>>>Alpha-9 Feedback<<<

[SonicB]

18 hours ago, Skeksis said:

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

I'm not saying slap a sticker on the bug and call it a feature, but... I don't object to some turrets not firing. I object to it being completely random with no damage or in-game justification.

Golden BB knocks out the turret mechanism? Has happened quite frequently in history. Part of the ship design game should be balancing performance against redundancy, i.e. you can build a great ship that might break, or an good ship that probably won't. We have an abstraction of that but the numbers aren't clear and the frequency of malfunctions (aside from magazines going boom) aren't significant enough to really factor it in.

Also provides a better reason to stick with twin turrets without artificial accuracy nerfs on triples and quads.

[Skeksis]

5 hours ago, SonicB said:

sticker on the bug... I object to it being completely random with no damage or in-game justification.

A bug is just what it is, a bug – to be fixed, it’s odd language to “object” to that, to object to a bug because it is random. I’m sure Dev’s intentions are not to leave it unfixed.

If you misunderstood, idle meant to mean: weapons that freeze/don’t firer for long periods, referring to the issue indirectly.

[madham82]

On 11/16/2020 at 9:10 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

BALANCES
A few balances were made based on the player feedback we received on our last patch.

• Accuracy balance: Maneuverable ships, such as Destroyers, will be harder to hit, so they will be more comfortable to control them at a safe distance. Average Accuracy is less at long range but will be significantly higher at very short ranges, creating more decisive engagements when ships approach very near to each other.
• More resilient Destroyers and Torpedo Boats: The hull damage that DD and TB can withstand is increased, so they are not so rapidly destroyed in gun fights.
• Increased weight of torpedo tubes: It should be much harder to create functional ships that can host too many torpedo launchers.
• Increased weight of bulkheads: Making ships with full bulkheads will need more design sacrifices. Additionally, AI will try to make ships with more bulkheads.
• Flash Fire chance balance: Flash fire should happen less often for small caliber guns.

Some feedback to Nick and team on some specific areas.

Accuracy balance: From my testing, it seems the magic range which is suicide for DDs/TBs is now around 6.5-7KM. At that range I was scoring hits with 16" consistently and hence the enemy did not survive long. At ranges greater than this (to about 10-12KM) I didn't score a single hit with the 16"s. My secondary battery of 3x2 8" were the only thing hitting the DDs at this range (despite probably 20+ salvos). This seems to need some more tweaking. No way a secondary battery should more accurate than the mains. 

More resilient Destroyers and Torpedo Boats: I can safely say this change did not create any problems. My 16"s when they hit quickly reduced the DDs to burning wrecks within 2 to 3 hits. The only issue I see is not related to DD/TBs but to max bulkheads which applies to any type. 

Increased weight of torpedo tubes: At least from my experience the AI seems to have got the message. Using only a few launchers on designs with low numbers of reloads. 

Increased weight of bulkheads: See screens attached (have to attach 2nd to next post). I'm trying to see what the AI had to sacrifice to get max bulkheads. It's quite a stout build. It shrugged off 8" and 4" shells with ease. Not so for the 16" thankfully, otherwise it would have never sunk.

Flash Fire chance balance: This needs to have some consideration given to torpedo impacts. As I stated earlier and by others, happening too frequently with ships carrying high levels of protection against torpedoes. 

[madham82]

2nd Screen from above:

 

[Skeksis]

8 minutes ago, madham82 said:

As I stated earlier and by others, happening too frequently

But not the consensus.

[CapnAvont1015]

4 minutes ago, madham82 said:

No way a secondary battery should more accurate than the mains

Aye your right. Secondary guns should not be more accurate then the main guns. This is not WOWS. Secondary's are only supposed to be useful in close engagements or fighting off DDs and CLs if they get to close. That is when they shine because at close range secondary's will tear light armored ships apart. Let me not talk about merchant vessels.

7 minutes ago, madham82 said:

This needs to have some consideration given to torpedo impacts. As I stated earlier and by others, happening too frequently with ships carrying high levels of protection against torpedoes.

To be honest. I never understood how a torpedo can cause a flash fire with proper protection. There are times where my BB gets all its guns blown off due to a flash fire from one or two torpedo's. I'm pretty sure if a torpedo hit a BBs torpedo belt the explosion wouldn't come close to the machinery let only the magazines since they are buried deep it the ship and are armored to the teeth. Flash fires need some work, it doesn't matter they are cool to look at.

[madham82]

2 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

But not the consensus.

Considering we do not have a campaign to judge how many times this will happen in a playthrough, your point about frequency is just conjecture. That's not to say it isn't valid, just lacks data to validate. Whereas several people (not just this thread) have mentioned it happening frequent enough to mention. That's how the small caliber changes came about too. So the devs need to hear. Up to them to decide to address it. 

