>>>Alpha-11 HotFix v84 Feedback<<< (1/4/2020)

[Draco]

In summation:

Poor spotting values can lead to situations where small ships can fire away at larger ships with no chance of retaliation.
General consensus amongst players consists of allowing for auto-spotting of ships when they open fire, but with hefty accuracy penalties until they become "naturally" spotted by said ships, and to possibly implement such penalties for all ships conducting "blindfire" I.E. firing at targets that the firing ship in question has not yet spotted themselves.

@Nick Thomadis this is obviously not a priority compared to fixing formations and getting the campaign ready, but would it be possible to do within the confines of the game engine somewhere down along the line?

PS, apologies if this counts as telling you guys how to do your jobs again, but I felt the complexity of the discussion merited a quick summary.

[Intrepid_Arty]

On another note, something which might be interesting specifically for weird dorks like me, would be what I'd call 'complex mode'. Basically, continuing on from the idea of making ships modular, making gun turrets modular to at least a limited extent. This would include being able to input arbitrary gun calibers rather than having the 1" increments, to allow for unusual gun calibers like the 7.5" seen on ships like the Hawkins-class. This could potentially be coupled with being able to choose the size of a propellant charge and shell as well, maybe with some limitations for these to prevent complete absurdity. In order to make it somewhat easier, you could probably have it so that the same assets are still used, but shift automatically with increasing gun caliber.

 

 

Lmao, I just want to have my Yamato actually have 46cm guns rather than 45.7cm, really. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Intrepid_Arty

[Cpt.Hissy]

"Only seeing flashes of their guns" technically counts as seeing the target. Barely, but seeing.
So as conclusion to that discussion, yes, spotting things earlier with severe aiming penalty would be the solution i think.

We just need a more clear way to know *where* things are, when they're so confident in their detection they are shooting at us. For now, i more than once was *forced* to look around for enemy smoke screens, that for some reason keep popping up around invisible targets that don't attack me; then close in to that area until they start shooting and then follow the direction of incoming shots to finally "see" them at extremely close ranges (well under 10km), while they sometimes even run out of ammo blindshoting me. And that is in "perfectly balanced" custom battles with the same tech year for both sides.
 

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Intrepid_Arty said:

On another note, something which might be interesting specifically for weird dorks like me, would be what I'd call 'complex mode'. Basically, continuing on from the idea of making ships modular, making gun turrets modular to at least a limited extent. This would include being able to input arbitrary gun calibers rather than having the 1" increments, to allow for unusual gun calibers like the 7.5" seen on ships like the Hawkins-class. This could potentially be coupled with being able to choose the size of a propellant charge and shell as well, maybe with some limitations for these to prevent complete absurdity. In order to make it somewhat easier, you could probably have it so that the same assets are still used, but shift automatically with increasing gun caliber.

 

 

Lmao, I just want to have my Yamato actually have 46cm guns rather than 45.7cm, really. 

Not worth it. You are suggesting an feature that will take many hours of work that will be almost irrelevant in the battlefield and the AI will not understand why they are there unless the devs spend more hours of their precious time to tell the AI the propellant charge X have this effect, the propellant charge Y have this effect and in the end the AI will still not understand  .So why to make things more complicated?

Always when suggesting this ideas try to imagine first how easy is for the AI to use them and then if is relevant to the battlefield.  Your suggestion fails in both situations so not worth it. At this moment i am already "happy" with the general design ships , the shells/armor mechanic, battle formations performance and i think the devs should focus on the campaign.

Of course there is always something that could improve. For me as an example is to have torpedo reloads only between battles. For other players there is another aspect they don't like. It is impossible to make everyone happy , but in general i say that at this moment, don't lose more time and go straight to the alpha campaign.

