Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

I have a question. Does the AI run away when the enemy has more ships than you? Because the other day was fighting a fleet that had more ships than me and my fleet turn around and ran despite having them on screen and follow.

Yes, I find that in most cases my screening ships put the battle line between them and the enemy regardless of the situation. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The long anticipated update for Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts is now available! Read all the news in our blog (with images):  https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/quad-guns-french-h

@Cptbarney Regarding extra barbette slots for the new hull, it is something that will be added in a next update or hotfix. Extra slots in this particular section could interfere with the AI logic

Hello Admirals, We have just deployed a small update including the following: *HOTFIX v78* - Fixed issues with Richelieu hull that caused gun clipping. - Fixed some reported problems of ba

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Ye, had a bunch of CA's that just sat around and chugged forward while the lone BB and smoll CL's had to deal with their fleet lol.

So that will need fixing.

Yeah. The only reason I won the battle is because I was battling against 1920s ships while my ships were from the 1940s.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Ok this has been bothering me for a while but I have to ask. Is the All or Nothing armor scheme heavier than Turtleback armor in real life? You would think AoN would be lighter but in game its the heaviest. So I want to know if that's correct or not.

Yes, that is correct. Nothing tends to weigh a lot more than people actually give it credit for and my reply is a completely unnecessary s*itpost.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Ok this has been bothering me for a while but I have to ask. Is the All or Nothing armor scheme heavier than Turtleback armor in real life? You would think AoN would be lighter but in game its the heaviest. So I want to know if that's correct or not.

I feel like its more of a "game logic" its better therefore it has drawbacks. all or nothing is not something you select as a module. all or nothing is how you armor your ship via sliders. eg: (disclaimer, I use mm instead if inch sorry) 320mm main belt and only 100mm on the secondary, 150mm main deck and 50mm secondary. 380mm turret armor and 100mm secondary turrets. 

get the idea? the armor types are basicly buffs, but you decide on your armor scheme. i quite like the system, but it means that we can use the best scheme from the get go. another feature that needs balancing and probably a rework. but lets let the devs finish the core game 1st.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the new update I have been experimenting with different gun turrets on ships of the same caliber (KGV style etc), and I was wondering if there could be a button introduced that links guns of the same caliber to a single gun salvo (or let the player manually choose which guns to link to a salvo)? Because the twins fire faster than the quads, so leaving everything alone in battle results in quads and twins firing their own salvos, not together, hence reducing the hit chance and defeating the whole point of a broadside salvo. The only way to stop this is to manually disable the guns between reloads, wait till the whole broadside is ready, then enable them again. But this is bad as it annoying to micromanage and resets the likelihood of hitting the target, it is also borderline impossible to use this on more than one ship at a time. Therefore an introduction of a button that links guns to a combined salvo would fix this issue. This would also make wing turrets more feasible as they can be linked to centerline turrets as well. 

Also please we have all been asking for the longest bloody time, give the players more anchor points (it's just getting stupid at this rate)

ImvcMM2.png

Edited by Whomst'd've
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Whomst'd've said:

Since the new update I have been experimenting with different gun turrets on ships of the same caliber (KGV style etc), and I was wondering if there could be a button introduced that links guns of the same caliber to a single gun salvo (or let the player manually choose which guns to link to a salvo)? Because the twins fire faster than the quads, so leaving everything alone in battle results in quads and twins firing their own salvos, not together, hence reducing the hit chance and defeating the whole point of a broadside salvo. The only way to stop this is to manually disable the guns between reloads, wait till the whole broadside is ready, then enable them again. But this is bad as it annoying to micromanage and resets the likelihood of hitting the target, it is also borderline impossible to use this on more than one ship at a time. Therefore an introduction of a button that links guns to a combined salvo would fix this issue. This would also make wing turrets more feasible as they can be linked to centerline turrets as well. 

Also please we have all been asking for the longest bloody time, give the players more anchor points (it's just getting stupid at this rate)

ImvcMM2.png

They just need to start treating all turrets of the same caliber as one group at last, dammit! Didn't you notice that your twin is listed separately from quads in ship's card and has it's own target lock, hit chances etc?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2020 at 10:23 PM, Cptbarney said:

They should make it consistent and have the same way to open your own cards as well as the enemies.

Oh I agree entirely, and possibly ought to have made that clear.

