Big list of battle improvements

[disc]

I think there are several quality-of-life changes and fixable issues that would make battles more fun. I've seen many suggested. Here's my list.

Divisions, AI, and Smoke

• The player should be able to choose division arrangements and formations before the start of battle. It is irritating when ships are spawned in nonsensical places and weird groups.
• Damaged ships should not loop to rejoin at the rear of the division. This often leads to chaos and wastes time, requiring the player to remove them from the division. Perhaps they could simply move a bit to the side and slow down for the rest of the division to pass by.
• Division ships sometimes become very widely separated in loose divisions. Ends up with torpedo boats or destroyers lining up to torpedo a battleship almost one at a time, greatly weakening the power of swarm attacks. I find it better to just remove all torpedo-vessels from divisions and send them in a compact group without sacrificing speed. But I find this too much micromanagement.
• Pathfinding is often bad. Ram avoidance is far better than it used to be, but I still experience issues. Ships frequently refuse to cross the track of moving vessels ahead of them -- because the computer fails to recognize that the path will be clear in the future.
• There should be waypoints. Ship reaches a point, it starts going to the next.
• The AI is too cowardly with handling destroyer groups. In the "Battle of Destroyers" scenario, this is particularly prominent. Handing over your DD allies to the AI control leads to them immediately retreating from close combat. They tend to move to a point 10-15km away from the nearest enemy and ineffectually plink away with their small guns. If you are particularly unlucky, they will start running away and never stop. The enemy has the same issue, but if you manage to close in on an enemy ship it will detach from the group, run at you, and make a last stand... the rest of the fleet runs away and leaves it to die.
• We should be able to give more general commands for the AI to execute.
• The AI doesn't understand smoke. Often the whole fleet will use smoke simultaneously as soon as an enemy is spotted, which wastes it.
• Smoke screens are poorly implemented. A screen should be a temporary opaque wall, which no one can see through without special tech and/or training (eg radar, spotter planes, range clocks at short range). This blocks vision from the inside, too.

Weapons, Damage, and Player Information

• There should be torpedo launching indicators. IE, the ship should say why it has or hasn't decided to shoot. Would be extremely useful in figuring out why torpedoes aren't being released.
• There should be visible gun and torpedo firing arcs in battle on friendly ships. This would dovetail neatly with the above point.
• Torpedo reloads should be longer -- at least without proper tech. Less so for underwater tubes, but they should have their own distinct disadvantages.
• Torpedo damage is probably still too low at higher ranks.
• There should be permanent markers on all visible torpedoes. An audible warning would be useful. The torpedo message is often lost in the battle reports.
• Invisible shooters are annoying. Such things can certainly happen at night, but in daytime, if your enemy can see you, you can probably see them -- barring spotter planes, range clocks, radar, etc. Probably simplest fix would be to increase detection range to equal gun range for a time after shooting.
• Hitpoint values should be placed next to the structure and floatability percentage values. Hits show specific damage values, after all.
• Current speed and rudder angle should be displayed in the right column. Annoying to have to hover over the division portraits.
• There should be more types and quantities of critical hits. For example, a generator crit might affect electric power, and an ammo supply / magazine crit (if the turret is not outright destroyed) should increase reload time. Additionally, ships had different numbers of engines and boilers!
• Maximum bulkheads are too strong and minimal bulkheads far too weak. There's too little choice. Max is almost always best, and it is seemingly the most important survivability feature.
• The compartment scheme and armor scheme need to be improved. Dovetails with the bulkhead situation.
• Partially because there is no crew, firefighting and flooding control apparently do not degrade with heavy damage.
• It would be good to see how exactly crit repair rate, fire fighting efficiency, and water pumping speed work.
• Eventually, enemy torpedo reloads should be obscured from the player. It should be hard to tell if torps were launched. This feature should come only if other torpedo changes are made.
• Eventually, ammo counts for guns should also be concealed -- the reload timer is far less important here. However, this should be implemented only after other fixes.
• Eventually, some (not all) critical hits on the enemy should be temporarily concealed from the player. Pretty obvious when a magazine detonation occurs.... Not immediately obvious if the captain is killed. Again, this should be implemented only after other fixes.
• Eventually, unidentified visible enemies should be given generic models so that the player cannot easily ID them. Once more, this should be implemented only after other fixes.
• There should be easier ways to jump to visible enemy (or allied) ships. At long ranges, it can be hard to click on them due to render distance. The return to flagship button is a nice example.
• The ship maneuver accuracy modifier makes little sense right now. A stationary target with its rudder hard to port will receive a big modifier.

