Really not so great, actually really bad

[DougToss]

Why would you not just emulate real battleships?

In KSP, at the end of the day, no matter what whacky contraptions you tinker around with, to land on the moon you end up building something that looks like a Saturn V. 
 

You’re replicating the experimentation, and for that reason converge on the functioning design.

 

[monbvol]

16 hours ago, DougToss said:

Why would you not just emulate real battleships?

In KSP, at the end of the day, no matter what whacky contraptions you tinker around with, to land on the moon you end up building something that looks like a Saturn V. 
 

You’re replicating the experimentation, and for that reason converge on the functioning design.

 

*nod*

The prime consideration if they are serious about even so much as paying lip service to the notion of being realistic is that the bigger the ship the harder it is to replace and the longer you have to live with the consequences of your design decisions.

 

The Naval Academy does not teach this in any way shape or form.  I would dare say with how much randomization there still is in the Naval Academy missions it barely teaches situational specialization.

[Redletter45]

On 10/29/2021 at 6:38 PM, jimh said:

Lets start from my perspective  I spent an adult life in naval service, doing this for real. I have served on nuclear cruser, Large amphip (small carrier), fast combat support, 2 Nuc aircraft carriers ( Enterprise and GW) and a DD in a warfighting rate. I lived in CIC.    I had high hopes this would be a good tactical simulation requiring realistic tactics and not a typical   PlayStation BS game.

 

These are my thoughts...

1. Hire a retired naval officer as an technical tactical  adviser. 

This game has serious  tactical  deficiencies, no one with an ounce of experience can take some of the "Naval Academy" missios  as anything other then a bad joke by someone who knows nothing.  No officer in any real navy would command and take a major capital ship i.e. high end BB  1BB vs   3BB, 5 heavies, and 5 destroyer.   you cannot if invincible hold enough ordnance to accomplish that sinking them all .   fact is    This would never happen, ever.   not even close to realism (is the a john wick BB)    And no Naval command would place someone in charge who was so stupid to try.     The only thing remotely close would be the Bismark break-out ( she had CA PE with her, and they were not tasked with engaging and destroy the British navy)  they were tasked to break contact  and  avoid the main fleet and do commerce raiding,  they failed, Bis managed to sink the hood but was damaged enough for a mission kill,   was forced to return to port from damage we all know the stories ending.    When heavily outnumbered you disengage and run like hell   except the most  unique situations (e.g. Battle off Samar).  That isn't an academy mission it was getting caught with their pants down and trying not to be killed en mass.  This requires bb john wick and about as real .   

2. No ship is constructed or for that matter refit  for 1 specific mission, none ever.  Capital ships takes years to make and are major investments,  (other battleforce ships are not  cheap for that matter ) all ships are designed with numerous missions in mind.  and they are made well rounded,  maybe campaign mode with address this the NA should support that theory

3. I won't rant too much on the bugs,   i have seen and others have noted,   battery fire, fleets that  cant maneuver or hold station (tip allow the "admiral to assign  ship stations there is more to driving then line  abrest or line a stern  ) don't spin circles, run into each other and otherwise be usless.  torps that never shoot. but are deadly accurate  from max range,   don't start a long rang battle between heavies at 18km no one spams in at 18k with heavies, scrap the clock it isn;t a race, this isn't a video game  let us close maneuver and try gain advantage

 

4  ditch the AI building crap ships  use period class  models ie BB  CA  DD MTB etc  there are thousands to choose from. they were build as they were for sound reasons and it would be realistic.  

5. Check the combat calculator for buggs,  I have experienced on 5 occasions out of like 9 being engaged at +26km and the opposition scoring multi  1st salvo hits... seriously  the first shots are fired to bracket and deliberately fired at different elevations to range you  only when ranged do salvo togeather  you don't get 2-3 on target from a cold tube.  anyone that lucky needs to go to Vegas or Monte-carlo.  