My answer was intended simply to convey that the cards DO work to produce the same result as the player's own ones, it's just there's that added step in there for some reason.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2020 at 12:03 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

This is a feature that is in our backlog. We cannot offer full freedom as it would be not realistic to add barbettes where machinery could be placed or far ahead in the bow/stern of the ship, were practically it would be impossible. But something, could be done for an improvement in the future. We can first allow more slots in practical places (Which is the most efficient method, for the player too).

In this update, you will notice already several improvements in various hulls and more placeholders for barbettes or guns.

Appreciate that this ship designer limitations would be getting some attention but with a statement on machinery and probably relating to deck penetration of the guns requiring a certain hull beam to fit the guns as the justification for limiting the placement of weapons does not work in this case:

1. We cannot see what is underneath the deck nor influence machinery placement. Predreads and older ships tend to come with all sorts of funny arrangements such as wing turrets, AQX mounts as it was historically restricted by technology and machinery space (i.e, room needed for boilers and turbines in the hull). Some ways to get around this and maximise broadside weight was the use of midship barbettes between boilers and turbines to omit wing mounts but as the game does not simulate not allow us to see machinery spaces, this point is moot and there is little reason to go beyond the most optimal ABXY superfiring layouts. Being able to decide (or atleast see) how the machinery is laid out would give players alot more flexibility in how ships are designed and even how the game is played, a player forgoing engine technologies may be restricted by large sections of the hull used up for machinery.

2. Without being able to see what happens under the deck, deck penetration doesnt matter as there is nothing to interfere with. In the current iteration the ship designer is more limited by deck space than what is happening in the hull. Should I put the main turrets as far out the beam as I can? yes why not to maximise broadside weight and mounts that I can fit. But historically distance between the hull and the mounts were considered as it would allow for more metal between incoming fire and gun ammo stores/magazines. In particular with TDS there were quite abit of thought put into how and where guns were mounted and armour was spread out (see references to cross sections of Iowa, Yamato, etc.) such as backing plates to catch splinters in the event the TDS was compromised.

3. Armour layout is not influenced in anyway by the player's (or the AI's) decision. Short of choosing the various citadel levels (say turtleback vs AON) doesnt seem to affect the vessel's internals short of modifiers to the numbers (% thickness weight, costs etc.). An AON design places significant consideration to the armoured citadel and reserve buoyancy of the vessel to maximise chances of survival against attacks, but the current armour system penalises AON by forcing players to only use the 3 midship sections otherwise even small calibre hits against the belt extended portions would result in magazine detonations (this is strongly evident in AI designed BCs where all the armour is focused in the belt but armament is spread all over the vessel). This abstraction of armour links back to point 2 where the player is incentivised to slap on as much armament on deck as possible than careful placement of guns (this is further exaggerated by AI designs which can be at times be borderline nonsensical).

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Ok this has been bothering me for a while but I have to ask. Is the All or Nothing armor scheme heavier than Turtleback armor in real life? You would think AoN would be lighter but in game its the heaviest. So I want to know if that's correct or not.

TL;DR? No, the weight of armour is determined by its type and thickness and the area covered. The scheme is how and where that armour is applied. There's no such thing as "turtle back armour" v "all or nothing armour".

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

It's not as simple as one weighs more than another.

The more accurate answer would be to say there are a few different factors involved. One is the type of armour (in the game shown as various Krupp ratings). Another is the thickness of the plate involved.

Thus the weight of armour plate as it emerges from bing produced in the foundry is Armour type base weight x armour thickness.

The last part of the equation is how and where you apply that armour. THIS is the true, real life difference between the various armour schemes.

One way to think of it is that the different armour schemes are different approaches as to where and at what thicknesses to "spend" the "total weight of armour" you have allowed as a proportion of the total displacement of your ship's design.

If you took the exact same ship characteristics with say 40% of its weight taken up by armour (which is roughly correct for Bismarck from memory)) and produced two versions of it, one with a "turtle back" and the other as "all or nothing", you'd end up with quite different placement of armour and different thicknesses, too.

