Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, madham82 said:

Probably b/c they were more like 1st gen Battlecruisers with heavy cruiser armor instead of anything remotely battleship grade. 

Her armour was upgraded. Main belt was actually not penetrated but the superstructure was heavily riddled and burned out. I can se the point in making small caliber guns and non penetrating hits dangerous in close combat. Also the crew lossess impeded the functionality of the ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Admirals, We would like to inform you about our next patch which will arrive soon. In this update we offer crucial improvements on battle gameplay, especially regarding the formations and

Hello all, We would like to share an update regarding the upcoming patch. We wanted to release it this week but we found two major issues from the old implementation, so we had to refactor all mo

That's what frustrates me. The ship designer is literally a core function of the game, as well as its main selling point. It's sad to see it unnecessarily crippled with no promise of a fix, while mino

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Zuikaku said:

Her armour was upgraded. Main belt was actually not penetrated but the superstructure was heavily riddled and burned out. I can se the point in making small caliber guns and non penetrating hits dangerous in close combat. Also the crew lossess impeded the functionality of the ship.

Right to a uniform 8" belt, which is what you would expect on CA. Another interesting example is what happened to USS Colorado at Tinian . She came under close range fire from a 150mm shore batteries. No serious hits, but shows how the AoN armor scheme means even something small like a 150mm can do damage against non-vital areas. Maybe that's what the Devs are after. 

Notice the holes along the belt. 

USS_Colorado_3.jpg

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

 

Battleship Hiei disagrees with this.

 

10 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Her armour was upgraded. Main belt was actually not penetrated but the superstructure was heavily riddled and burned out. I can se the point in making small caliber guns and non penetrating hits dangerous in close combat. Also the crew lossess impeded the functionality of the ship.

TL;DR? Yes, 6" and 8" shells can damage things. No, they WON'T damage anything essential to the direct survival of a BB, however, as they can't sink it or immobilise it or even stop its guns firing (although they can impair the accuracy of said fire). The game would benefit greatly from an improved damage model including greater details re location of essential elements, but it remains to be seen if that is in their minds at all.

A crude "smaller calibre shells will do more meaningful damage to BB/BC" simply doesn't cut it at all. At the very least we ought to be told WHAT THAT MEANS in practical terms. At worst it's patently absurd.

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

On the one hand we can't dismiss Hiei out of hand, true. On the other hand, however, we have the experience of USS South Dakota when (somewhat famously) her electricals were shorted by some design deficiencies compounded by some crew error (corrections were made, something the USN proved VERY good at doing) and she was left more or less a target for about 3 minutes. Subsequent analysis concluded

During the engagement described above, SOUTH DAKOTA sustained at least 26 projectile hits. It is estimated that one hit was 5-inch, six were 6-inch, eighteen were 8-inch and one was 14-inch.

This comes from SECTION III, DISCUSSION, A. Type of Projectile which gives some very interesting comments about the significance of shell design and fuse delays. This is in fact VERY IMPORTANT when it comes to the damage done; in essence, it caused a lot of "over penetration", or "through and through". Shows why SHELL CONSTRUCTION and FUSES are every bit as important, if not arguably more so in many respects, than simple "bursting charge".

Here's the summary from her official damage report. Full copy is available here . I suggest it's all but essential reading for people interested in these topics.

SUMMARY

1. During the action off Guadalcanal on the night of 14-15 November 1942, SOUTH DAKOTA was hit by at least 26 projectiles. The most serious material damage was that sustained by electrical wiring circuits. Many interior communication and fire control circuits were severed, particularly in the superstructure where the damage was most extensive. All radio transmitting antennae and all radars, except the one on Main Battery Director II, were rendered inoperative. Short-circuits from this damage caused an overload on the I.C. switchboard which resulted in loss of power on fire control and interior communication circuits throughout the ship for approximately three minutes.

2. Minor flooding resulted from one hit below the waterline and two hits close to the waterline. The list of about 3/4° which developed was removed by shifting fuel oil.

3. Before receiving the first hit, SOUTH DAKOTA experienced electrical difficulties initiated by the shock of Turret III firing astern. Although not the direct result of enemy action, an analysis of this casualty has been included herein because the loss of power to Turret III seriously hampered SOUTH DAKOTA during the action.