 

There is much i could like about this game, graphics are great,  some battles  seem reasonably viable and enjoyably challenging .  Others are garbage.  there is no joy or challenge to be forced to play an unplayable sim.    dump the junk get real and you could  have something worth of my time and  money.  

 

 

 

Find a simulator then. This is a semi realistic game where you can build wacky boats and fight other boats. No one really cares about how this is not your navy service simulator. 

 

With the amount of irrelevant stuff you've typed in here it mostly feels like this is a huge fishing expedition for a "thank me for my service" or that you are implying you want them to ask you to be their naval expert lol. 

 

[jimh]

On 11/4/2021 at 10:29 PM, arkhangelsk said:

 

 

On 11/5/2021 at 7:57 PM, monbvol said:

*nod*

The prime consideration if they are serious about even so much as paying lip service to the notion of being realistic is that the bigger the ship the harder it is to replace and the longer you have to live with the consequences of your design decisions.

 

The Naval Academy does not teach this in any way shape or form.  I would dare say with how much randomization there still is in the Naval Academy missions it barely teaches situational specialization.

Hat tip.... and dead right.  

 

   you train the way you fight and fight the way you train.    the tactics you use are based on the strengths of the design and exploiting the weakness of the adversaries .  

    so if you create an clown ship to fight another clown ship your training to join a circus as a clown.  

 

you need realistic designs vs realistic situations with realistic mission orders  to develop winning tactics.  now since ships are largely similar it is the tactics you develop for the advantages you design in that tip the balance    and no one should think that is easy.  

[jimh]

22 hours ago, Redletter45 said:

Find a simulator then. This is a semi realistic game where you can build wacky boats and fight other boats. No one really cares about how this is not your navy service simulator. 

 

With the amount of irrelevant stuff you've typed in here it mostly feels like this is a huge fishing expedition for a "thank me for my service" or that you are implying you want them to ask you to be their naval expert lol. 

 

Then why didn't they say that ...  I missed that part of the advertisement,  "This is where you can build wacky boats and fight other wacky boats " to paraphrase  ...

Oh to pick a nit  boats ride on ships .     They claimed   "realistic"  numerous time actually.   I thought they meant it.

 

I didn't ask for thanks,  don't want your thanks and surely didn't do it for your thanks.  it wasn't  about me, my generation wasn't wired for me me me me

Oh, no   I have a job.

If  they just want to be a arcade game or totally unrealistic they don't need any assistance.    

 

oh wow  i just noticed ur brand new account and this is your  1st  comment wow      sniff sniff sniff I smell a troll

 

 

Edited November 7, 2021 by jimh

[Skeksis]

5 hours ago, jimh said:

They claimed   "realistic"  numerous time actually.   I thought they meant it.

Being realistic is not absolute, does not imply simulation (even though it maybe the intention). Common mistake (by many!).

IMO the realistic term is being used in the context of gaming representation, to which is totally rational and material. All battle mechanics are based on fundamental principles, therefore not irrational nor abstract i.e. realistic. 🙂

Edited November 7, 2021 by Skeksis

[DougToss]

Absolutely uncalled for @Redletter45. I don’t like squids as much as the next guy, but a SME sharing relevant experience on a testing forum, during an alpha, is good feedback. 
 

I don’t see him slamming his MPRR on the desk and saying “hello kitty you, you weren’t downrange, you don’t know, here are my jump wings.” He wasn’t big leaguing you, he was simply saying he knows a thing or two beyond playing computer games that might help. That’s a positive contribution. Jesus Murphy. 

 

He’s making concrete observations, providing usable feedback and connecting experience playing the game to relevant experience in the field. He was not asking for an attaboy, and hello kitty you for implying it. If he had a degree in Naval Architecture or was a War College grad, would you be upset about his feedback then too? A degree in computer science? Game design?