 

 

 

[SonicB]

9 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Not worth it. You are suggesting an feature that will take many hours of work that will be almost irrelevant in the battlefield and the AI will not understand why they are there unless the devs spend more hours of their precious time to tell the AI the propellant charge X have this effect, the propellant charge Y have this effect and in the end the AI will still not understand  .So why to make things more complicated?

Always when suggesting this ideas try to imagine first how easy is for the AI to use them and then if is relevant to the battlefield.  Your suggestion fails in both situations so not worth it. At this moment i am already "happy" with the general design ships , the shells/armor mechanic, battle formations performance and i think the devs should focus on the campaign.

Of course there is always something that could improve. For me as an example is to have torpedo reloads only between battles. For other players there is another aspect they don't like. It is impossible to make everyone happy , but in general i say that at this moment, don't lose more time and go straight to the alpha campaign.

Just because the player can use an advanced feature does not mean the AI has to use it. This has already been discussed at length with regard to custom barbette placement.

The AI can perfectly happily use one of the existing shell types.

[Cpt.Hissy]

4 minutes ago, SonicB said:

Just because the player can use an advanced feature does not mean the AI has to use it. This has already been discussed at length with regard to custom barbette placement.

The AI can perfectly happily use one of the existing shell types.

Nah, your main measure should be, the added benefits of proposed feature vs the costs of it's implementation.
What exactly do you gain by that stuff described above, other than seeing some irrelevant numbers and words where you want to see them?

In fact, nothing. Even if the game's actual code behind various gun related items was perfectly accurately representing their real-life counterparts (and it totally does not even try!), differences in performance would be too low for even a cybersport nolifer to notice. Also, those options ,when they happened historically, had some historical context to them, which may and likely will not exist in game.
And cost? Basically entire new and overly complicated set of systems that duplicates the functionality of already existing set of systems. In a game where they can't find time or resources to even fix some bugs for literal years.

Not worth it i will say.

[Cptbarney]

33 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Nah, your main measure should be, the added benefits of proposed feature vs the costs of it's implementation.
What exactly do you gain by that stuff described above, other than seeing some irrelevant numbers and words where you want to see them?

The ability to design ships, in any way you see fit and then see those ships fight against other designs, something that very few naval games do and would be a major selling point as there are very few people who don't like to customise things.

Also the systems aren't that complex (probs more tedious to do than anything else) and the devs are figuring out how to improve optimisation of modular hulls and modules due to added moving parts, so that we could potentially use the system in the future (if they figure it out or deem it worth while of course).

Also its not like they can't just do a RTW's and have the AI use pre-builts (Either by devs or by the players) while players have the ability (although limited to whatever system we have currently) to customise their ships as they see fit.

It seems like peeps have forgotten about what the devs said in the Q&A vid, its obvious they are gunning for the campaign and other core mechanics first, but at some point they should revise the ship designer.

Ironically enough, making things more realistic would also have to factor in more complex systems so that's a redundant point to begin with.

Either way im pretty sure the devs will want to implement their hull system as they did waste time on it and few devs unless faced with absolutely no choice will bin such a mechanic regardless as the time and money spent would of been a colossal waste.

Also Shiki has already outlined how the gun designer could work really, its not like these can't be changed and/or implemented at a later date regardless.

[kodiwolf1]

On 3/3/2021 at 1:42 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

hey gonna be honest i love everything y'all are doing and the speed at which you are and I'm not trying to sound impatient being someone who has worked on games before i understand the massive project ahead of y'all but wouldn't it be better to focus on the setup of the campaign than keep releasing new ships and such at least like an alpha like rule the waves 2 did where you can only play like one nation with limited content just speaking of my opinion i would absolutely love to get to see some of the content we can expect in the future. thank you for your work

 

[Hangar18]

Im just here to simp for 5" secondaries on cruisers....

[Stormnet]

On 3/18/2021 at 2:51 AM, Hangar18 said:

Im just here to simp for 5" secondaries on cruisers....