Special Features and Cosmetics

• Small ships look silly periodically submerging even in "calm" waves. Pitch and roll are often too much, and the graphics show the water washing over the deck in a very unrealistic way. Low priority fix.
• It looks weird for a heavily listing ship to still be shooting. Low priority fix.
• Horizon often looks strange due to render fog, even at high settings. Low priority fix.
• We need land! A simple infinite shoreline would work wonders. After that, maybe harbors, ports, fortresses....
• There should be after action reports showing shots fired, hits made, damage done, and ships sunk.
• There should be a sandbox / training mode. The player would have full vision of all events and ships and partial control over the enemy. This would help enormously with testing.

[Cpt.Hissy]

That is a great list. Hope to see all or most of it to come.

[Cptbarney]

The speed bar should be changed into that wheel thing, so its more realistic and also easier to understand too. Maybe have the handle also move to whatever speed type the player chooses with that clink and ding sound it makes when it's moved.

Also put the speed in knots either just below or just above it, this help to compact the UI somewhat. New Dynamic weather systems and a proper skybox as well. Also better values for different types of weather and seas (calm seas and clear weather should always provide bonuses and average weather and seas should be neutral). 

Ships should gradually go from, very simple models to the full on models at certain ranges as this allows for a smoother transition when identifying and spotting vessels in general.

Smoke should reflect how fast a ship is going, and also what type of engine it has, im pretty sure diesel engines didn't belch as much black smoke as they do in the game.

New death animations to reflect, different types of deaths as well.

Squad/division/flotilla leader should be in a clear more brighter maybe different colour. Battle line could be as it is, scout could be lighter and escort darker as well.

Flagship should be more identifiable as well.

Internal armour schemes (Primitive-Basic-Enhanced-Advanced-Precise) should be a thing, and by the different sections in the brackets im talking about the levels the devs could go, so primitive is basically world of warships, basic features a few basic models or primitives acting as internal compartments (could just focus on the hull first, before moving to other areas), enhanced goes into more detail and advanced would be warthunder like and precise, basically as detailed as possible. (Btw, the devs can go to any level, i would like too see at least an internal armour scheme at the primitive level).

Citadel types change how the armour is layed out and how shells react as well, Also have compartments that are black, showcasing they are no longer usable and have been sealed of and/or completely destroyed.

Just a few sorry if i repeated anything already in the Opening post.

'w'/

[Cpt.Hissy]

just FYI, here is WoWS damage model. They have both geometry representing armour plates and boxes representing compartments and damageable devices inside (so yes, boxes in boxes in boxes)

Now please. stop for a moment, look at this and think.
This is handcrafted model, specifically designed for this particular ship. Here in UAD we have potentially endless( lets avoid designer rant) variations of randomized ships. How do you think, can this kind of model be implemented for our case, to fit all different sorts of ships perfectly to their individual design features? And how?
My opinion is, if they could make this even on WoWS level, this one feature by itself could be a base for a game. But it'll take about that much work, if it's even possible at all, and won't happen here.

[Cptbarney]

2 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

just FYI, here is WoWS damage model. They have both geometry representing armour plates and boxes representing compartments and damageable devices inside (so yes, boxes in boxes in boxes)

Now please. stop for a moment, look at this and think.
This is handcrafted model, specifically designed for this particular ship. Here in UAD we have potentially endless( lets avoid designer rant) variations of randomized ships. How do you think, can this kind of model be implemented for our case, to fit all different sorts of ships perfectly to their individual design features? And how?
My opinion is, if they could make this even on WoWS level, this one feature by itself could be a base for a game. But it'll take about that much work, if it's even possible at all, and won't happen here.

Simple, you just do the internals for each model or for some of them. Also i did say that they can simply just do the hull to test it out. They can make it work, just depends if they want too. Not sure why you are so against the idea, when you want a more realistic game. 

And no performance wouldn't be an issue, since you are talking about very low poly objects here (cubes have what 6 faces in total?). Sure maybe with loads of ships, but thats an issue.

Also it wouldn't even take that long to make it either, all they would have to do is simply duplicate the model in question, scale it down so that it fits inside the model enough, hide it, remove extra geometry (lots of automation can be used here) and there we go.

But hey you can't really complain about super BB's when you won't even entertain the idea of a simple internal armour scheme to increase realism.

[Stormnet]

5 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

New death animations to reflect, different types of deaths as well.

