maximum of 120% or so.  It's mildly infuriating to successfully sink an entire enemy fleet, only to have all of your remaining ships destroyed by a single super-ship, endlessly running away from you, that your heaviest guns can't even scratch.

 Does this bother anyone else?  Am I going crazy?

[Darth Khyron]

I also feel that the AI is going to build the strongest, not neccessarily the biggest, battleship possible. Usually, it is 1.5 knots faster than yours and often much better armed, though many times less well-protected.
I cannot count the times I wanted to go "treaty", design a BB with 356mm guns, 28 knots and such and the AI blows me out of the water with a first or second salvo hit with super heavy shells from an autoloaded 508mm gun.

But this not only extends to battleships. I personally dread the 229mm-armed heavy cruisers with up to 35 torpedo tubes (well, since torpedo tubes are now really, really big, this should be a thing of the past). Yet, the 9' weapon seems to be able to crack Krupp IV 50cm armored command towers and AI cruisers pack a lot of these, usually.

It is no fun. I like challenges, do not get me wrong. But having to re-start a battle again and again to make sure the Ai does not have a megaship is a bit frustrating. Again, I would advocate to be able to save your designs and use them in custom battles (to be used by you and the enemy and encompassing the entire fleet, not just one ship class). This would balance the game more and you are able to re-create historical designs (and tactics) and put them against each other.

[RedParadize]

When you have more than two turret one salvo on two will not be a full one. Meaning that Fuso like ship with 5 turret will fire 1 (Range Finding), then 5 turrets, then 2, then 5....

Sometimes its 3 instead of 2, but rarely.

[coalminer]

Seeing this response in the Alpha 12 feedback thread has killed any of my remaining interests in this unfortunately. This seems to imply that they do not intend to change the way armour is distributed or customised on the hulls (which most likely means no changes to gunnery/damage systems) beyond tweaking numbers and modifiers for "balance".

Oh well, had some fun here and there but probably wouldnt come back until something else big comes along.

On 6/3/2021 at 6:18 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

Armor weight is calculated with different ways according to type. For example, Belt and Deck armor use as main factor the weight of the hull. Turret armor use as base the weight of the turret, dividing the turret proportionally in top and side sections. We cannot share the exact formulas, but hopefully you get the idea.

[Nick Thomadis]

17 minutes ago, coalminer said:

Seeing this response in the Alpha 12 feedback thread has killed any of my remaining interests in this unfortunately. This seems to imply that they do not intend to change the way armour is distributed or customised on the hulls (which most likely means no changes to gunnery/damage systems) beyond tweaking numbers and modifiers for "balance".

Oh well, had some fun here and there but probably wouldnt come back until something else big comes along.

Too much drama lately. Explaining briefly how it currently works for some sections does not mean it will not receive further improvements. We cannot promise exactly anything we plan, just because of the drama...

[admiralsnackbar]

On 6/4/2021 at 11:16 AM, coalminer said:

Seeing this response in the Alpha 12 feedback thread has killed any of my remaining interests in this unfortunately. This seems to imply that they do not intend to change the way armour is distributed or customised on the hulls (which most likely means no changes to gunnery/damage systems) beyond tweaking numbers and modifiers for "balance".

Oh well, had some fun here and there but probably wouldnt come back until something else big comes along.

Remaking the armor and gunnery systems would likely involve hours of work, which for a for-profit company means time and money not spent getting the game into a playable state. Ultimate general civil war has a mod by a guy called pandakraut which sort of takes the vanilla game system and tries to bring what they see as realism into the accuracy and damage system.

I strongly believe that similar mods will be made within a few months of the games final release, provided the game is built to support those kinds of modifications. Luckily gamelabs is not EA. Though, more fundamental changes to the ship builder would likely not be changeable but who knows. 

Things that I think are higher priority in the context of making campaigns more enjoyable and academy missions less frustrating are best encapsulated by the german wrath on the north sea mission

1. Inability to control the order of battle of your fleets prior to beginning the battle itself
2. Inability to customize more than 1 ship type for an academy mission, randomness of your/enemy fleet screen
3. AI difficulty when it sees itself crossing the path of another ship or ships

4. Ships not righting their rudder after avoiding torpedoes, continuing in a circle and then often driving themselves back into the salvo they just avoided.

