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

[Commander Reed]

Speaking of captains, I'm really excited to see the edition of Officers! The crew is a good start, but I'm looking forward to assigning the Commanding Officer, XO, maybe even the chief engineer, ect.

Example: The better the chief engineer, the more bonuses you get or somethin'

Edited October 22, 2021 by Commander Reed

[CapnAvont1015]

5 minutes ago, Commander Reed said:

Speaking of captains, I'm really excited to see the edition of Officers! The crew is a good start, but I'm looking forward to assigning the Commanding Officer, XO, maybe even the chief engineer, ect.

Example: The better the chief engineer, the more bonuses you get or somethin'

You know for awhile now I was wondering how Officers and Commanders while work. Like is it going to be like WOWS were we can pick certain skills or will each personnel gonna have their own unique skills (also like WOWS Jesus Christ).

[Commander Reed]

2 minutes ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

You know for awhile now I was wondering how Officers and Commanders while work. Like is it going to be like WOWS were we can pick certain skills or will each personnel gonna have their own unique skills (also like WOWS Jesus Christ).

Unsure. I'm just going off of the system in Age of Sail for the moment, you got a few slots, and you put some officers in.
It could definitely go a completely other direction, but this is my idea of how it might work for now.

[Cptbarney]

11 hours ago, DougToss said:

Even if a ship remained afloat, it would surely have been rendered hors d’combat and struck its colours, right?

Thats a feature that needs to be added in, individual ships surrendering and ships falling apart when they take far too much damage as well. And crew just bailing too.

[arkhangelsk]

17 hours ago, TheRealJostapo said:

For the love of Mike...

347 hits, 19 floodings, 2 ammo detonations, 128 partial pens, 79 penetrations.     

It'd be funny if it weren't for the fact my brain dead AI screen wouldn't ignore this unkillable abortion and focus on the killable torpedo boats which were killing them.

Whatever was done in the latest build, it was not an enhancement.

 

Just 8 more percent to go. This game has a point when the ship will give up the ghost, and it's not 8%, it's 0%. And please don't think changing this is a good idea. When it is YOUR ship and it sinks before the bar hits zero, you will scream.

Regarding the ship's unkillability, first, you've covered up the displacement and caliber of biggest gun, but based on its near 700 man crew, four inch armor, I'm going to guess that's at least a light cruiser of over 4000 tons. You've opened up about 80 little holes and threw grenades (the amount of bursting charge in a small caliber shell can be truly miserable) into them. Yeah ... I can see the thing not sinking.

As for your the brain dead AI ... there's not enough information to tell. What are the positions and status of its competitors? Besides, did you know that players have complained when their ship shifted targets on their own?

  

14 hours ago, Commander Reed said:

I'm surprised that thing can still float with 8% integrity. Wouldn't it start collapsing in on itself?

I won't. It depends on what you believe integrity means. Personally, I think 0% is the point when it starts "collapsing on itself". At 8%, it is calculated to be 8% from that point.

Edited October 23, 2021 by arkhangelsk
Added another reply.

[Arrigo74]

5 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Thats a feature that needs to be added in, individual ships surrendering and ships falling apart when they take far too much damage as well. And crew just bailing too.

Well, after Tsushima ships striking the colours were a rarity. On the other hand I can see a point where a CO would abandon ship to save the crew. As Andrew Lambert once pointed out to me (it was a discussion about HMS Repulse sticking to the sinking HMS Prince of Wales instead of abandoning the scene): a ship can be built  faster than a good crew can be trained. 

In the campaign that should be a critical decision both for players and AI...

[Commander Reed]

2 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

 I won't. It depends on what you believe integrity means. Personally, I think 0% is the point when it starts "collapsing on itself". At 8%, it is calculated to be 8% from that point.

Either way, by that point, the hull would be very weak. Especially if you keep getting hit in the same area.

Edited October 23, 2021 by Commander Reed

[CapnAvont1015]

1 hour ago, Commander Reed said:

Either way, by that point, the hull would be very weak. Especially if you keep getting hit in the same area.

Getting hit in the same area let's say the bow would most likely get blown off.

[killjoy1941]

23 hours ago, TheRealJostapo said:

For the love of Mike...

347 hits, 19 floodings, 2 ammo detonations, 128 partial pens, 79 penetrations.     

It'd be funny if it weren't for the fact my brain dead AI screen wouldn't ignore this unkillable abortion and focus on the killable torpedo boats which were killing them.

Whatever was done in the latest build, it was not an enhancement.

 

It's almost as though the game isn't finished, or something very like.

Also, congratulations. You managed to take a screenshot of no actual use in solving any of the problems you complain about.

[AdmER]

My problems is not the with 8% hull integrity. Effectively 0% is the limit and represent complete destruction. I have huge problem with the 19 floodings!!