I agree with this one. Lots of inspiration can be taken from the large quatity of pics, reports, and Wikipedia articles on specific ships. They could also vary depending on what sunk them. (Their speeds should vary too. A flooded ship doesnt sink as fast as an exploded one.)

 

1- Tip Sink

Caused by flooding. The forward or rear ends of the ship are the last to go down (stock sink) Most comon in small ships.

 

2- Fat Boi Sink

Caused by flooding. Comon in large ships. Ammo storage may explode (yamato style)

Also, HMS Barham has the best smoke screen tactic ever.

 

3- Hoody Sink

Rather self-explanatory really. Hit in ammo storage can trigger massive explosion on ammo storage launches ships up a little, splits it, and quickly sinks.

 

(At 1:23)

 

4- Split and Sink

A variant of the Hood sink. Happens on small ships. Torpedos or large shells split light cruisers/large destroyers in half.

 

Also, can we get propper explosions? Like, fireballs? Right now there isnt a cool fireball moment in the game. Torpedos are water splashes, shells either detonate inside or just "plonk" outside, and flashfires look more like igniting gas leaks than actual ammo explosions.

 

 

 

[Cpt.Hissy]

@Cptbarney "Simple, you just do the internals for each model or for some of them"
well it's a way. Though for me personally this will be half-measure. A ship is solid structure, not just pile of parts, and game's current approach to design doesn't represent that. Part based armour model won't represent it either. Maybe i'm picky, but i'd say either do this properly, or if you can't, don't do this and do something else that you can do properly.
But well, for those less picky it may be fine.
I'm not against it, but i just don't believe this team will do it.

"Also it wouldn't even take that long to make it either, all they would have to do is simply duplicate the model in question, scale it down so that it fits inside the model enough, hide it, remove extra geometry (lots of automation can be used here) and there we go. "
err can you please explain this part more in detail? I think i'm not getting it properly, as what i read from it sounds weird. Forgive a non english speaker for some confusion.

"But hey you can't really complain about super BB's when you won't even entertain the idea of a simple internal armour scheme to increase realism. "
how is it connected?

 

Also yeah, more "death" effects would be nice, though this can wait till later.
if there was some simple floatation simulation and boats did just sink driven by physics...

@Stormnet i'll be a bore but huge pathetic fireballs exist only in hollywood. Real 'splosions are fast and boring looking.
Cloud around Barham is mostly her own guts x)

That said, for a gamey purpose why not.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Cpt.Hissy

[Stormnet]

5 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

@Cptbarney "Simple, you just do the internals for each model or for some of them"
well it's a way. Though for me personally this will be half-measure. A ship is solid structure, not just pile of parts, and game's current approach to design doesn't represent that. Part based armour model won't represent it either. Maybe i'm picky, but i'd say either do this properly, or if you can't, don't do this and do something else that you can do properly.
But well, for those less picky it may be fine.
I'm not against it, but i just don't believe this team will do it.

"Also it wouldn't even take that long to make it either, all they would have to do is simply duplicate the model in question, scale it down so that it fits inside the model enough, hide it, remove extra geometry (lots of automation can be used here) and there we go. "
err can you please explain this part more in detail? I think i'm not getting it properly, as what i read from it sounds weird. Forgive a non english speaker for some confusion.

"But hey you can't really complain about super BB's when you won't even entertain the idea of a simple internal armour scheme to increase realism. "
how is it connected?

 

Also yeah, more "death" effects would be nice, though this can wait till later.
if there was some simple floatation simulation and boats did just sink driven by physics...

@Stormnet i'll be a bore but huge pathetic fireballs exist only in hollywood. Real 'splosions are fast and boring looking.
Cloud around Barham is mostly her own guts x)

That said, for a gamey purpose why not.

I mean, at least have smoke, or some small blast wave. 38 cm HE should do SOMETHING on the outside of a ship.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Cpt.Hissy]

45 minutes ago, Stormnet said:

I mean, at least have smoke, or some small blast wave. 38 cm HE should do SOMETHING on the outside of a ship.

Sure.
Guessing lots of sparks and big smoke after short bright blast. Kind of like they did it in WT
will be nice

[Stormnet]

11 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Not just the one I've highlighted but many of your suggestions could be optional. I think it would have been great if Dev's did allow us to set 'AI Behaviors' for example, gave us the options. 

e.g. setting how ships response if damaged:
On damaged ships rejoining:

•  Never Rejoin.
•  Rejoin at 30%.
•  Rejoin at 60%.
•  Rejoin at 90%.