4. In spite of numerous hits, SOUTH DAKOTA received only superficial damage. Neither the strength, buoyancy nor stability were measurably impaired.

It goes on to include a section on "Fires and Firefighting":

There were no serious fires during or following the action. Fires were small and quickly extinguished before they spread beyond the immediate vicinity of ignition. The fire potentially most dangerous was in two life jackets which were found burning in passage B-319-T. These were believed to have been ignited by a flash through the ammunition hoist from 1.1-inch clipping room B-0502-M. This passage is within the armored box and adjacent to a 5-inch magazine.  [It goes on to explain difficulties experienced in fighting fires in the superstructure and, revealingly, changes already made to minimise the likelihood of those occurring again. It demonstrates a very healthy organisation-wide emphasis on learning from battle experience.]

Under "Armour Performance" it says:

It is to be noted that the armor performed as designed. No projectile penetrated the armored box. Hits Nos. 3, 4, 17, 24, 25 and 26 struck armor before detonation and failed to penetrate. The Commanding Officer, SOUTH DAKOTA, in the action report, reference (a), made this comment:

"Armor: - Fire control and conning tower have definitely proven their worth. Further agitation for the removal of this weight is definitely suspended. Control stations behind armor should be used more frequently. Too much stress in the past has been laid to the space restrictions at these stations. Had these stations not been utilized during the engagement, control and conn personnel would probably have been destroyed."

OK, so what does all this tell us? Here's what I think:

The game CANNOT adequately express the "effectiveness" of small calibre rounds striking a BB/BC until and unless it has a far more nuanced system location method which means compartmentalisation and substantial improvements to the damage system in general. It's exactly why I've been going on and on about it for the best part of a year. If the best they can do is "make this shell do more" because they're limited to a crude damage model that looks at base hit points, I suggest we're seeing the (entirely predictable) implications of that.

In fact I'd go so far as to say the issue is with the damage model in total, and the amour system and performance of shells. Wait, that's exactly what I HAVE been saying for almost a YEAR, LOL.

There's also the problem of DAMAGE CONTROL, At the moment it appears largely to be tied to bulkheads. That creates the patently absurd situation where a TR can address flooding a fires more effectively than a pre-dreadnought BB if the former has MAX bulkheads and the latter MIN. I've been on and on about THAT for a year, too. What we're discussing now is a good example of WHY. We KNOW for a FACT that ships of war have the best damage control measures the nation can produce, and the larger the warship the greater the numbers of resources available. It simply cannot remain the case that slapping more bulkheads in a ship magically gives a CL greater damage control abilities than a BB of the same tech level.

Obviously crew numbers will matter and we've not got that system yet (which is fair enough). Even WITH that, however, if the issue of what shells do what damage under what circumstances isn't sufficiently robust then everything else affected by that (which is somewhat important in a naval combat game) will ALSO suffer for it.

Anyway, I've doubtless banged on enough. In fact this is my second attempt as I did a finger fumble that erased the previous. Not happy, LOL.
 

8 hours ago, madham82 said:

Right to a uniform 8" belt, which is what you would expect on CA. Another interesting example is what happened to USS Colorado at Tinian . She came under close range fire from a 150mm shore batteries. No serious hits, but shows how the AoN armor scheme means even something small like a 150mm can do damage against non-vital areas. Maybe that's what the Devs are after. 

Notice the holes along the belt. 

USS_Colorado_3.jpg

Yes, and all the guff I've spouted above is in agreement with the general idea. Trouble is the damage model etc is wholly inadequate to do it in nuanced and vaguely accurate and reasonable ways.

Cheers

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Well I just found out something hilariously dumb. If you shorten the Dreadnought III hull to 670ft you can't place funnels. God I hop they figure out how place superstructures freely.

You have to use different superstructure then, not all sizes of hull can mount all elements. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

..."smaller calibre shells will do more meaningful damage to...

Correct! It’s all RNG, the hits, the damage, the penetration, everything.

Even the weakest 2” shells can penetration the heaviest/thickest armor, that’s clear to me that there is no impact calculations, no hit boxes, it’s all percentage/dps(m) based with RNG determining when, where and how much. Your design determines the percentage levels and base damage.

More importantly it’s a fundamental core mechanic of the game, which means it’s ingrained into the game.