I do not thing in reality a ship could get flooded so many times. style fight and comeback to complete dry hull! And often with a nearly 90% flooded, so it take all its crew and pomp to safe this ship 19 times! That impossible and should greatly affect is readiness to fight (and sink or been abandoned way before that).

I am pretty sure Us Navy would have paid real money in 1942 to save Yorktown again and again like that!

Flooding system is one of the many aspect to revisit ASP, I was hoping the crew management will have solve it. Not the case!

Edited October 24, 2021 by AdmER

[DougToss]

I have no doubt from reading some of Brown’s assessments of WW1 and WW2 damage that ships could take tremendous punishment and remain afloat. It’s just that there is a huge gradation before actually physically sinking beneath the waves we’re missing such as breaking contact, retreating, limping away, getting under tow, abandoning ship etc. A ship that’s been 92% damaged, whatever we consider that to mean, is having a very bad day and is not going to stick around as if nothing has happened.

 

For all intents and purposes, that ship’s war is over - at least until it gets major time in drydock, if not just outright scrapped. There’s got to be a way to reward the player accordingly. 
 

We talk a lot about the campaign layer, but the best way to not break the campaign by having wildly inflated sinking numbers, and breaking tactical battles by having dramatically unrealistic and fatal weapons is to have something that considers a ship that damaged “lost”, as far as that engagement’s fighting goes. 
 

Maybe just a better way for the AI to turn tail and run when critical systems are damaged, or if the engagement seems un winnable or unwise anyways. 
 

I think it some ways Bismarck's last battle demonstrates a lot of that - I can only describe it as an execution by breaking at the wheel. The ship was lost long before it was sunk, but was unable to escape, nor did it (could it?) surrender.  I think I read that the conning tower reportedly resembled swiss cheese. Either way, the battle was over long before Bismarck sank - insofar as there was no possibility of offering resistance. 
 

e: Ballentine apparently wrote an article on the issue:

 

And this brings us to the key element of controversy that ‘Killing the Bismarck’ presents, namely the contention that some of her crew tried to surrender at the height of the battle. When the hardback edition was published, and the surrender angle received national newspaper coverage, this caused outrage - from the USA and UK to Poland - among the ranks of those who still believe in the ‘invincible Bismarck’ myth.

One thing I have learned over the past decade or more I have been writing naval history books is that the accepted view of how events happened collapses, or at least can sometimes prove open to question, when you go deep into the archives. People are perhaps just not looking for it, or they possibly find something but it does not agree with the line they are pursuing, so they ignore it.

With specific regard to the Bismarck Action I came across the ‘surrender’ claims in three different ways. In the case of one I found an account (by a Rodney officer) in the archives of the HMS Rodney Association. In another I wrote to the son of the man involved (a rating in Rodney) and he volunteered transcripts and sound recordings. The third account, from a sailor in the cruiser HMS Dorsetshire, was in the archives of the Imperial War Museum. The signs that these men saw included a man sending a signal via semaphore, mysterious light signals and a flag raised that seemed to indicate a desire to ‘parley’.

I don’t see why these men would lie. I believe they saw some of Bismarck’s men trying desperately to surrender under a devastating weight of fire from two British battleships and a pair of heavy cruisers. In the fore part of the Bismarck, the British shell hits soon slaughtered hundreds of men and potentially killed the entire command team. The British sailors I quote were in a very good position to see what was happening. They were in actions stations with an excellent view of the enemy and certainly in Rodney’s case they had high-powered optics and could see with shocking clarity what was happening. I don’t think people realize just how close Rodney was in the final moments. The men who were best able to see what was happening in the fore part of Bismarck were sailors in British warships, not German survivors. The latter mainly came from well-protected engineering spaces deep within the citadel or served in the equally robust main armament turrets aft.

Was it possible for the British to take Bismarck’s surrender? No. Some sailors may have been trying to surrender in the fore part of the ship, but their shipmates elsewhere continued to fire on the British. Was it an attempt to surrender on authorization of the Bismarck’s commanders, or just an initiative by some sailors who understandably wanted the killing to stop? Nobody will ever know for sure. No battleship deep in the heat of action has taken the surrender of another, at least not since the end of the wooden walls.

Yes, there was an incident of Russian battleships surrendering at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 – but a radically different set of circumstances, so different as to be incomparable. With the Luftwaffe expected to send 200 bombers over the horizon at any moment, U-boats lurking in the area, with the Royal Navy’s ships running out of fuel – never mind the technical impossibility of putting a tow across – to have attempted to take the surrender would have been insanity.

