>>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<

[DougToss]

9 minutes ago, Draco said:

Sorry no.

I'll elaborate.

I appreciate it. Think nothing of it, I was on 155mm (6 Inch) field artillery pieces, and was making a guess based off indirect fires with machine-guns. It makes sense to me that heavy naval rifles are a different beast. 

e: lol I know what artillery fall of shot looks like, and that higher incidence is how laser and GPS guided munitions like Excalibur are able to effectively guide onto target. I think we are talking about different aspects of the same thing, because if you took a horizontal view of your same diagram, and plotted the impact area, as range increased it would similarly change in shape at the same time the shell changes in angle. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by DougToss

[CapnAvont1015]

Yo is any else having a problem where if your loading a game with transports they never finish building which gets you stuck on the loading screen? I just had that happen today and yesterday and I don't know what's causing it.

[admiralsnackbar]

23 hours ago, RedParadize said:

If you can fit a 3x16" with 405 shell/gun, you can also fit a 2x16" with 405 shell/gun. Same space, but less gun, that's it!

you *can* but realistically triple gun turrets have wider rings than doubles (ignoring autoloaders) for reasons of space-saving. 

[admiralsnackbar]

22 hours ago, madham82 said:

Are you saying this is in the game currently? I have seen no evidence that protection is reduced by subsequent hits. Quite the opposite, TDS offers a flat reduction based on level selected (and probably other values). I've dumped over a hundred 24" torpedoes into a 100K+ super and watched 100 damage register as near simultaneous hits occurred.  

IRL, even the best TDS systems greatly lose effectiveness from multiple strikes to the same side. 

No i'm describing how i *would* do it, not how it is done. 

[Draco]

4 hours ago, DougToss said:

I appreciate it. Think nothing of it, I was on 155mm (6 Inch) field artillery pieces, and was making a guess based off indirect fires with machine-guns. It makes sense to me that heavy naval rifles are a different beast.

Yeah, think of it more like a super-sized 88 on a tiger tank trying to pierce the sloped armour of a really really big T-34. 6" field guns really stop being a good comparison once heavy armour plates become a factor. At that point you need to compare it less with land artillery and more with tank battles.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Draco

[Evil4Zerggin]

8 hours ago, Draco said:

@Nick Thomadis we've talked about this multiple times before... at a 41 degree fall angle, side and deck pen values should be near enough identical, not 3-1 in favour of deck pens (in fact assuming a vertical belt plate, belt pens should hold the edge over deck pens at this angle)

We fixed this back in patch 11 and now we're back in fantasy-land... why?

It appears that penetration is based on a precomputed table (similar to RtW's implementation), whereas shell trajectory is solved at runtime. These do not necessarily match up with each other, especially once shell weight and muzzle velocity modifiers come into play, which AFAICT change the trajectory but not the penetration.

[Speglord]

Nick promised us more info on the campaign update this week, so let's hope it comes tomorrow.

[Draco]

17 minutes ago, Evil4Zerggin said:

It appears that penetration is based on a precomputed table (similar to RtW's implementation), whereas shell trajectory is solved at runtime. These do not necessarily match up with each other, especially once shell weight and muzzle velocity modifiers come into play, which AFAICT change the trajectory but not the penetration.

well... I don't think that's the case. All the fall angles seem consistent with real world equivalents for a given shell and velocity, it's really just the pen values against angled armour plate that are inflated. I mean, most navy designers were pretty well aware of the potential disasters that could result from plunging fire, so why would literally all of them continue to design even their heaviest battleships with a maximum of 8" of deck armour if they knew a 16" deck plate was required?
Occam's razor.
They didn't because it wasn't.

[madham82]

10 minutes ago, Draco said:

well... I don't think that's the case. All the fall angles seem consistent with real world equivalents for a given shell and velocity, it's really just the pen values against angled armour plate that are inflated. I mean, most navy designers were pretty well aware of the potential disasters that could result from plunging fire, so why would literally all of them continue to design even their heaviest battleships with a maximum of 8" of deck armour if they knew a 16" deck plate was required?
Occam's razor.
They didn't because it wasn't.

I'm probably reading this wrong, but they were aware they could never armor the deck enough to solve plunging fire. The reality though was being able to hit at those ranges was beyond remote (look at the ranges Warspite and Scharnhorst made their longest hits). So tactics dictated closing to "acceptable" range (to improve accuracy for one), and then the shot fall was within the ability to armor against. 

But your screen shot definitely looks funny. Lower than 45 degrees would be the ranges 8" deck armor would be adequate, and vertical armor pen would be higher.  We used that same 16" graph from Navweaps as an example in the thread before. 

Edited October 6, 2021 by madham82

[Evil4Zerggin]

53 minutes ago, Draco said:

well... I don't think that's the case. All the fall angles seem consistent with real world equivalents for a given shell and velocity, it's really just the pen values against angled armour plate that are inflated. I mean, most navy designers were pretty well aware of the potential disasters that could result from plunging fire, so why would literally all of them continue to design even their heaviest battleships with a maximum of 8" of deck armour if they knew a 16" deck plate was required?
Occam's razor.
They didn't because it wasn't.