And the reason for that (most likely), is because it’s setup to serve 'real time fleet management battles', rather than a ship sims game. Setup so we can have as many ships as possible in battle.

Cause with a ship sims game with fleets of those ships with hit boxes coupled with impact calculations, then all those calcs for every shell hit would take up so much cpu power that then you would have to go to turn based battles. Or just have one core ship. Real time would not be possible. 

I think it's much better to have a fleet of ships in real time battles, I think it's a reasonable compromise, reasonable to concede some things. Real time battles are a must have in my books. There is a 'practical application' working here in the background.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2020 at 11:04 AM, CapnAvont1015 said:

So I have a question.

0.9.10+] Ribbons and Consumables from WOWS Legends - Interface  Modifications - World of Warships Official Asia Forums

Does War Gaming own the rights to these types of ribbons? Because at some point in the future I want something similar to this to replace the current hit indicators at the top of the screen.

52891555_Ribbons1.png.a0c4836be8ec1c25a584482624b41536.png

727971717_R2.png.047d3a9a64487bd04f5ab1ad34ce1b3d.png

Maybe something like these.

I disagree with the whole ribbon system. It just is, shall I say, a tone shift. What we have may not provide a efficient amount of information, I like that they are out of the way and do not attract the players attention. Its something that I can look at when in a lull. Ribbons are too distracting and make things seem a bit more lighthearted. Also seems like an unnecessary change to conform to similar games in the genre

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ThatOneBounced said:

I disagree with the whole ribbon system. It just is, shall I say, a tone shift. What we have may not provide a efficient amount of information, I like that they are out of the way and do not attract the players attention. Its something that I can look at when in a lull. Ribbons are too distracting and make things seem a bit more lighthearted. Also seems like an unnecessary change to conform to similar games in the genre

And we have a ‘pause’ button. Those ribbons are visual ques for an online action game, to alert the player to stuff happing on the fly, if we have to we can pause the game to scroll for info, there isn’t any need for info visual ques here.

Sound prompts yes, we could do with some of those!

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThatOneBounced said:

I disagree with the whole ribbon system. It just is, shall I say, a tone shift. What we have may not provide a efficient amount of information, I like that they are out of the way and do not attract the players attention. Its something that I can look at when in a lull. Ribbons are too distracting and make things seem a bit more lighthearted. Also seems like an unnecessary change to conform to similar games in the genre

Ribbons are nice to have at best. 
 

We have far bigger fishes to fry!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This partial penetration change is mostly a band-aid. Our current armor model makes it necessary, as so much of the ship is armored. There were vessels with full-thickness belts covering almost their whole side, like Dupuy de Lome. But these were not half so common as ships with thinner upper belts and graduated bow and stern armor. All-or-nothing also did not have such coverage.

Some of the ways for small guns to inflict damage are thus unavailable for us. There is no thin upperwork armor to penetrate with 8in AP. However, I think that a relatively simple fix would be possible.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Strangely, I need to agree with Skeksis, at least on one point.
This is more of a strategy and fleet management game, not a PVP slugfest. Most important aspects of it are going to be how you design your ships and how many build, where you deploy them and how you manoeuvre in battle.
It's not that important what exactly is going on within each particular ship.
Statistically over a dozen of battles, all your fancy simulation will give just as good overall results as simple weighted random. If some know that RTW game, it basically represents ships as 2d sprites and has no shell hit simulation whatsoever, simple RNG, and also it's turn based, but it works quite good for what it needs.
So i think, for UA:D hit/damage model also harmlessly can be simplified, to just most obvious 3d view related elements. (which is still more than we actually got for now, though)

It's probably not true that somewhat detailed simulation is impossible - we actually have it in WT for 20-30 ships at a time, and that involves machineguns and simulation of each individual splinter, so actual rate of "stuff flying through your boat" per second is many times higher than would be here.
But what is true: to bring each and every possible combo to a required depth of detail will take insane amount of work, if it's even possible since most on-deck objects influence under-deck structure in some way, and it always will be not perfect, there always will be something weird and unrealistic going on due to just necessary simplifications or modelling errors, and you WoWS/WT'ers will be the first to blame the devs for it, just like you do it in these games.
Proobably it's not worth it, eh?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Strangely, I need to agree with Skeksis

LOL

13 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

It's probably not true that somewhat detailed simulation is impossible - we actually have it in WT for 20-30 ships

Not sure but I think WT has a client-server version where the server handles the simulation, providing its capacity. whereas (again not sure) WOWS client-server version has the clients computing inputs, if 20 players that is 20 cpu’s of processing power.