On damaged ships retreating:

•  Never Retreat.
•  Retreat at 30%.
•  Retreat at 60%.
•  Retreat at 90%.

This game is very suited for such setting, 'Novice/Normal/Realistic' modes and/or 'General Preferences' setting would settle many playing styles including accommodating above lists. There are many others optional aspects that could be set aswell, like rudder display options and with special mention of visibility ranges. 

Could even be setup with 'admirals/captains' to have such traits, so some ships retreat while others hang in longer, this would be very realistic from a command point of view, mimicking humans etc.

The fact is many games are successful with such modes, so it must be a GameLabs thing, since it's quite programmable. But in the end I don't think they're going to change because IMO GameLabs is very much about delivering us the challenge, like there can be no easy mode or options or settings of behaviors etc. since with such modes they cannot provide us the challenge. The game seems destine for a single audience challenge.

I mean, the disengage and retreat options can ease or dificult your missions depending on the situation.

If you have the upper hand and have sunk half of the enemy fleet while keeping your ships in good condition, then it would be harder in the long run for you to have the enemy run away, as their ships would live to fight another day. While if they stand and fight, they just go to the bottom of the ocean. And vice-versa if you are the one losing it, as if they run off, you just won the day despite being outnumbered. Otherwise, you are the one that needs to run away if they stay, because, you dont want your ships down at the sea right?

There isn't really a dificulty constant in the retreat stuff that dificults or eases the game always. Maybe a variable acoording to the situation?

Edited April 4, 2021 by Stormnet

[Cptbarney]

8 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

@Cptbarney "Simple, you just do the internals for each model or for some of them"
well it's a way. Though for me personally this will be half-measure. A ship is solid structure, not just pile of parts, and game's current approach to design doesn't represent that. Part based armour model won't represent it either. Maybe i'm picky, but i'd say either do this properly, or if you can't, don't do this and do something else that you can do properly.
But well, for those less picky it may be fine.
I'm not against it, but i just don't believe this team will do it.

It's just a bunch of objects and models joined together, having internal wouldn't impact performance since you can just use that line of sight render trick to not make them render in the first place. Also it's an alpha it makes far more sense to start of simple then work your way up to something more complex as they will need to see if the system even at a primitive level is worth doing. All the game does is sort each of the models in to various groups and arrays for the AI to pick and for the player to choose using a GUI.

We are still using a somewhat primitive gunnery system atm, so doing it properly atm would take ages and could end up costing them far time and money if it doesn't work.

8 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

"Also it wouldn't even take that long to make it either, all they would have to do is simply duplicate the model in question, scale it down so that it fits inside the model enough, hide it, remove extra geometry (lots of automation can be used here) and there we go. "
err can you please explain this part more in detail? I think i'm not getting it properly, as what i read from it sounds weird. Forgive a non english speaker for some confusion.

In short, to model any of the internal geometry at a basic level all they have to do is take a turret body for example, duplicate it. Scale it down to a smaller size, remove extra lines and faces that aren't needed, then simply code it to be invisible or set it invisible in whatever 3d modelling software so when it appears in the game, the game will calculate the extra geometry, but won't actual render it (so no additional faces, verts and tris, meaning no performance loss)

8 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

"But hey you can't really complain about super BB's when you won't even entertain the idea of a simple internal armour scheme to increase realism. "
how is it connected?

It's not, although its annoying seeing people blame SBB's and 20inch guns as if they are the reason the devs haven't done anything else for other parts of the game, gunnery and penetration mechanics are pretty much the coders/programmers job, not the designers or modellers so it makes sense why we would see things from the design early, since from my experience unless you go mental with details it doesn't take long to actually make these models in the first place (unless you want them to be 1:1 ratio in terms of realism, but i don't mind as long as it's close enough to the real thing im good).

8 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Also yeah, more "death" effects would be nice, though this can wait till later.
if there was some simple floatation simulation and boats did just sink driven by physics...

Well the designers can still make the animations and linking them up to the ships, wouldn't take the programmers that long at all. The problem with unity is that it is a generic-dynamic game engine, and also a learning game engine. Meaning that compared to a dynamic engine or a full static engine, it's going to do things half baked really so full on physics wouldn't be possible, best they can do is fake it really. Otherwise the amount of calculations and power needed to render that in real-time will turn your pc into a mini Nuclear explosion.

