>>>Alpha-9 Feedback<<<

[CapnAvont1015]

Ok this has been bothering for a while. I don't do much research on torpedo technology so I must ask. In order for a torpedo to go off doesn't the warhead have to be hit? Because in this game even if it looks like the torpedo warhead passes the front of your ship if you hit the side or very end of the torpedo it will go off. Was that how it was in real life or is not programed to tell which part of the torpedo you hit?

[madham82]

3 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Ok this has been bothering for a while. I don't do much research on torpedo technology so I must ask. In order for a torpedo to go off doesn't the warhead have to be hit? Because in this game even if it looks like the torpedo warhead passes the front of your ship if you hit the side or very end of the torpedo it will go off. Was that how it was in real life or is not programed to tell which part of the torpedo you hit?

Contact and magnetic influence (proximity). Modern torpedoes also have a "keel breaker" fusing method where the torpedo explodes directly under the ship to use the force rising to the surface to cause increased damage. 

What you describe in game sounds like a bug. 

[dbs1701]

First off, thank you for your work, Devs! I LOVE the new hulls and quad turrets! But, I’d like to see a bit more sanity with the quad turrets:

1. They go too big. There is no way a 20” gun is going in a quad turret on any platform smaller than the absolute highest tonnage and even then probably no more than two of those and not superfiring unless you can REQUIRE the “enormous” barbette.

2. They don’t go small enough! Can we please have the French 13” turret for a Dunkerque? Also, aside from ubiquitous AAA quad mounts, French sometimes put their 5” secondaries in quad turrets on Dunkerque and Strasbourg.

What about having all smaller main guns (say 9”-16”) be available in quads, but 17”-18” be only in triples, and 19”-20” only in duals?

Alternatively, could the nationalities and hulls themselves dictate what is buildable? So modern BB hull could have the aforementioned limitations (look at concept art of the A150 Super Yamato to see how anything over dual 20”s are insane on anything under 80k tons!) but the Super BB hulls can be no-holds-barred with the quads?

Better still, tweak each nationality to make it better/worse for various turret sizes. You COULD build anything but your nation has the best effectiveness on certain turret designs. For example the French and UK maybe not have much penalty for building quads, while the US can but won’t do as well with them. Germans even would suffer with triples but have their legendary accuracy with duals.

[CaptainSlow]

On 11/16/2020 at 6:22 PM, Keo223 said:

Not sure if anyone else has had this issue, but I can only seem to select the "hard" difficulty for naval academy missions. It was set to "normal" by default, and changed to hard when I clicked on it. Now I can't seem to set it to anything else.

I'm having the same issue 

[Skeksis]

Quote

Though there was a capital ship issue...

The screenshot shows the DD as the lead ship, couldn't change it, didn't know how, wasn't consistent.

At the very least the utmost capital ship should be the default lead. Better still if we could slide the ship cards within the division row ourselves then we could set the lead ship, even organize the whole row. FYI the division was formed by dragging  & dropping ship cards.

@Nick Thomadis is this an issue? I mean do you think that we should be able to organize ships within the division or is this ship order a non-issue for the game, like something that is never going to be fixed/change?

 

PS, could be fixed or valid if by sorting ships from heaviest to lightest every time a ship is added or removed. Or at least let us designate the flag ship.

Edited November 30, 2020 by Skeksis

[Steeltrap]

9 hours ago, CaptainSlow said:

I'm having the same issue 

Pretty sure I responded to that before. The notes point out that the 'difficulty ' button as yet has no effect.

I suspect that's why they've not bothered to fix it.

I tend to wonder why bother putting it there if it doesn't do anything, but then I'm picky, lol.

[Steeltrap]

22 hours ago, madham82 said:

Contact and magnetic influence (proximity). Modern torpedoes also have a "keel breaker" fusing method where the torpedo explodes directly under the ship to use the force rising to the surface to cause increased damage. 