Yeah, 5" and 6" become more than useless on 1930 and onwards ships. They arent neither usefull against destroyers (on large ships you use heavier secondary guns, on lighter cruisers and destroyers you use their main guns), or on destroyers.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Stormnet

[Right]

At the loading screen it still gets stuck on DD design once in a while (about 1/15) before it gets to the loading model part.

[Skeksis]

On 3/13/2021 at 2:57 AM, madham82 said:

So RTW2 and War on the Sea both are off in fantasy land with completely unbalanced gameplay that marginalizes the need for Destroyers? Do tell. 

RTW2/WotS both have destroyer sub/AA support roles, neither unbalanced or marginalized.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Skeksis

[Hangar18]

On 3/18/2021 at 6:54 PM, Stormnet said:

Yeah, 5" and 6" become more than useless on 1930 and onwards ships. They arent neither usefull against destroyers (on large ships you use heavier secondary guns, on lighter cruisers and destroyers you use their main guns), or on destroyers.

That would be a balance issue, rather than a historical, or physical limitation.

5" guns mauled even heavy cruisers during the war.

[Steeltrap]

On 3/25/2021 at 10:09 AM, Hangar18 said:

That would be a balance issue, rather than a historical, or physical limitation.

5" guns mauled even heavy cruisers during the war.

Hardly surprising given the delineation between 'heavy' and 'light' is solely based on armament and not a reflection of armour, which I know you know but I suppose some might not (although I wonder if that's true on this forum).

It's interesting to note that the captain of USS South Dakota made a point in his official report on the combat in which she had her superstructure shot up that the presence and use of the armoured conning tower was vital to the preservation of the bridge/command crew. This was at a time the RN decided to ditch theirs on the grounds their crews didn't use them yet we saw the potential consequences of that choice in HMS Prince of Wales against Bismarck. As an aside, I think the "SoDak battle" is frequently pointed to for entirely incorrect reasons, but that's another discussion (which I know we have touched upon elsewhere as I posted a link to that report, a report I think ought to be required reading for anyone on this forum, plus the devs if they've not already).

I raise that because historically one of THE most significant differences between a cruiser of any sort and a BB is the extent to which the latter is generally VASTLY less vulnerable to incoming fire with respect to those hits' abilities to threaten the survival of the ship, its firepower and its mobility, the three things that define a warship. That ability to take punishment, while also having a rather (for its time) remarkable ability to dish it out, are practically the dreadnought's, and fast BB's by extension, defining characteristics. It's also why the loss of the BCs at Jutland was even more shocking as it simply was so unexpected.

"That other game" has done immeasurable damage in that regard, where we see HIJMS Yamato sunk by 100mm shell hits mainly in the superstructure while the DD firing them can absorb multiple 18.1" rounds in return and NOT sink. We've even had hints of it seep into this game with bulkhead status making a CL harder to sink than a pre-dreadnought BB of 3 times the displacement.

Sure, SoDak suffered damage to her radar and fire control, but the electrical issues that were the real problem weren't even caused by incoming fire. Her captain specifically points out that while the damage to radar etc and wiring of same suffered serious damage, fires were minor and quickly extinguished (WoWS? Hello? LOL) and the ship's survival was never threatened (a few long lances might have changed his opinion yet somehow neither SoDak nor Washington were hit despite the generally very dangerous performance of the IJN forces with torpedoes around Guadalcanal. Weird how luck and skill can produce some strikingly different results under apparently similar circumstances.

Cartoonish damage models are fine in a yippee shoot online environment. They aren't in anything with the slightest mention of realism in its description.

Which is why I find it interesting how everyone gets excited over this and that ship hull (the limitation of having to get individual hulls added to the game aside) yet nobody comments about the absolute silence about the core systems we've been banging on about for more than a year now.

I've been so excited about the Alpha-11 update I've not even downloaded it, LOL, because I don't expect it to change a single thing I care about. On the one hand that makes me laugh, on the other it's a little frustrating/sad.