ALL armour schemes reflect the thinking of navies at the time as how best to allocate armour to defeat the most likely, most dangerous threat known to the designers at the time. The TB scheme was a reflection of lower range combat which meant an emphasis on shells arriving at relatively flat angles of attack, which means favouring vertical protection (the ship's sides). The AON scheme evolved when longer combat ranges were becoming possible due to the many changes to systems that added up to greater accuracy and thus effective ranges (you're not effective if you can't hit). This meant increased thought about horizontal protection (decks), because those shells at greater ranges are arriving at steeper angles which meant they could penetrate more armour.

You can't realistically keep the same vertical protection and then simply jack up the horizontal as well as the weights involved would quickly become absurd. The answer? Concentrate the armour thickness on only the most vital areas, which means the engine spaces and magazines in simplest terms. So you end up with an "armoured box" containing the propulsion and weapons, otherwise known as the citadel (taken from castle design if I'm not mistaken).

Even then, there were many different views of just how to do that increased horizontal/deck protection. Experience and studies, both in the war and then after, pretty much concluded if you had a total budget of say 7" of armour on "the top of the box", the most effective layout was to have almost all of it placed in one deck rather than equally divided over multiples. I was watching a recent video from the BB New Jersey (an Iowa class) museum YT channel about its horizontal armour, and the curator gives a very good run down on the armour scheme and the thinking behind it, filmed sitting on top of the "splinter deck" that was immediately below the main armour deck. If interested, here's a link:

All of this overlooks the fact that ships used all sorts of different armour types because each had attributes that made it better at some things yet not as good at others, so you had to decide the principle role and thus most suitable type of armour.

Here's a pretty decent summary of some armour development etc from Drach. too:

 

8 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

the armor types are basicly buffs, but you decide on your armor scheme.

Effectively, yes. While I understand why they've done that, I'm not really a fan of them putting so many different factors under the umbrella of armour schemes. Why, for example, is one version any better for preventing fires than another? I'm unaware of any particular justification for that. If your citadel is penetrated you're probably having a bad day regardless of what armour scheme your ship may have.

11 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

Yes, that is correct. Nothing tends to weigh a lot more than people actually give it credit for and my reply is a completely unnecessary s*itpost.  

LOL, bad Fishy, naughty Fishy.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, coalminer said:

Appreciate that this ship designer limitations would be getting some attention but with a statement on machinery and probably relating to deck penetration of the guns requiring a certain hull beam to fit the guns as the justification for limiting the placement of weapons does not work in this case:

1. We cannot see what is underneath the deck nor influence machinery placement. Predreads and older ships tend to come with all sorts of funny arrangements such as wing turrets, AQX mounts as it was historically restricted by technology and machinery space (i.e, room needed for boilers and turbines in the hull). Some ways to get around this and maximise broadside weight was the use of midship barbettes between boilers and turbines to omit wing mounts but as the game does not simulate not allow us to see machinery spaces, this point is moot and there is little reason to go beyond the most optimal ABXY superfiring layouts. Being able to decide (or atleast see) how the machinery is laid out would give players alot more flexibility in how ships are designed and even how the game is played, a player forgoing engine technologies may be restricted by large sections of the hull used up for machinery.

2. Without being able to see what happens under the deck, deck penetration doesnt matter as there is nothing to interfere with. In the current iteration the ship designer is more limited by deck space than what is happening in the hull. Should I put the main turrets as far out the beam as I can? yes why not to maximise broadside weight and mounts that I can fit. But historically distance between the hull and the mounts were considered as it would allow for more metal between incoming fire and gun ammo stores/magazines. In particular with TDS there were quite abit of thought put into how and where guns were mounted and armour was spread out (see references to cross sections of Iowa, Yamato, etc.) such as backing plates to catch splinters in the event the TDS was compromised.

3. Armour layout is not influenced in anyway by the player's (or the AI's) decision. Short of choosing the various citadel levels (say turtleback vs AON) doesnt seem to affect the vessel's internals short of modifiers to the numbers (% thickness weight, costs etc.). An AON design places significant consideration to the armoured citadel and reserve buoyancy of the vessel to maximise chances of survival against attacks, but the current armour system penalises AON by forcing players to only use the 3 midship sections otherwise even small calibre hits against the belt extended portions would result in magazine detonations (this is strongly evident in AI designed BCs where all the armour is focused in the belt but armament is spread all over the vessel). This abstraction of armour links back to point 2 where the player is incentivised to slap on as much armament on deck as possible than careful placement of guns (this is further exaggerated by AI designs which can be at times be borderline nonsensical).