Technically the purpose of the magnetic triggers of WW2 was to have that keel breaking effect, which was one of the main purposes for being able to look up the draught of a ship and thus determine an appropriate depth at which to set the torpedo. Weather played a part, too, and you also generally wanted your torp as deep as seemed practical, but the idea was also to have the torp close to or even slightly below the expected keel depth for the reason you explained.

We all know how badly those triggers turned out to be initially; most know the USN had all sorts of issues with their initial torps, but the initial performance of the German torps was also very sketchy. I believe it was none other than Gunther Prien who complained rather bitterly about being sent to war "with a wooden gun" following an attack off Norway (possibly on one of the Renown class? I'm going from memory and being lazy not looking it up LOL) during that campaign where his torps failed and he was then subjected to depth charge attacks for some hours. From memory I believe the root cause of the German torp issues was in fact temperature related and that very cold water was making them fail or at least be very unreliable.

Not sure about the IJN or Brit triggers as their torpedo performance, other than knowing the IJN had the most potent surface launched torp in the world, is something I've never really got into for some inexplicable reason. Have never really come across much in the way of material pointing to failures, so they were probably both reliable as this is an area where it's definitely true that "no news is good news".

Cheers

[madham82]

12 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Technically the purpose of the magnetic triggers of WW2 was to have that keel breaking effect, which was one of the main purposes for being able to look up the draught of a ship and thus determine an appropriate depth at which to set the torpedo. Weather played a part, too, and you also generally wanted your torp as deep as seemed practical, but the idea was also to have the torp close to or even slightly below the expected keel depth for the reason you explained.

We all know how badly those triggers turned out to be initially; most know the USN had all sorts of issues with their initial torps, but the initial performance of the German torps was also very sketchy. I believe it was none other than Gunther Prien who complained rather bitterly about being sent to war "with a wooden gun" following an attack off Norway (possibly on one of the Renown class? I'm going from memory and being lazy not looking it up LOL) during that campaign where his torps failed and he was then subjected to depth charge attacks for some hours. From memory I believe the root cause of the German torp issues was in fact temperature related and that very cold water was making them fail or at least be very unreliable.

Not sure about the IJN or Brit triggers as their torpedo performance, other than knowing the IJN had the most potent surface launched torp in the world, is something I've never really got into for some inexplicable reason. Have never really come across much in the way of material pointing to failures, so they were probably both reliable as this is an area where it's definitely true that "no news is good news".

Cheers

Yea I was more thinking of how much better the method works on modern torpedoes (and the understanding of magnetic fields in all the oceans now). They will actually dive under a target from what I have read, but you are right the theory began with WW2 magnetic fusing. 

If I remember correctly the Japanese were one of the few to actually conduct live warhead tests before the war. The US for example didn't, hence why many issues were not discovered. 

[CapnAvont1015]

Ok i've been thinking about this for awhile now. I know a lot of people would love modding to be in the game. But in order for that to work a lot of the core game mechanics would have to be changed. For example each hull in the game has their own stats and the bigger each hull gets the more stats it gets. For modding this can not work due to balance especially if modding would be allowed in the campaign. Same for the towers. Another problem is displacement. If modding would become a thing a limit on displacement for each class to become thing. For example if someone was making a super BB hull the max displacement they can get to 200'000 and the lowest is 100'000. The way hulls and towers are set up needs to be change if modding were to ever happen. My suggestion would be to get rid of all the current stats on hulls and towers then make a second window to where we can add what we in the hull and towers. It can be set just like where apply your armor type, boilers and radar. But thats my thoughts on it let's see what the others say.

[Cpt.Hissy]

For modding to even be worth considering, we need an actual properly working game; we aren't going to get it in nearest future.

[Tousansons]

4 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

But in order for that to work a lot of the core game mechanics would have to be changed

Modding doesn't work like that. A game is not "tailored" and "balanced" for modding in the first place. The game mechanics and all other elements are designed to work within the game scope, not some fan made content happening after release. There can however be some tools or things making modding "easier", but this is a topic to discuss when the game will be close to release.

On the other hand, we can discuss about the fact that hulls/towers are just some historical skins adding bonus to the ensemble. I don't really mind it, although it feels gamey and in the end there is no point in chosing the "inferior" one even if it looks cooler.