Thus I've been spending my time testing and commenting on War on the Sea instead (I'm sure you're all terribly upset I've not been posting detailed walls of text here, LOL) which has a boatload of problems.

Despite the fact it's sold as though a normal release, that's a lie, frankly, and just another illustration of how shonky the game industry is compared with pretty much anything else I can think of. On the plus side, however, it's easily modded and the Devs often answer all sorts of things, particularly posts in the bug section of the Steam forum. They even added an extra line of code for me so I could set the auto-detection radii around bases to a lower % given the default assumes 100% visibility (clear weather, middle of the day) when that's more often than not the exception. This was after I raised a bug report following a feature request. A recent expose of how the AI couldn't use aircraft, and especially CVs, by someone known as a great modder resulted in a discussion between that person, some others, and KFG such that a changed version was soon put together and released. Yes, to repeat myself, it pisses me off no end just how "barely beta testing quality" the game's release was, yet the industry gets away with it all the damn time. AI can't use aircraft properly? No problem, sell it at full price anyway. Reminds me of Total War: Empire which, ironically, is where I first learned about Nick as "Darth's Mod" frankly was necessary to make that criminally inept, broken piece of garbage (for which CA had the hide to charge full price) at all playable.

It makes for an interesting contrast. I don't mean speed of response (I'm sure KFG is considerably bigger), I mean the response at all, plus the ease with which players can alter things (all the relevant files appear in Notepad format) and the degree to which KFG engages.

One thing THIS game has got right was it has never pretended to be anything OTHER than an evolution of testing a developing product. I certainly don't for a minute regret the cost of jumping on board for the ride as it's inherently interesting and I've also enjoyed the great majority of the rest of the community, too.

I'll be interested to see where this game ends up with respect to such things. I don't mind that it's going to take quite some time to get to a point where release is justified. I'll say it yet again, lol, that I think selling War on the Sea as though it's a completed product is shockingly dishonest and misleading and in any other industry you'd end up in court rather quickly, and would always say it's really NOT acceptable, so delays for the purposes of "getting things correct" will always be OK as I see it with the obvious caveat of you need to release it eventually, lol.

Will be back to check on the next update whenever it comes. When I see one that addresses what matters to me, that claims something significant and not something I regard cosmetic has changed, I'll try it again. To be clear, I regard ship hulls as cosmetic compared with those core elements because, while they need to be tested for bugs, frankly they are cosmetic in that their flaws affect only them, not the game as a whole. I suspect if I were to start the game and play the scenario I always use to test things (that doesn't even use modern hulls) absolutely nothing important would be different.

Core systems. Armour, damage, damage control. The holy trinity of realism. Don't let up on them unless you don't care. A genuine Ferrari with a 40HP two stroke motor may look the part, but it sure as hell won't perform as the real deal.

Hope all of you and our Devs are keeping well.

Cheers

Edited March 29, 2021 by Steeltrap

[Nick Thomadis]

Admirals,

This is not an April's fool joke. We just deployed a new update  which improves several features and fixes issues that you requested. Check the info. Restart your game client to start playing!

*HotFix v84*  (1/4/2021)

• Optimization in Auto-Design code: Fixed issues that could cause either problematic designs or too much delay while building an AI fleet. “Too many threads” error and game freeze during battle loading should now be completely fixed.
• Fixed a bug that could cause AI to place guns at fully obstructed sections (e.g. in early battleship’s middle sections).
• Fixed old bug that made guns to become wrongly “red” (badly placed) after pressing “Rebuild” in a battle.
• Added steel covering on unused casemates for the remainder of hulls.
• Various minor hull improvements/fixes.
• AI improved to be generally more aggressive and decisive on maneuvering.
• Torpedo maximum loads reduced. Now the torpedo tubes can have from 1 to 3 loads (previously was 2 to 4).
• Increased Partial Penetrations/Overpens damage and tuned their mechanics in order to have a more realistic effect. HE penetration slightly reduced. As a result, small guns will become more effective, especially at close ranges and HE will be ideal for destroying a ship's superstructure and incapacitating its parts, but not as useful for sinking it.
• More realistic shell dispersion according to shell types, at all ranges.
• Improvement in ship collision detection. Formations should be overall more effective with less accidental collisions due to ship maneuvering. Remaining issues shall be fixed in a next update.