Agree. In the past I've never bothered with citadels at all for pretty much the reasons you've said. The in-game reality was it proved more effective simply to pile on thickness because the mall bonuses to effectiveness the various armour schemes offered didn't stack up with the various penalties such as weight and cost. To put it simply, 10" of +100% armour > 8" of 110%. And that's before the other points you correctly raise. Whether it's true under the new patch I've no idea as I've not really bothered with it given it doesn't address any of the core systems that I find most critical to the playability of the game.

I will add, however, that attending to formations and the like IS very important, so I think it's great that got attention. It's just not enough for me to be interested in testing and giving feedback as the other things will have remained the same. In fact some of the changes I don't like at all, but those aren't related to the formations, nor is the update the subject here.

While not wishing to sound harsh, there have been times when I've wondered just how much about the entire subject matter of naval tech, design and performance the devs understood when they decided to do this project. I say that because in my opinion there are many, many design choices that seem so far from known realities that I find it difficult to accept they knew of those realities when making the choices. Having made those choices, trying to make them "fit" reality becomes more and more difficult. Even more so as they try to introduce more and more factors, most recently what I have always regarded as truly awful "flash fire" nonsense; even IF you wanted to add it, I just don't see why you''d do it the way they chose to. "Flash fires" on open 4" mounts on a transport? How? They don't even have separate propellant charge magazines, nor feed trunks down which a "flash" can travel.

Magazine explosions, meanwhile, don't have any effect on a gun mount's ability to fire. Maybe I'm peculiar, but I'd have thought you might want to fix that before adding something else that, while famous due to the BCs at Jutland and HMS Hood, generally happened extremely infrequently, not least because navies understood the need to be able to flood such spaces so that even in cases of ships having very considerable fires below decks they didn't have such detonations. If someone can show me evidence to the contrary, I'll happily change my opinion. Then again, the same is true of torpedoes causing magazine explosions; I was able to find ONE case of that through the entire history of BBs known to have sunk due to damage from enemy fire (for anyone interested, it was a French pre-dreadnought that was torpedoed by a German sub, exploded and sank in minutes with the loss of all hands). Yet we saw that added and, entirely predictably (I know because I predicted it in a post, LOL) of course BBs going "pop" due to the armour/internal layout simplicity (as per your point 3).

Neither of which is to say those mechanisms need not be present at all because they DID happen, even if practically next to never. Just have to wonder as to why they'd receive priority. I could guess, but it hardly matters.

Well, it's their project thus entirely up to them. Hopefully they can surprise me, but I find the lack of movement in the direction of even "roughly realistic" of several core elements over the 13 months I've been here somewhat concerning. But that's just my taste, not everyone seems as bothered by these things.

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2020 at 6:50 AM, Steeltrap said:

Magazine explosions, meanwhile, don't have any effect on a gun mount's ability to fire. Maybe I'm peculiar, but I'd have thought you might want to fix that before adding something else that, while famous due to the BCs at Jutland and HMS Hood, generally happened extremely infrequently, not least because navies understood the need to be able to flood such spaces so that even in cases of ships having very considerable fires below decks they didn't have such detonations. If someone can show me evidence to the contrary, I'll happily change my opinion. Then again, the same is true of torpedoes causing magazine explosions; I was able to find ONE case of that through the entire history of BBs known to have sunk due to damage from enemy fire (for anyone interested, it was a French pre-dreadnought that was torpedoed by a German sub, exploded and sank in minutes with the loss of all hands). Yet we saw that added and, entirely predictably (I know because I predicted it in a post, LOL) of course BBs going "pop" due to the armour/internal layout simplicity (as per your point 3).

Just going to jump in and add HMS Barham, which capsized and blew up (on film) four minutes after being torpedoed. It's an open question how much the magazine explosion had to do with the torpedo hits and how much it was just a result of upending a large metal box full of naval artillery shells.

That said, absolutely agree with the overall argument. Magazine explosions happen far too often in this game and seem to have disproportionately small consequences compared to historical events. The video I linked is what an actual battleship main magazine explosion looks like, and there's no comparison.l

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, SonicB said:

Just going to jump in and add HMS Barham, which capsized and blew up (on film) four minutes after being torpedoed. It's an open question how much the magazine explosion had to do with the torpedo hits and how much it was just a result of upending a large metal box full of naval artillery shells.