This isn't about the real world, this is about datamining the game.

[Draco]

49 minutes ago, madham82 said:

I'm probably reading this wrong, but they were aware they could never armor the deck enough to solve plunging fire. The reality though was being able to hit at those ranges was beyond remote (look at the ranges Warspite and Scharnhorst made their longest hits). So tactics dictated closing to "acceptable" range (to improve accuracy for one), and then the shot fall was within the ability to armor against.

Yeah exactly they settled for around 30km immunity zones IRL, 8 inches would be fine for that, and 10 inches would probably be fine in our little reality where 20 inchers are an actual thing.

55 minutes ago, madham82 said:

But your screen shot definitely looks funny. Lower than 45 degrees would be the ranges 8" deck armor would be adequate, and vertical armor pen would be higher.  We used that same 16" graph from Navweaps as an example in the thread before. 

Yeah exactly, Nick solved this back in patch eleven with the plunging fire hotfix. Didn't really notice how much it had drifted back in this direction before a couple of days ago. Now mind you, it's still a lot better than back when you needed 27.5" of deck to create a 25km outer immunity zone, but, well, still not entirely fixed I guess 😐

[DougToss]

I guess this is another reason cooking the books on gunnery tables is going to break the game more and more:

 

As @madham82 pointed out, hitting at ranges where the fall of shot would be almost entirely on the deck and not the belt was remote. If we have a situation in game where it’s not just common but frequent, either we’d have to have magical deck plates as thick as belts, and so break displacement and everything else, or plunging fire will have to be pitifully ineffective.

 

This is why overriding player expectations and having those single digit accuracies at range matters.  

[madham82]

3 minutes ago, DougToss said:

I guess this is another reason cooking the books on gunnery tables is going to break the game more and more:

 

As @madham82 pointed out, hitting at ranges where the fall of shot would be almost entirely on the deck and not the belt was remote. If we have a situation in game where it’s not just common but frequent, either we’d have to have magical deck plates as thick as belts, and so break displacement and everything else, or plunging fire will have to be pitifully ineffective.

 

This is why overriding player expectations and having those single digit accuracies at range matters.  

Couple this with victory conditions all currently revolving around sinking ships with no options of retreat, and you have most of the reasons why the game is struggling to adhere to realism or make it fun. We obviously have to balance the two somehow. 

[SodaBit]

Actual gameplay feedback here. DD's don't seem to want to anything sometimes. I'm not sure what causes this, but my assumption is that they're assigned to "Scout" for a different formation of ships. On multiple occasions, I've seen enemy DD's or CL's just abandon the fight and leave their buddies to die. This time it was a pair of DD's sitting around 17.5 kilometers away from the nearest enemy ship, and 25.5 kilometers away from my capital ships. Even if they're not the most dangerous ships in the fleet, these guys still could have made a difference in the fight, instead they're just wasted tonnage.

Edit: Honorable mention should go to the last enemy CA left, who seems absolutely determined to run as far away as possible from his responsibilities.

Edited October 6, 2021 by SodaBit

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[lordcmdr]

1 hour ago, madham82 said:

Couple this with victory conditions all currently revolving around sinking ships with no options of retreat, and you have most of the reasons why the game is struggling to adhere to realism or make it fun. We obviously have to balance the two somehow. 

This would be solved if we could just consider ships beaten beyond a certain point “mission killed” and have the option of completing or keep fighting.

[DougToss]

40 minutes ago, lordcmdr said:

This would be solved if we could just consider ships beaten beyond a certain point “mission killed” and have the option of completing or keep fighting.

It’d be much easier to assess too, because the computer could calculate, based on the damage done, time the ship would be laid up for repairs, and cost of repair, and then use that as a score. 
 

Obviously that would be sight unseen to the player, it could be presented as vaguely as “heavily damaged”. WITPAE very cleverly had it so the intelligence could be *wrong* - ships reported sank that weren’t, ships that sank returning to port, sight unseen, ships estimated to be damaged worse than they were, torpedoes reported as hits that were duds etc. 

[SodaBit]

3 hours ago, SodaBit said:

Actual gameplay feedback here. DD's don't seem to want to anything sometimes. I'm not sure what causes this, but my assumption is that they're assigned to "Scout" for a different formation of ships. On multiple occasions, I've seen enemy DD's or CL's just abandon the fight and leave their buddies to die. This time it was a pair of DD's sitting around 17.5 kilometers away from the nearest enemy ship, and 25.5 kilometers away from my capital ships. Even if they're not the most dangerous ships in the fleet, these guys still could have made a difference in the fight, instead they're just wasted tonnage.

Edit: Honorable mention should go to the last enemy CA left, who seems absolutely determined to run as far away as possible from his responsibilities.

Further DD issues here, it appears that DD formations are not only badly out of position as a unit, but individual elements of these formations seem to be operating independently of each other, or the formation as a whole. I'm struggling to think of any examples outside of the battle of Jutland in which a single formation was spread out over 15 kilometers, as is shown here. 