 

13 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

For modding to even be worth considering, we need an actual properly working game; we aren't going to get it in nearest future.

There is exemple of game with mods aiming to salvage the broken release, even some naval ones (Pacific Storm). Modders will find a game worth modding as long as the files are relatively easy to fiddle with and there is at least their Discord friendlist eager to try their work.

[AnonymousPepper]

I'ma be honest, we absolutely, definitely need free placement of barbettes outside of machine spaces (which themselves should be moveable) - particularly secondary barbettes should be *completely* free - and funnels and particularly bridges in general. There's a lot of room for creativity that gets stifled by the arbitrary placement points and it's just not good.

As a related point, hullforms need more variability - flush decks or elevated deck sections needs to be something we can choose between on the same hull pattern.

[Cptbarney]

I guess lads all we can do is wait for the alpha 10 announcement.

So let barnehs prediction game begin!

I say beginning of jan for alpha 10 announcement.

[CapnAvont1015]

1 hour ago, AnonymousPepper said:

I'ma be honest, we absolutely, definitely need free placement of barbettes outside of machine spaces (which themselves should be moveable) - particularly secondary barbettes should be *completely* free - and funnels and particularly bridges in general. There's a lot of room for creativity that gets stifled by the arbitrary placement points and it's just not good.

As a related point, hullforms need more variability - flush decks or elevated deck sections needs to be something we can choose between on the same hull pattern.

To be honest. What got me really excited for this game was its trailer. I was hoping that the editor was going to be like the trailer. But maybe it will be like that in the future.

 

[Dontshoot]

7 hours ago, AnonymousPepper said:

I'ma be honest, we absolutely, definitely need free placement of barbettes outside of machine spaces (which themselves should be moveable) - particularly secondary barbettes should be *completely* free - and funnels and particularly bridges in general. There's a lot of room for creativity that gets stifled by the arbitrary placement points and it's just not good.

As a related point, hullforms need more variability - flush decks or elevated deck sections needs to be something we can choose between on the same hull pattern.

100% agree. We have heard the excuse the AI will mess up placing barbettes, but this is kind of a really basic part of any ship building game and should have been implemented at the start of Alpha. Warships gunner 2 for PS2 had more in-depth ship building. No reason a 2020/21 game should not have these features

Edited December 1, 2020 by Dontshoot

[Cptbarney]

13 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

To be honest. What got me really excited for this game was its trailer. I was hoping that the editor was going to be like the trailer. But maybe it will be like that in the future.

 

Too be fair the design process of the ship should, also be that screen as well and then you see the ship being built up as time goes on like the dockyard events in world of fatships.

[Robak]

Ok, I have question for the camping. Is it possible for another nation to attack yours without knowing it? As I belive the worls map will be a replica of the real worls so countries like France and Germany will be merged and the  Nazis attacked France and took it over quite quickly which almost wiped out the entire French Navy. Since the game says you have no control over land operations, you won't know how the nation's other army is planning. I just want to know whether to buy guns and ammunition for the coming war 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Robak

[HusariuS]

21 hours ago, Robak said:

Ok, I have question for the camping. Is it possible for another nation to attack yours without knowing it? As I belive the worls map will be a replica of the real worls so countries like France and Germany will be merged and the  Nazis attacked France and took it over quite quickly which almost wiped out the entire French Navy. Since the game says you have no control over land operations, you won't know how the nation's other army is planning. I just want to know whether to buy guns and ammunition for the coming war 

The game will not follow our history (unless you will make it do one way or another), otherwise there would be no point in playing for example Austria-Hungary since they were divided after World War 1 and lost connection to the sea.

So in short there is a chance that you will have historical scenario where Germany with Italy and Japan went Cowabunga and there is as well chance that such event will not happen.

I might be wrong but in terms of "Land Warfare" but the game will be similar to Rule The Waves with Land Warfare being almost non-existing and limited to coastal territory.

[CapnAvont1015]

1 hour ago, HusariuS said:

The game will not follow our history (unless you will make it do one way or another), otherwise there would be no point in playing for example Austria-Hungary since they were divided after World War 1 and lost connection to the sea.