[Skeksis]

44 minutes ago, madham82 said:

conjecture

Before detonations was introduced in alpha 6 no one used barbette upgrades nor considered applying those extra weights, suppressing ammo risk etc..., now everyone is armoring and protecting their ships against flash fires risk, using recourses to mitigate risk. 

That counts for something, it’s not conjecture at all. Flash fires/detonations protection is having a direct impact on designs 'right now', it’s working as a recourse sink.

Frequency = resource expenditure. 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Skeksis

[madham82]

29 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Before detonations was introduced in alpha 6 no one used barbette upgrades nor considered applying those extra weights, suppressing ammo risk etc..., now everyone is armoring and protecting their ships against flash fires risk, using recourses to mitigate risk. 

That counts for something, it’s not conjecture at all. Flash fires/detonations protection is having a direct impact on designs 'right now', it’s working as a recourse sink.

Frequency = resource expenditure. 

Barbette armor has no bearing on flash chance from a torpedo because it doesn't impact the same area. So armoring the barbette should not reduce the chance of a flash fire from a torpedo. So it only makes sense to treat TDS the same way. All that is occurring is diverting from reality for the sake of justifying a improbable event. 

[Cpt.Hissy]

Did anyone else experience a flash fire with turret pop and ship going down from a 4" HE shell boinking off the deck?
I did, that's something to say about chances.

@Skeksis why you keep mentioning money sinks? This is not some chinese free-to-play MMORPG to require money sinks.
If done properly, you'll be just always low on money and need to do compromises to be able to build anything at all.

[CapnAvont1015]

57 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Did anyone else experience a flash fire with turret pop and ship going down from a 4" HE shell boinking off the deck?

No but the other day my rudder got damaged from a 6inch shell landing on my 7inch deck. Was my rudder gears in the top part of the ship?

[CapnAvont1015]

MY GOD! The AI is actually pissing me off. They just run away from the enemy if there's more numbers and this is only custom battles. Imagine how the campaign gonna go if the AI remains like this I'm not gonna have a good time in the campaign.

[SonicB]

22 hours ago, Skeksis said:

A bug is just what it is, a bug – to be fixed, it’s odd language to “object” to that, to object to a bug because it is random. I’m sure Dev’s intentions are not to leave it unfixed.

If you misunderstood, idle meant to mean: weapons that freeze/don’t firer for long periods, referring to the issue indirectly.

I understood - was just responding to your point about more turret malfunctions not being a good idea because they're already bugged - at least that's how I read it.

Just to be precise: 'intended' turret and other malfunctions that are caused by battle damage or lack of maintenance (in the campaign) are a good thing in my opinion, as they add tactical depth and historical authenticity. Too often in semi-sim games, we see one sacrificed for the other.

The current bug of turrets randomly not firing is a separate issue and needs to be squashed.

[SonicB]

16 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

No but the other day my rudder got damaged from a 6inch shell landing on my 7inch deck. Was my rudder gears in the top part of the ship?

This is the worst part of the whole armour system to me, especially with AoN schemes where the steering gear was always heavily armoured and right at the bottom of the hull, protected by the waterline from anything but plunging fire.

Historically, if I recall correctly, steering malfunctions really only occurred from shellfire where the ship's conning tower, steam plant or electrical system was damaged. It was much more common for this to be the result of torpedoes or mines.

So related to the above posts: torpedoes should be more likely to cause steering and engine damage, and less likely to cause magazine explosions and flash fires.

[CapnAvont1015]

4 minutes ago, SonicB said:

This is the worst part of the whole armour system to me, especially with AoN schemes where the steering gear was always heavily armoured and right at the bottom of the hull, protected by the waterline from anything but plunging fire.

Historically, if I recall correctly, steering malfunctions really only occurred from shellfire where the ship's conning tower, steam plant or electrical system was damaged. It was much more common for this to be the result of torpedoes or mines.

So related to the above posts: torpedoes should be more likely to cause steering and engine damage, and less likely to cause magazine explosions and flash fires.

Your right. The armor in this game is kind of wonky. Just today my rudder got damaged from a 6inch shell that hit my 8inch belt extended. This makes me wonder if the belt extended armor even covers the steering gears; your right about how historically steering is usually disabled by torpedo's and mines but only in certain cases for the later years. KMS Bismarck being one of the most famous examples and even when Bismarck got hit with a second torpedo none of its turrets blew off.

[Cpt.Hissy]

Some ships could have magazine detonations from torpedoes due to their design (as example, russian dreadnoughts and their foremost turrets), but they didn't blow up... Because they never were torpedoed.

How many full scale battles like ingame actually happened historically? Don't you think that lack of historic records for turret pops etc may be caused by kind of survivorship bias - we don't see it because there were not enough situations capable of causing this in the first place?
saying this, is I still can't argue that this game's damage model needs awful lot of work.