5. "Stealth ships" -- one ship seeing another at a far longer distance, being able to get within ranges where evasion of torpedoes is impossible. (I get that with night action / long lance style oxygen torpedoes it would theoretically be possible to do this but that's a late war thing)

6. When a new division is created ships at the rear are assigned as the lead ship for no good reason causing the other ships to double back (leading to even more fleet chaos) 

7. Division assignment difficulty during battle (division cards moving when you try to join them, drag selection selecting the entire division rather than individual ships, lack of hotkeys or hotkeys not working [for me at least :'( )

These things worry me because it's not just a matter of adjusting a couple of numbers in the game. 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by admiralsnackbar

[ImperatorMorsus]

The Battle AI for user controlled ships need some strong love. 

I was in a mission where I had to destroy ships and protect a convoy, I was doing ok, and we had them on the ropes... then nature hit. 

I put the AI in control, and when I came back the ships were going east, while the convoy was getting destroyed in the west.  One of my ships had 75% damage (not the capital ship) and the capital ship had full health... there was no reason to run, unless my AI was working for the enemy....

[Steeltrap]

On 6/5/2021 at 1:35 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Too much drama lately. Explaining briefly how it currently works for some sections does not mean it will not receive further improvements. We cannot promise exactly anything we plan, just because of the drama...

If the response you receive is not to your liking, maybe the communication ought to be examined?

If you leave major, important details out of something and people get annoyed or make stuff up, is it surprising? Is it their fault, or a failure of the communication?

You also might want to ask whether you want your customers to be wondering if you're taking lessons from WarGaming in how to interact.

You can hold your customers in contempt if you wish, but demonstrating it will likely appear astoundingly arrogant or breathtakingly stupid, and quite possibly both. It's certainly not helping WG at present.

[Hangar18]

On 1/9/2021 at 7:03 PM, Bigjku said:

Ok we need to talk about some things that aren't modeled right as far as I can tell.

Range and Probability of Hit

As best I can tell hit probability is driven by some percentage of the range of the gun in question.  This leads to a HUGE advantage at range for the stupidly heavy guns (which is another gripe in that they aren't modeled right for weight as ships easily carry a dozen 20 inch guns at times) against the regular heavy guns.  This isn't really accurate to what is driving this equation.  It should be a function of fire control capability.

For example the Yamato technically has more range than an Iowa.  However the Iowa is generally expected to hit before the Yamato because it has better fire control technology (not just spotting technology but better fire control).  Regardless once you get within extreme range of the Iowa I don't think it has any less chance to make hits than does the Yamato.

I would suggest that you allocate fire control combo a maximum effective range and then dial down the hit probabilities from there rather than what I think you do which is raise the hit percentage as you use a lower percentage of the guns total range.  Yes an 18 inch gun should be slightly more powerful than a 16 inch one.  But it shouldn't accumulate more hits at the range over which both can fire and right now it does, generally by quite a bit as you close down that range.

Rate of Fire and Auto Loading

You shouldn't apply auto-loader technology to guns above 8 inches.  And historically that wasn't even done until the mid 1940's.  In general it just shouldn't even be an option.  I am unsure what semi-auto means but I personally think that should just apply to cruiser sized guns (8 inches) and down.  In my head it means using semi-fixed (ie non-bagged and fed as one piece).

range and accuracy are intertwined. If you pick a propellent that increases range, it will also increase accuracy...

I've been ok with auto loading because the load time for guns is abnormal without it...

[Cptbarney]

Some suggestions i have in-mind for future updates and patches regarding crew and a tidbit.

"Yeah, we need to have models and proper simulations done too have a more accurate effect on crew. So we will need actual shell models interacting with the models of ships themselves to create a better effect in-general.

Plus fires, flooding, internal damage, smoke, internal explosions, accidents and also debris falling or collapsing should all have roles to play in crew deaths and injuries. Along with crew deaths by attrition, the effectiveness of the ship should go down too as obviously i doubt a ship can be ran by one very sweaty bloke running at 100 mph back and forth to sort everything out at once.

Also wounded should be sorted into the following:

Trivial, Minor, Moderate, Major, Severe, Critical. We could also apply these to other aspects of the ship like, rudders, funnels, engine, ammoracks, storage, radar, rangefinders, turrets, etc.

Hopefully by next year we get some of this stuff regardless oh and a leaderboard as well showing an in-depth list of stats of the ships that got damaged and who killed what and how many etc."

Cheers!