That said, absolutely agree with the overall argument. Magazine explosions happen far too often in this game and seem to have disproportionately small consequences compared to historical events. The video I linked is what an actual battleship main magazine explosion looks like, and there's no comparison.l

The hits started a fire in a 4" magazine which was outboard and closer to the torpedo hits. The fire was uncontained and resulted in the fire reaching the main magazine farther inboard. Again uncontained, the fire detonated the main. This all happened in about 4 minutes following the hits. The question in my mind were the doors actually shut on both magazines. I don't see fire spreading from one magazine to the other without some poor DC procedures. Maybe someone can dig up a more detailed report.

With that said, flash fires need a serious rework. Take the below for example:

DDtest5.thumb.jpg.d56cc048ea8c1f9018c416bbc116f955.jpg

My BC had both Anti-torp 3, many bulkheads, and reinforced bulkheads 1. I was hit by exactly 2 torpedoes (which my log never showed being detected even though I had sonar..but that's another story). How exactly do we justify a flash fire magazine explosion from 2 torpedoes on a well protected capital ship. IRL there isn't one. As for the game here's the issue.

Flash fires calculate all hits the same, regardless of what type of hit. 

Therein lies the issue. A torpedo hit is not like a 16" shell penning the belt or deck, especially when there is an actual TDS. On a capital ship, those main magazines are going to be well protected by TDS and deep inside hull to begin with. A secondary magazine explosion/fire is entirely possible (i.e. HMS Barham), but anything more than anti torp 1, should reduce significantly reduce the chance of flash fire for the mains. 

So how to fix:

Either we need Anti-torp levels to include a reduction in flash fire/ammo detonation chance.

Or

Flash fires need to be reworked to calculate torpedo hits differently than shells.

The first is probably the easiest fix. Interested to hear everyone else's thoughts. 

Edited by madham82
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Steeltrap, @SonicB

There’s more to consider…

  • Battle time, how long are battles going to take, magazine detonations offer some expediency. 
  • Investment, buying protection will provide a campaign money sink.
  • Design strategies, tanking or DPS powertech, BB or BC.     
  • Tactics, target lighter unprotected ships with larger weapons invoking detonations etc...

The battle instance has to offer more than just a slugfest, magazine detonations does. Spotting a magazine detonation adds interaction, keeps the player involved, something I think is very important with a largely AI based battle instance.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

@Steeltrap, @SonicB

There’s more to consider…

  • Battle time, how long are battles going to take, magazine detonations offer some expediency. 
  • Investment, buying protection will provide a campaign money sink.
  • Design strategies, tanking or DPS powertech, BB or BC.     
  • Tactics, target lighter unprotected ships with larger weapons invoking detonations etc...

The battle instance has to offer more than just a slugfest, magazine detonations does. Spotting a magazine detonation adds interaction, keeps the player involved, something I think is very important with a largely AI based battle instance.

Teehee, shooty boat go boom.

IMHO there are many other criticals that could be used to add variety and character to the battles. For instance, turret malfunctions, jammed steering, disabled shafts, director or electrics malfunction, shot-up communication masts... there were very few historical engagements where everything worked perfectly on both sides and it was just two perfect lines of ships steadily shooting holes in each other.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, madham82 said:

With that said, flash fires need a serious rework.

If magazine detonations are too rare then losses over a campaign wouldn't impact the overall finances, nor designing protection nor the design process, recourses would be used elsewhere.  

Protection for magazine detonation would only be considered if there is frequent detonations, too which is working well currently!

1 hour ago, SonicB said:

Teehee, shooty boat go boom.

Concentration, strategizing, combat command, battling master AI.

1 hour ago, SonicB said:

For instance, turret malfunctions, jammed steering, disabled shafts, director or electrics malfunction, shot-up communication masts...

Idle turrets are already cursed, adding malfunctions wouldn't go down well, IMO.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

If magazine detonations are too rare then losses over a campaign wouldn't impact the overall finances, nor designing protection nor the design process, recourses would be used elsewhere.  

Protection for magazine detonation would only be considered if there is frequent detonations, too which is working well currently!

Concentration, strategizing, combat command, battle against a master AI.

Idle turrets are already cursed, adding malfunctions wouldn't go down well, IMO.

Turret malfunctions should be a thing, but only after the campaign. Let's let the devs focus on what's important now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...