[SonicB]

6 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Some ships could have magazine detonations from torpedoes due to their design (as example, russian dreadnoughts and their foremost turrets), but they didn't blow up... Because they never were torpedoed.

How many full scale battles like ingame actually happened historically? Don't you think that lack of historic records for turret pops etc may be caused by kind of survivorship bias - we don't see it because there were not enough situations capable of causing this in the first place?
saying this, is I still can't argue that this game's damage model needs awful lot of work.

Well, basic physics would appear to dictate that underwater explosions outside the hull are not likely to set fire to anything. Torpedoes are so much more deadly than shells for their size because the explosion shock is transmitted through water, which does not compress, rather than dissipated through the air. Furthermore, as far as I'm aware magazines were nearly always protected at least by coal bunkers and then by torpedo bulges.

If any fires are going to be caused it would be because of shock damage to electrical systems or sympathetic detonation; not impossible with the unstable propellants used in the early 20th century, but also not likely.

As for historical examples, if you're asking about ships being torpedoed (or mined), well, no shortage there, and hardly any of them blew up as a direct result. Admittedly we have less data for pre-dreadnoughts, but several were sunk by underwater weapons in WW1.

(Edit: done a bit more research, and for completeness, I do have to add another ship, the pre-dreadnought Pommern at Jutland, whose magazines blew up after a torpedo hit and sank the ship. That's the only pre-dreadnought example I can find. So my conclusion remains not impossible, but not as likely as we see in-game.)

Edited November 27, 2020 by SonicB

[DerRichtigeArzt]

11 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

MY GOD! The AI is actually pissing me off. They just run away from the enemy if there's more numbers and this is only custom battles. Imagine how the campaign gonna go if the AI remains like this I'm not gonna have a good time in the campaign.

IMO It should be a toggle option, you either set them to stay and fight or act like they care about thier life. 

[Steeltrap]

13 hours ago, SonicB said:

That's the only pre-dreadnought example I can find.

French Suffren was torpedoed and sank in minutes from an apparent magazine explosion according the the German u-boat responsible who surfaced but found no survivors.

It's the ONLY clear example I was able to find of the sort of thing the game models.

I pointed all this out when giving feedback on the mechanism when it was being implemented, and did the same with flash fires, too (including the ridiculous sight of transports popping 4" shield mount guns all over the place, supposedly for "flash fire" reasons).

[Cptbarney]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Goliath_(1898)

Goliath also sank to torps, doesnt say anything about a magazine explosion but she sank very quickly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Triumph_(1903)

Might be the case for triumph however.

Maybe majestic too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Majestic_(1895)

[madham82]

14 hours ago, SonicB said:

Well, basic physics would appear to dictate that underwater explosions outside the hull are not likely to set fire to anything. Torpedoes are so much more deadly than shells for their size because the explosion shock is transmitted through water, which does not compress, rather than dissipated through the air. Furthermore, as far as I'm aware magazines were nearly always protected at least by coal bunkers and then by torpedo bulges.

If any fires are going to be caused it would be because of shock damage to electrical systems or sympathetic detonation; not impossible with the unstable propellants used in the early 20th century, but also not likely.

I am not a physics expert, so I will try to explain this as I understand it. A byproduct of an explosion is heat. You see visible evidence of that in atmosphere, especially when combustible material is present. Underwater, the heat is still generated (might have something to do with compression or the shock wave, physics guys speak up). The difference is how far it will propagate. 

In terms of a torpedo hit, the explosive force can generate enough heat to sear objects close enough to the hit. This can and has happened through the hull. The best example of this is the hit against the USS North Carolina. According to the official report, several crew members were found with burns inside a compartment next to the impact (which was directly under the #1 turret). However that same compartment was completely flooded within seconds of the hit. I don't remember exactly, but believe they drown and did not die from the burns. 

Reading the report, the Navy did seriously investigate but ultimately concluded that the chance for a propellant detonation was remote. Here is what they said specifically regarding events that could result in a magazine explosion:

"in general, magazine explosions may be caused in three ways:

(a) A propellant-powder fire which results in an explosion of the propellant powder magazines. Ignition of powder may be caused by hot fragments, flash from a detonation, or high temperatures outside the magazine proper. High density of loading of the magazine, high temperature in the magazine and some pressure within the magazine are all important factors. Inasmuch as an appreciable interval of time is required to build up temperature and pressure sufficient to cause the powder to explode, a magazine explosion is not likely to occur if the sprinkling system is operated promptly, or if the magazine floods rapidly from the sea through damage to the underwater shell, thus extinguishing the fire, or other openings (doors, ventilation ducts and passing scuttles) are present in the bounding bulkheads or decks.