UAD only has a standalone client.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Correct! It’s all RNG, the hits, the damage, the penetration, everything.

Even the weakest 2” shells can penetration the heaviest/thickest armor, that’s clear to me that there is no impact calculations, no hit boxes, it’s all percentage/dps(m) based with RNG determining when, where and how much. Your design determines the percentage levels and base damage.

More importantly it’s a fundamental core mechanic of the game, which means it’s ingrained into the game.

And the reason for that (most likely), is because it’s setup to serve 'real time fleet management battles', rather than a ship sims game. Setup so we can have as many ships as possible in battle.

Cause with a ship sims game with fleets of those ships with hit boxes coupled with impact calculations, then all those calcs for every shell hit would take up so much cpu power that then you would have to go to turn based battles. Or just have one core ship. Real time would not be possible. 

I think it's much better to have a fleet of ships in real time battles, I think it's a reasonable compromise, reasonable to concede some things. Real time battles are a must have in my books. There is a 'practical application' working here in the background.

I seriously doubt we will get to those levels in the campaign to be honest, since too many factors will settle in too prevent like thousands of ships to appear at any given time.

I guess for custom battles that could be a problem, but pc's today aren't pc's ten years ago they should be able to handle simple hitboxes comprised of nothing more than primitives such as cubes, cylinders and cones. Then actual meshes to make the damage make more sense as well.

I've never seen a 2 inch shell pen anything but the superstructure or even just really lightly armoured targets in-general. Theres no reason to have internal meshes or primitives for ships in-general since seeing 30+ ships at any given time will be the exception and not the rule (unless its custom battles of course).

I get what you mean, but i'd rather this game stand out than be a 3d rtw's which would be a severe waste of this games actual potential and could easily become a market leader as well.

Atm, campaign, designer, armour and AI are probs the most pressing issues. plus lack of a ship saver and library plus the lack of mid game and early game hulls too.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Atm, campaign, designer, armour and AI are probs the most pressing issues. plus lack of a ship saver and library plus the lack of mid game and early game hulls too.

As mentioned above - armor and AI could use some tweaks but I would not consider them critical.

 

Current limitations on the ship designer are critical though 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 1MajorKoenig said:

As mentioned above - armor and AI could use some tweaks but I would not consider them critical.

 

Current limitations on the ship designer are critical though 

Well armour is too basic atm, and we lack internals (not just for damage reasons but also for design reasons), AI is still questionable, like ships hanging back doing nothing or the AI targetting only one ship when, ships would target one each to prevent a ship free access to fire unhindered.

Also the lack of tactics and setting range engagements would help as well as the AI doesnt do any of that. And since you dont play against players they defo need enhancing.

Ye ship designer needs major work as well.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Koogus said:

Words of wisdom 

We also need, more communication from the devs as well. Being silent all the time and being vague consistently isnt good really.

Especially since, people on steam and discord plus here are getting increasingly annoyed by it. Roadmaps, weekly posts anything is better than what we get now, and they should communicate more on steam.

Communication is important even more so in our current era so they really need to shift when it comes to this. I get they don't want to say something and people hold them to account for it (and i do understand that by the way). But push comes to shove i'd rather they say something, than nothing at all.

It also makes more engaged with the game itself and gets you more excited as well, i struggle to play the game half time atm.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

I seriously doubt we will get to those levels in the campaign to be honest, since too many factors will settle in too prevent like thousands of ships to appear at any given time.

50 ships per side is not unreasonable after some optimizing, though that would be dependent on the battle generator (set by the Dev’s). RTW2 has a battle size setting anyway, I suspect UAD will do the same.

9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

I've never seen a 2 inch shell pen anything but the superstructure or even just really lightly armoured targets in-general.

Yes they do, I will post later screenshots of a BB decked out in 2” guns only destroying another BB with armor greater than what the  2” shells are capable of penetrating. Dev’s have known this from the beginning, from first alpha but they haven’t changed it, this is what leading to conclude that they can’t, it’s fixed or an ingrained core mechanic that can’t be changed for some reason (like it's the whole system from designer to shell damage or something).