So in short there is a chance that you will have historical scenario where Germany with Italy and Japan went Cowabunga and there is as well chance that such event will not happen.

I might be wrong but in terms of "Land Warfare" but the game will be similar to Rule The Waves with Land Warfare being almost non-existing and limited to coastal territory.

Yeah I really don't want this game to follow real history because that will make it to predictable. Besides would'nt be cool to see what China would be like in modern warfare?

[Aceituna]

20 hours ago, HusariuS said:

I might be wrong but in terms of "Land Warfare" but the game will be similar to Rule The Waves with Land Warfare being almost non-existing and limited to coastal territory.

May you post a source for this? I never heard something like that. I think that the only source of confirmed information is the ,,Playing modes section'' on the website. Which says this: you will not directly control events on land. So where did you get that the land warfare will be almost non-existent and will be limited for costal regions? In my opinion the land warfare can't work like this because the campaing will contain all the nations of the time (so even the landlocked ones).

Edited December 4, 2020 by Aceituna

[Cptbarney]

5 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

May you give post a source for this? I never heard something like that. I think that the only source of confirmed information is the ,,Playing modes section'' on the website. Which says this: you will not directly control events on land. So where did you get that the land warfare will be almost non-existent and will be limited for costal regions? In my opinion the land warfare can't work like this because the campaing will contain all the nations of the time (so even the landlocked ones).

Im pretty sure only nations with bodies of water can participate in world events otherwise, they most likely won't even appear in the game.

Also no point of land battles when your an admiral thats the generals job to do, unless they make Ultimate General: Army or something.

@Nick ThomadisJust wondering will land battles will be like rule the waves? 

[Aceituna]

Just now, Cptbarney said:

Im pretty sure only nations with bodies of water can participate in world events otherwise, they most likely won't even appear in the game.

 

Well, the website says this: ,,Complete map that includes all countries of the time period''. Which as I understand it, means all countries, including those without coast.

4 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Also no point of land battles when your an admiral thats the generals job to do, unless they make Ultimate General: Army or something.

 

Sure, we can't expect actuall land battles. But the events on the land have to be represented somehow. It would be nice if Devs could put some light into this.

Also one part of the article sounds very interesting: Reduce his ability to support his fleet and armies.

It might mean something.

[Cptbarney]

31 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

Well, the website says this: ,,Complete map that includes all countries of the time period''. Which as I understand it, means all countries, including those without coast.

Sure, we can't expect actuall land battles. But the events on the land have to be represented somehow. It would be nice if Devs could put some light into this.

Also one part of the article sounds very interesting: Reduce his ability to support his fleet and armies.

It might mean something.

Yes all countries, but that doesn't mean they will be active. Reducing support for his armies would just be fire support from ships, i doubt they will develop anything beyond a rule the waves type army system, since the main focus is on ships, and the game is quite far from replicating that at a decent standard.

Which is fine, since we should have ages before this actually releases.

[CapnAvont1015]

6 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Yes all countries, but that doesn't mean they will be active. Reducing support for his armies would just be fire support from ships, i doubt they will develop anything beyond a rule the waves type army system, since the main focus is on ships, and the game is quite far from replicating that at a decent standard.

Which is fine, since we should have ages before this actually releases.

The most land stuff I would be comfortable with are beach shore raids. Just providing cover for unarmed ships or disabling shore batteries I will be fine with as long we don't control the actual army. Once they land on the beach the mission is over.

[Cptbarney]

2 minutes ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

The most land stuff I would be comfortable with are beach shore raids. Just providing cover for unarmed ships or disabling shore batteries I will be fine with as long we don't control the actual army. Once they land on the beach the mission is over.

It will probs be like that, but i still reckon that a rule the waves type thing would be the most likely thing. Although they did something similar to that in age of sails, but you actually got to control the troops however for a bit.

Atm i think they should focus on the important things like, getting the core mechanics done to a decent standard and some quality of life improvements before we move onto the campaign too be honest.