"(b) The roasting effect of high temperatures applied for an appreciable interval to projectiles or bombs loaded with high explosives. In general, a detonation of one or two projectiles or bombs may occur first...

"(c) High velocity fragments striking thin-walled projectiles or bombs loaded with high explosive, resulting in a mass detonation of the magazine "contents.."

Going back to examples. HMS Barham is still a good example to discuss. The fire in the 4" magazine (which ultimately ignited the 15" magazine) could have been a flash fire started by the torpedoes impacting. It also could have been electrical or other damage related as mentioned. In addition to Barham and NC, Yamato also took a hit from a torpedo close to aft magazine. The damage done was more than expected, but if I remember correctly was a hit similar to NC where the torpedo hit at the extreme edge of the TDS and belt. This shows the weak points in TDS taking hits on the bow/aft ends of the ship.  

For those wishing to read the Navy report on the NC, check this link:

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-north-carolina-bb55-war-damage-report-no-61.html

[madham82]

8 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Goliath_(1898)

Goliath also sank to torps, doesnt say anything about a magazine explosion but she sank very quickly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Triumph_(1903)

Might be the case for triumph however.

Maybe majestic too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Majestic_(1895)

We need to exclude examples prior to the development of TDS. The Germans were the first to implement it with Blucher and the Nassau class. There's enough evidence that ships without TDS are vulnerable to magazine explosions from underwater explosions.  

[CapnAvont1015]

48 minutes ago, madham82 said:

We need to exclude examples prior to the development of TDS. The Germans were the first to implement it with Blucher and the Nassau class. There's enough evidence that ships without TDS are vulnerable to magazine explosions from underwater explosions.  

Yeah a lot of the examples of ships blowing up from a torpedo are from the Pre-Dreadnought era where ships barely had any torpedo protection. 

[Steeltrap]

15 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Yeah a lot of the examples of ships blowing up from a torpedo are from the Pre-Dreadnought era where ships barely had any torpedo protection. 

Yet there's only ONE I could find of a pre-dreadnought BB. Not the other ships, the BBs.

ONE.

There certainly are at least a handful of pre-dreadnought BBs sunk by torpedoes, however.

To me it;'s another mechanic that has been put in the game in its current form on the basis of belief, NOT on the basis of a realistic appraisal of the realities of the day as best as can be determined.

Doesn't mean it SHOULDN'T happen, DOES mean it should happen VERY rarely. Perhaps more importantly, it ought to be possible to build so it CAN'T happen at least against torpedoes of similar era tech.

As for a BB with any sort of "more modern" TDS? I'm not aware of even ONE. Plenty of BBs were hit by torpedoes in WW2. NOT ONE suffered this fate.

Which means between pre-dreadnought BBs and then dreadnoughts through to the last tech BBs built during WW2 there is ONE example where a BB was struck by a torpedo and immediately exploded and sank. If anyone knows of more than one, please do let me know as of course I want to have accurate knowledge.

I'm aware of a RN pre-dreadnought (class started in 1898 I think) that was sunk in WW1 by TWO torpedoes fired quite some time apart (from memory more than an hour separated them). The loss of life largely occurred because of the very poor conditions that severely hampered the rescue efforts of attending ships when it finally sank around 3am in the English Channel, not because the ship sank quickly.

Faced with that, you have to ask on what basis the current system, and particularly the chances of detonations or the misnamed "flash fire" within it, were built. Certainly doesn't seem to be on any real verifiable evidence.

Again, I don't have a problem with the mechanisms being there as they DID happen. What I have a problem with is inflated and largely arbitrary chances of either occurring.

If it happens to a BB with more or less the best possible tech against torpedoes etc then that's frankly BS, just as it is for "flash fires" that clearly are uncontrolled fires reaching magazine spaces. To the best of my knowledge, that NEVER happened to any BB except where there was no opportunity to do follow usual damage control measures up to and including flooding magazines. THAT happened famously to HMS Barham and IJN Yamato where one was caught on live film while pictures were taken of the aftermath of the other.

All points I raised when giving feedback of this mechanism in testing, just as I had for the equally obviously flawed "flash fires".

It gets a bit frustrating after a while.

[SonicB]

@madham82@Cptbarney@Steeltrap thanks for the examples, you folks are always good for historical information. Have been looking into it further because it's a slow day at work and we have jstor access, and you guys are absolutely right. It seems that pre-dreadnoughts and early dreadnoughts that relied on coal bunkerage for their below-waterline protection were actually quite vulnerable (the volatility of their propellant and charges may also have been a factor.) After the move to oil and the development of dedicated torpedo protection this seems to have been mitigated pretty substantially.

@Steeltrap is right in that while the chance was there, it seems to be represented quite crudely. My suggestion would be to keep the base chances as they are, and add a base -50% chance of magazine detonation through torpedo hit to any level of antitorp, improving by -10% each level.