9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

armour and AI are probs the most pressing issues

Next year they/we are on the road to the campaign, Dev’s won’t be rewriting anything majorly now. Maneuvering/formations is the last great rewrite IMO (but I'm holding out for a rewrite to include airpower though).

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

more communication

something else that's not going to happen.

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

50 ships per side is not unreasonable after some optimizing, though that would be dependent on the battle generator (set by the Dev’s). RTW2 has a battle size setting anyway, I suspect UAD will do the same.

Ye, but the campaign will have a series of hard and soft blocks that will make getting to that number pretty hard in-general. Also depends on the ships i guess.

12 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Yes they do. [I will post later] screenshots of a BB decked out in 2” guns only destroying another BB with armor greater than what the  2” shells are capable of penetrating. Dev’s have known this from the beginning, from first alpha but they haven’t changed it, this is what leading to conclude that they can’t, it’s fixed or an ingrained core mechanic that can’t be changed for some reason (like it's the whole system from designer to shell damage).

Too be fair, i rarely use 2inch guns so i never really see it too begin with, but if it does occur fair enough.

12 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Next year they/we are on the road to the campaign, Dev’s won’t be rewriting anything now. Maneuvering/formations is the last great rewrite IMO. 

If thats the case, thats just plain bloody sad. I assume they will go for 2 more patches before anything more really.

12 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

something else that's not going to happen.

I've come to accept that, but really shouldn't be the case. It's bad enough cd projekt tried to hide their stats for last-gen consoles to push out sales, i'd rather this one not do anything scummy or just continue to give us the valve treatment from now on to be fair.

But i guess your right too be honest.

Oh well, besides spamming and whinging on the forums not much else we can do. Also depends if this is solely the devs choice and/or if higher ups and/or investors are pushing them to rush things etc. Although i doubt it at this point.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Ye, but the campaign will have a series of hard and soft blocks that will make getting to that number pretty hard in-general. Also depends on the ships i guess.

Too be fair, i rarely use 2inch guns so i never really see it too begin with, but if it does occur fair enough.

If thats the case, thats just plain bloody sad. I assume they will go for 2 more patches before anything more really.

I've come to accept that, but really shouldn't be the case. It's bad enough cd projekt tried to hide their stats for last-gen consoles to push out sales, i'd rather this one not do anything scummy or just continue to give us the valve treatment from now on to be fair.

But i guess your right too be honest.

Oh well, besides spamming and whinging on the forums not much else we can do. Also depends if this is solely the devs choice and/or if higher ups and/or investors are pushing them to rush things etc. Although i doubt it at this point.

Why... just why? What's the deal with communication? I frankly don't get it. I can't wrap my head around it. What's so bad about keeping us informed? Fear of backlash? Don't think keeping ones mouth shut will greatly help either.

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

Why... just why? What's the deal with communication? I frankly don't get it. I can't wrap my head around it. What's so bad about keeping us informed? Fear of backlash? Don't think keeping ones mouth shut will greatly help either.

Too be fair it whats they have been doing for awhile now, and comms is important since we are a social species and rely on feedback from others or information from others to act upon or to plan out future actions (consciously or not).

We learn from people talking to us and not just piling something in front of us and hoping we get it etc. 

Also people tend to think the worst and speculate heavy without somekind of info and humans without attention tend to seek it elsewhere and/or get angry when they don't (leave/rant/rage etc).

Also what they communicate as well, i know they can't spill everything. But something here and there and more in-depth answers would be fine for smaller things and few major things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cptbarney said:

Too be fair it whats they have been doing for awhile now, and comms is important since we are a social species and rely on feedback from others or information from others to act upon or to plan out future actions (consciously or not).

We learn from people talking to us and not just piling something in front of us and hoping we get it etc. 

Also people tend to think the worst and speculate heavy without somekind of info and humans without attention tend to seek it elsewhere and/or get angry when they don't (leave/rant/rage etc).

Also what they communicate as well, i know they can't spill everything. But something here and there and more in-depth answers would be fine for smaller things and few major things.

I agree that information is important, crucial even. Which is why I do not understand the way the devs were handling the issue over the last couple of months.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Nick Thomadis locked, unlocked, locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...