The Rodney and King George V were two very important capital ships. The British didn’t have many and the Royal Navy was in May 1941 taking a hammering in the Mediterranean during the Battle of Crete. Bismarck’s sister battleship, Tirpitz, was expected to set sail from the Baltic at any moment while there were other German high seas raiders lurking in Brest, waiting to come out and savage Allied shipping.

To risk King George V and Rodney in such a mad move would have been a gigantic strategic error, putting Britain at risk. Bismarck’s ensign continued to fly, she was still firing and for the sake of Britain’s security she had to be destroyed as a fighting entity. After the guns ceased firing on both sides – and it’s worth pointing out the Bismarck’s guns did not fall silent until the British put them out of action - it was a different matter.

The brotherhood of the sea saw the hand of mercy extended. This is something reflected on by some of HMS Dorsetshire’s sailors in the paperback edition of ‘Killing the Bismarck’ as their vessel rescued the majority of the 115 Bismarck men plucked from the sea.

‘When we went to pick up survivors, we did so because they were seamen doing their job of work, just like us,’ said George Bell, who was a teenage sailor aboard the British cruiser. ‘We had done our job, which was to sink the Bismarck and so now we offered them mercy.’

The most controversial element of the fresh material in the paperback edition of ‘Killing the Bismarck’ is, though, an account by an aviator who took part in the May 26, 1941 attack on the German battleship that fatally damaged her steering. Terry Goddard was a young Observer in a Swordfish of 818 Naval Air Squadron. Until he got in touch with me I thought John Moffat was the only living veteran of that crucial episode.

Terry, who is now in his mid-nineties, read the hardback edition of ‘Killing the Bismarck’ and then e-mailed me. Subsequently, over a period of about two years, we had a to and fro discussion. He offered me an account he had written of his part in that mission against Bismarck, which he and I then tweaked and polished in order to present it as the headline element of new material in the paperback.

It makes for a fascinating, sometimes justly acerbic but never less than passionate, analysis of what Terry feels really happened. It does contradict some recent claims about whose Swordfish torpedo did the fatal damage to the German battleship. History is organic, and ever evolving, with fresh perspectives to be discovered even now more than 70 years on from the Bismarck Action.

I was also pleased to be able to present fresh material from another surviving veteran, who back in May 1941 made a transatlantic passage in Rodney as a 17-year-old midshipman. The new material in the paperback also contains a blow-by-blow account freshly rediscovered by the son of a Royal Marine officer who served in the gunnery director position of the cruiser Norfo

Edited October 24, 2021 by DougToss

[arkhangelsk]

2 hours ago, DougToss said:

Maybe just a better way for the AI to turn tail and run when critical systems are damaged, or if the engagement seems un winnable or unwise anyways. 

😆😆😆 Do you remember a time when the AI actually did that? IIRC it started cutting and running when it had over half its health bar left, which is not unreasonable because if you aren't making commensurate progress by the time your ship gets to that point honestly you aren't going to win.

Further, the mechanic was a great way to increase the difficulty level, for it ensured the player had to be careful with his ship, so it keeps enough of its speed for the pursuit phase (rather than burning its life to the last knowing it's only Naval Academy and their ship only has to last one mission), and had to design a ship that's faster than its probable opponent.

Anyway ... people complained. Now the AI is force-restrained from using this tactically effective move.

[Cptbarney]

4 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

😆😆😆 Do you remember a time when the AI actually did that? IIRC it started cutting and running when it had over half its health bar left, which is not unreasonable because if you aren't making commensurate progress by the time your ship gets to that point honestly you aren't going to win.

Further, the mechanic was a great way to increase the difficulty level, for it ensured the player had to be careful with his ship, so it keeps enough of its speed for the pursuit phase (rather than burning its life to the last knowing it's only Naval Academy and their ship only has to last one mission), and had to design a ship that's faster than its probable opponent.

Anyway ... people complained. Now the AI is force-restrained from using this tactically effective move.

No the problem was that, the ai would run and then you would lose as your ship was battered making victory impossible even if your ship could end theirs. another problem was when the AI would run even if it said it would never retreat.

We need it so that the conditions are either stay and fight or something else and not stay and fight and also leave otherwise it gets confusing for new players. with retreating being a defeat. and some naval missions that go through the scenario of the enemy possibly retreating or learning to retreat to save yourself.

Now in the campaign i expect the AI too be far more conservative with its fleets and players should expect the AI to leave under certain conditions. The battles would then need more conditions to determine a win, defeat, large, small, total, flawless or a draw and also display it as either tactical and/or strategic. 

Edited October 24, 2021 by Cptbarney

[DerRichtigeArzt]

On 10/22/2021 at 10:14 PM, TheRealJostapo said:

For the love of Mike...

347 hits, 19 floodings, 2 ammo detonations, 128 partial pens, 79 penetrations.     