8 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

@Stormnet i'll be a bore but huge pathetic fireballs exist only in hollywood. Real 'splosions are fast and boring looking.
Cloud around Barham is mostly her own guts x)

That said, for a gamey purpose why not.

Nah, from an aesthetic point of view, there should be a multitude of effects ranging from, more spectacular to realistic, none of these muzzle flashes would take long to do, smoke simulation is another thing, although they seem to know what they are doing in regards to that.

Also its not a 'gamey purpose' its an art decision, this is a game after all not a full on simulation, so it makes sense to have some flashy stuff once in awhile otherwise it gets boring visually. 

[Cpt.Hissy]

@Cptbarney we have a misunderstanding here it seems.

Issue i'm referring to is that, for example, the main belt (which would be part of the hull) typically is designed to cover the magazines (which in case of this game would be part of turrets) and engines (which would be their own part), with it's position on the hull and size determined by those, currently completely independent components. Same goes for all the other elements of both armour scheme and internal layout. I don't see a system that might properly adjust those elements for each possible combination as simple.
Also, armour scheme of a capital warship is so much different from " just scale down a model" i don't know what even to say.
What you described is basically how hitboxes in games normally are made, and how UAD currently handles hits by the looks of it. Do you want a visualisation of those simple hitboxes in-game to see which part is considered what in terms of "belt-deck-extended" system? If so, i agree, may be helpful. But don't call it "proper internal armour" as it's not.

[Stormnet]

2 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

@Cptbarney we have a misunderstanding here it seems.

Issue i'm referring to is that, for example, the main belt (which would be part of the hull) typically is designed to cover the magazines (which in case of this game would be part of turrets) and engines (which would be their own part), with it's position on the hull and size determined by those, currently completely independent components. Same goes for all the other elements of both armour scheme and internal layout. I don't see a system that might properly adjust those elements for each possible combination as simple.
Also, armour scheme of a capital warship is so much different from " just scale down a model" i don't know what even to say.
What you described is basically how hitboxes in games normally are made, and how UAD currently handles hits by the looks of it. Do you want a visualisation of those simple hitboxes in-game to see which part is considered what in terms of "belt-deck-extended" system? If so, i agree, may be helpful. But don't call it "proper internal armour" as it's not.

 

12 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

It's just a bunch of objects and models joined together, having internal wouldn't impact performance since you can just use that line of sight render trick to not make them render in the first place. Also it's an alpha it makes far more sense to start of simple then work your way up to something more complex as they will need to see if the system even at a primitive level is worth doing. All the game does is sort each of the models in to various groups and arrays for the AI to pick and for the player to choose using a GUI.

We are still using a somewhat primitive gunnery system atm, so doing it properly atm would take ages and could end up costing them far time and money if it doesn't work.

In short, to model any of the internal geometry at a basic level all they have to do is take a turret body for example, duplicate it. Scale it down to a smaller size, remove extra lines and faces that aren't needed, then simply code it to be invisible or set it invisible in whatever 3d modelling software so when it appears in the game, the game will calculate the extra geometry, but won't actual render it (so no additional faces, verts and tris, meaning no performance loss)

It's not, although its annoying seeing people blame SBB's and 20inch guns as if they are the reason the devs haven't done anything else for other parts of the game, gunnery and penetration mechanics are pretty much the coders/programmers job, not the designers or modellers so it makes sense why we would see things from the design early, since from my experience unless you go mental with details it doesn't take long to actually make these models in the first place (unless you want them to be 1:1 ratio in terms of realism, but i don't mind as long as it's close enough to the real thing im good).

Well the designers can still make the animations and linking them up to the ships, wouldn't take the programmers that long at all. The problem with unity is that it is a generic-dynamic game engine, and also a learning game engine. Meaning that compared to a dynamic engine or a full static engine, it's going to do things half baked really so full on physics wouldn't be possible, best they can do is fake it really. Otherwise the amount of calculations and power needed to render that in real-time will turn your pc into a mini Nuclear explosion.

Nah, from an aesthetic point of view, there should be a multitude of effects ranging from, more spectacular to realistic, none of these muzzle flashes would take long to do, smoke simulation is another thing, although they seem to know what they are doing in regards to that.

Also its not a 'gamey purpose' its an art decision, this is a game after all not a full on simulation, so it makes sense to have some flashy stuff once in awhile otherwise it gets boring visually. 

Im getting way too bored of waiting for the saving ability soo...

 

FIGHT!

FIGHT!

FIGHT!

FIGHT!

FIGHT!

KILL EACHOTHER!!

KILL EACHOTHER!!