[Evil4Zerggin]

Here are base penetration graphs as of v90. Note that a nonzero value doesn't necessarily imply that the gun can actually reach that distance, and penetration is affected by gun Marks (between 0.935x and 1.33x) and penetration modifiers from techs/components.

Trajectories are controlled by an independent formula that appears to be gravity + Stokes (aka linear) drag but I haven't fully reviewed it.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Evil4Zerggin

[arkhangelsk]

55 minutes ago, Evil4Zerggin said:

Here are base penetration graphs as of v90. Note that a nonzero value doesn't necessarily imply that the gun can actually reach that distance, and penetration is affected by gun Marks (between 0.935x and 1.33x) and penetration modifiers from techs/components.

Trajectories are controlled by an independent formula that appears to be gravity + Stokes (aka linear) drag but I haven't fully reviewed it.

Beautiful. Are the penetration values for Iron Plate armor?

[Draco]

26 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

Beautiful. Are the penetration values for Iron Plate armor?

Yes, everything is in equivalent armour pen against baseline iron armour.

Helluva graph Zerg, nicely done!

Made with excel?

Edited October 7, 2021 by Draco

[DerRichtigeArzt]

11 hours ago, lordcmdr said:

This would be solved if we could just consider ships beaten beyond a certain point “mission killed” and have the option of completing or keep fighting.

Ships that took a certian amount of damage should be considered dead in the water, and in campaign, after the battle a ship like that if not sunk in the battle itself would have a dice roll, either it would sink with all crew, sink but have its crew rescued or survive and be in a condition so bad it would be out for years, or flat out only worth its weight in scrap. In missions and customs I feel like the feature is not needed as much. 

[Cptbarney]

Time to wait for dah campaign lads.

[Draco]

I made these with this data http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_United_States.php

Figured a real life comparison with Zerg's data might clarify.

Horizontal pen is taken from the EFF data bar, which is defined thus:

EFF

Effective Limit - The projectile will usually retain intact its explosive filler cavity, a seated base plug, and a working fuze. Other damage to the shell is not addressed in this definition. The Effective Limit may be at a velocity equal to or above Holing Limit, or it may be impossible at any striking velocity under the given impact conditions.

In other words, full pen for the purposes of this game.
The armour considered is US class A (best compared to krupp III in game).
I only examined US guns of 1935 and fowards, but can do more comparisons later if time allows.

Horizontal pen looks almost perfectly in line with game stats:

Almost identical to Zerg's in-game graph. So far so good.
However...

vertical pen looks pretty far off from the in-game graph.
Pen stays below 5" of deck for all guns examined up to around 28-29000 yds (and at that range the in-game 16" is already penning 6.5 inches of armour, calibrated to krupp III that is), but they then begin to increase exponentially from then on (for all guns that can actually shoot that far at least).
The only guns that can ever pen more deck than belt are guns that can shoot 33000 yards (roughly 30km) or longer.
More specifically, it is guns that can achieve fall angles above 45 degrees, meaning deck pen IRL only exceeds belt pen for the last 1/10th of a given gun's max range, and that is IF the gun has the capability to elevate that far at all (which most pre-WWII guns don't).
Look. I'm not saying Nick and gang should copy these values number for number... but if you look at the math the current system has deck pen values generally exceeding belt pen values at around the 20-22km mark, whereas real guns make this shift around the 30km mark (or in case of 18"-20" guns, even later).
I'd settle for a rule of thumb like "no gun can have a deck pen higher than it's equivalent belt pen below 30km" if that makes things simpler for coding, but the current situation is hair-raisingly out of touch with reality.

I swear I'll stop rambling about this now, but yeah if this doesn't get fixed then count me out until the game actually hits steam and mod tools are released.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Draco

[DougToss]

3 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

Ships that took a certian amount of damage should be considered dead in the water, and in campaign, after the battle a ship like that if not sunk in the battle itself would have a dice roll, either it would sink with all crew, sink but have its crew rescued or survive and be in a condition so bad it would be out for years, or flat out only worth its weight in scrap. In missions and customs I feel like the feature is not needed as much. 

That’s a good point. I don’t know enough about the major navies’ damage control, repair and rebuilding systems, but a ship that managed to put out fires, pump out water and get under tow wouldn’t always make it to a forward repair ship or depot. One who made it there, may not be able to sail home over open ocean. Even then, there are only so many repair ships, quays, drydocks and shipyards - and only so much they can do!

 

Does anyone know offhand the most severe damage done to a warship that was repaired and how long it took? I read the memoir of a salvage diver at Pearl Harbour, which was fascinating (and) grim, but though it explained the process, I don’t know how transferable it is. Most ships were not “lucky” enough to be sunk in shallow water at a major fleet base.  

I wonder though, scrapping a major fleet unit might return some of its guns and other fittings to depot. It would be interesting to be able to build a monitor at a discount because a 16 inch gun was salvaged from a scrapped or cancelled ship.

Edited October 7, 2021 by DougToss