It'd be funny if it weren't for the fact my brain dead AI screen wouldn't ignore this unkillable abortion and focus on the killable torpedo boats which were killing them.

Whatever was done in the latest build, it was not an enhancement.

 

notice how crew is at 100% efficiency. "we dont want a 40k style bloodbath" is ok. Crew literaly not dying is not ok. 

[DougToss]

11 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Anyway ... people complained. Now the AI is force-restrained from using this tactically effective move.

The WOWS crowd hated that, if I remember, complained that the AI was “impossible to sink.”

 

Edited October 24, 2021 by DougToss

[DougToss]

4 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

notice how crew is at 100% efficiency. "we dont want a 40k style bloodbath" is ok. Crew literaly not dying is not ok. 

I think about 800 of Bismarck’s crew made it into the water to abandon ship. Mostly from the aft turrets and engineering spaces, if I recall. 
 

Still, that’s only 800 out of more than 2000 and crew efficiency was 0 for most, if not all, of the engagement. 

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[SodaBit]

2 problems here. AI seems to be focusing VERY heavily on large caliber secondary guns, nearly every enemy capital unit I see has 8" secondary guns. This, coupled with the increased fire damage is resulting in many battles between capital ships being decided by who has the better secondary battery, rather than the main battery.

Armor doesn't seem to help much with this issue, because with the current way armor weight works, on most hulls you have to chose between protection between large caliber guns with an all or nothing armor scheme, or protecting against smaller guns with a comprehensive armor scheme.
I'm fine with Kriegsmarine BB's having an impressive suite of secondaries, but when even the Brits are mounting an entire heavy cruiser on the side of their BB's, we've got a problem.

[Marshall99]

Sorry guys, I disappeared from this forum for a long time. I had a rough and bad month. I failed on the exams with my entire class, because we got tasks we never seen before and we never learned in the class. So we have to repeat the exams and try again. Sadly, I couldn't try the new stuffs in this update.

[Cpt.Hissy]

@SodaBit

But why you are within secondary range?

[CapnAvont1015]

3 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

Sorry guys, I disappeared from this forum for a long time. I had a rough and bad month. I failed on the exams with my entire class, because we got tasks we never seen before and we never learned in the class. So we have to repeat the exams and try again. Sadly, I couldn't try the new stuffs in this update.

It's ok lad. I've been through the same thing before. Your studies are much more important than the game. Also screw the teacher for not giving you the info.

[Cptbarney]

3 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

Sorry guys, I disappeared from this forum for a long time. I had a rough and bad month. I failed on the exams with my entire class, because we got tasks we never seen before and we never learned in the class. So we have to repeat the exams and try again. Sadly, I couldn't try the new stuffs in this update.

Noice too see yer back anyways. The school seemed to have failed you and your class pretty badly. Should really sue for incompetence.

[CapnAvont1015]

5 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Should really sue for incompetence.

[madham82]

On 10/24/2021 at 12:48 AM, arkhangelsk said:

😆😆😆 Do you remember a time when the AI actually did that? IIRC it started cutting and running when it had over half its health bar left, which is not unreasonable because if you aren't making commensurate progress by the time your ship gets to that point honestly you aren't going to win.

Further, the mechanic was a great way to increase the difficulty level, for it ensured the player had to be careful with his ship, so it keeps enough of its speed for the pursuit phase (rather than burning its life to the last knowing it's only Naval Academy and their ship only has to last one mission), and had to design a ship that's faster than its probable opponent.

Anyway ... people complained. Now the AI is force-restrained from using this tactically effective move.

It's one thing for the AI to disengage when there is a point to it (i.e. try to make it to a retreat zone to leave the battle), but there is no point to retreating in the current win conditions. It's also would be fine if the AI retreated to repair and re-engage at a better range, but it doesn't do that either in most cases electing to simply sail away in one direction for all eternity. 

You see it as a way to increase difficulty, I see it as an exercise in madness. You have seen the AI sail in circles when it knows it can't outrun you right? It can have a destroyed rudder/engines but still be able to keep its stern on to you, and therefore limit the chance of taking enough damage to sink. That's not "improving difficulty", that's pure fantasy due to poor game mechanics. 

Retreating should be an option, but it should also mean forfeiting the battle. These "sink ships only" victory condition belong in an arcade, not a game with this aim and scope. 

[DerRichtigeArzt]

21 hours ago, DougToss said:

I think about 800 of Bismarck’s crew made it into the water to abandon ship. Mostly from the aft turrets and engineering spaces, if I recall. 
 

Still, that’s only 800 out of more than 2000 and crew efficiency was 0 for most, if not all, of the engagement. 

crew efficiency should not only depend on the crew itself. if they got forced out of a compartment by water then they should not be able to perform thier duties