With hotfix v84 the following errors should not appear again:
- Auto-design of a fleet in a custom battle or Naval Academy battle may delay too long and hang the game. 
- The "Too many threads" crash error.

[Wise Donkey]

Will there be any april fool's jokes?

[Cptbarney]

26 minutes ago, Wise Donkey said:

Will there be any april fool's jokes?

Same im holding out for it as well lol.

[Cdodders]

I have lost hope

[1MajorKoenig]

9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Same im holding out for it as well lol.

Well I honestly prefer a new patch over a joke

[baltic1284]

I have an odd bug don't know if it is due to the update but when i try and sign in it says couldnt not get your game access details. Please try again after 4 tries.

[Steeltrap]

13 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Increased Partial Penetrations/Overpens damage and tuned their mechanics in order to have a more realistic effect. HE penetration slightly reduced. As a result, small guns will become more effective

I really would love to see the real world data/experience on which these decisions are made. What's the obsession with making SMALLER guns better a better?

While we're at it, much of the "over-pen" is, frankly, largely bullshit.

The ONLY things that ought to matter are:

1. The effective force encountered by the shell as it strikes various things

2. The sensitivity of the fuse compared with the value in 1 i.e. if the fuse requires resistance equivalent to striking 2" of armour at 90 degrees, did the value in one meet this threshold?

3. Time delay of the fuse

4. Striking velocity, shell trajectory and how that aligns with the ship struck.

AP round punch a hole through a funnel without exploding? Sure.

6" HE round do the same? Unlikely.

6" HE hit the 'unarnoured' hull of a TR and 'over-pen' i.e. pass though the entire beam or length of the ship's hull and not explode? Bullshit.

As I have pointed out before, here's info for the USN 16" Mk8 "super heavy" AP round:

The Mark 21 Base Detonating Fuze (BDF) had a delay of 0.033 seconds. Fuze activation required a resistance equal to 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) of armor at 0 degrees obliquity or 0.375 inches (1 cm) at 65 degrees obliquity. [source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php ]

As I said above, many of the "over-pens" we see in the game, such as 6" shells striking the hull of a TR and not exploding despite the fact that such HE has very LITTLE pen and MUST inevitably strike something solid INSIDE the ship are, frankly, a load of BS. That 16" shell hitting a TR into its engine room is almost certainly going to explode after striking engines, boilers, who knows what, and with rather catastrophic effects. Well, that's what OUGHT to happen. Not here, apparently.

But don't worry, shells that 'partially pen' (which historically frequently didn't detonate at all) will get increased damage. Great!

It really is NOT difficult to get decent enough material to model how shells ought to behave including what they ought to be able to penetrate and what ought to happen if they do or do not do so.

I'll leave this from a post I wrote Feb 10th 2021. Unsurprisingly, no engagement on the issue from the Devs:

 

"My BC was hit in its 18.2" effective belt armour by a shell with ~9" of pen (a 12" gun using that awful RN Lyddite bursting charge). It did something like 20 damage from memory. Not a big deal one might think. Well, yes, except my 12" AP round that penetrated did 57 damage. So a shell with half the pen of the armour it strikes still gets partial penetration and does about 1/3 the damage of a same calibre shell that did penetrate (the belt, I might add).

Does that make sense to anyone? It sure as hell doesn't to me. That was the last time I played."

 

It strikes me as idiocy, frankly, when a shell that doesn't pen can do half the damage of a shell that DOES pen (through the belt no less in my example). Especially when the Lyddite in question, not to mention the shells in which they were placed, we notorious for making impressive fireworks as they exploded all but harmlessly on the armour of German ships in the Battle of Jutland, assuming they exploded at all.

Yet now over-pen damage is to be increased FURTHER?

I'll ask it again: Does that make sense to anyone? It sure as hell doesn't to me.

Seems to me an artefact of an overly crude calculation that treats the increased damage of the Lyddite bursting charge to apply to ANY scenario where damage occurs. This is patently incorrect. Not hard to fix, mind you.

But hey, some of us have been saying these sorts of things for a year or more. No reason to think it should make the slightest difference now, right? I guess we simply have expectations when something promises an "extremely in depth realistic combat model" (see https://store.steampowered.com/app/1069660/Ultimate_Admiral_Dreadnoughts/ ) that it ought to be easy to see just how realistic it is based on real world KNOWN data etc.

Seems perhaps those of us who think this way have expectations that are themselves "unrealistic".

Ironic, isn't it?

😁

Cheers all

p.s. don't worry, I'll go away for another few months now. Promise, LOL.

Edited April 2, 2021 by Steeltrap

[Cptbarney]

6 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Well I honestly prefer a new patch over a joke

Wanted too see some moar old boags.

[Tousansons]

3 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Does that make sense to anyone? It sure as hell doesn't to me.

Tweaking doesn't need to make sense. These value can probably change in the next patch if there is someone vocal enough to start a new thread about it. Changing numbers is easy and can please a few people.

Yes, it sounds bad because it is. I'm against these changes since the beginning.

There is more important things to do, these kind of changes just confuse everyone as to what the final product will be.

[Skeksis]

What changed was the introduction of a two targeting system, for mains and secondaries, but what didn't change along with that was the ability to select HE or AP for either target. But the ability does make sense since one target maybe armored and the other not.

18 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

As a result, small guns will become more effective, especially at close ranges and HE will be ideal for destroying a ship's superstructure and incapacitating its parts, but not as useful for sinking it.

If mains are targeting an amour battleship with AP, and the shell type is set to AP, and secondaries are targeting a destroyer, will small guns still be effective as describe? Or will we have to set to HE to get this result^^^ and have mains shoot ineffective shells. 

Do you see the issue?

Just trying to outline an issue with mains and secondaries where both are being govern by the same selected shell type. 

Edited April 2, 2021 by Skeksis

[disc]

Navies were confident that a great rain of HE shells from QF guns would destroy the unarmored parts of the enemy and set fires. Big guns would usually also fire lots of HE up to the early Dreadnought era. The idea that HE should be better is reasonable.

The trouble in the game is fivefold.

We don't really have unarmored parts, aside from the superstructure and funnel. All ships have extremely tall belts, so there's less area for HE to work. Not as applicable to small ships, but important to big cruisers and battleships.

Because of the strangeness of the armor model, the extended belt covers 4/7 of the ship length. The computer uses weak armor here, and many players do, too. AP can hit and penetrate to do a ton of damage, but it's often enough to keep out HE.

There's no crew. A 3in gun peppering the superstructure of a torpedo boat can't kill off the gun crews in nearby open mounts with flying fragments. Also raises the question of how far damage spreads.

Fires are also weak if the right techs are used, especially with max bulkheads. They get put out quickly. That's ok. Competent firefighting can keep a fire from getting out of hand. But since there's no crew, pumps, generators, or water lines, at the end of the battle the ship with 5% structural integrity has no problem shrugging off more fires. That's not so great.

Finally, and by far the most difficult to fix, there are no true night battles. It is therefore extremely hard for torpedo boats and destroyers to approach without being targeted by big guns at long range. Small guns shooting HE have less opportunity to shine, because these close-in surprise attacks don't happen.

What I'm trying to say is that I blame the armor and damage models for this band-aid fix. I would love to see changes here instead.