When did offering relevant experience become a strike against? Here’s the thing - he wasn’t shouting you down or edging you out. He wasn’t monopolizing discussion, or talking down to anyone. His experience doesn’t negate your feedback. We’re all sitting at the table here. You took someone having real-world experience as a threat and threw a fit, but he’s always carried on like a fellow enthusiast, not a SME holding court.
 

As for the “Realism” thing - the Devs courted the Wargaming Press which is how the Grogs and Rivet Counters came by this title and this forum. Don’t try to weasel out of it by saying Realism doesn’t mean Realism when in the context it was used 13 times in the description, @jimh clearly offered a good faith reading. You would have to contort yourself to say they didn’t mean it would be simulating reality to one degree or another. 
 

It’s been what, 2 years? If the goals have changed, do a Find and Replace on the blog and take out “Realism”. Problem solved.

 

For what it’s worth, and because I’m tired about these tantrums, I’m a professional in defence too. I wouldn’t be puttering around on the forums, signed up to the Alpha and providing feedback if I didn’t think it would be relevant in some way. So to have that thrown back in our faces is insane. 

 

Again, we’re all playing the same game, gameplay feedback is shaped by our various knowledge and experiences. Some people have played more videogames and know more about that. Do you see this hostility levelled against them?

 

No. So what’s the deal? Do you go on the Forza forum and shout down guys who have studied/driven/worked on the various models of cars?

 

Stop dancing around it and get it all of your chest, because this is getting ridiculous. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by DougToss

[jimh]

4 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Being realistic is not absolute, does not imply simulation (even though it maybe the intention). Common mistake (by many!).

IMO the realistic term is being used in the context of gaming representation, to which is totally rational and material. All battle mechanics are based on fundamental principles, therefore not irrational nor abstract i.e. realistic. 🙂

I saw the pre-edit,  fair question,

I would like to be a fan yea, I sure did not  buy it to hate it and not to be a fan.

I was Just trying to point out some defects, some unrealistic parts and suggest things that would make it better 

some folks questioned if I know my Arse from a hole in the ground.    I get that folks who have not been in naval service may not 

see things that to me stick out like a whore in church.  that was why i suggested maybe a retired naval Officer for some technical guidance.   It is a strange world most have never seen. and it isn;t always logical to be sure.

No I m not providing a CV or my service jacket for consideration of a position ...  But if you take the constructive criticism as that 

I will try to point out the more egregious things  i see that  make it more believable/playable  where I can.   oh other said a PLOT,  my big vote yes on a VP for SA. 

I don;t know everything but I know a few things.

...

 

2 hours ago, DougToss said:

Absolutely uncalled for @Redletter45. I don’t like squids as much as the next guy, but a SME sharing relevant experience on a testing forum, during an alpha, is good feedback. 
 

I don’t see him slamming his MPRR on the desk and saying “hello kitty you, you weren’t downrange, you don’t know, here are my jump wings.” He wasn’t big leaguing you, he was simply saying he knows a thing or two beyond playing computer games that might help. That’s a positive contribution. Jesus Murphy. 

 

He’s making concrete observations, providing usable feedback and connecting experience playing the game to relevant experience in the field. He was not asking for an attaboy, and hello kitty you for implying it. If he had a degree in Naval Architecture or was a War College grad, would you be upset about his feedback then too? A degree in computer science? Game design?

When did offering relevant experience become a strike against? Here’s the thing - he wasn’t shouting you down or edging you out. He wasn’t monopolizing discussion, or talking down to anyone. His experience doesn’t negate your feedback. We’re all sitting at the table here. You took someone having real-world experience as a threat and threw a fit, but he’s always carried on like a fellow enthusiast, not a SME holding court.
 

As for the “Realism” thing - the Devs courted the Wargaming Press which is how the Grogs and Rivet Counters came by this title and this forum. Don’t try to weasel out of it by saying Realism doesn’t mean Realism when in the context it was used 13 times in the description, @jimh clearly offered a good faith reading. You would have to contort yourself to say they didn’t mean it would be simulating reality to one degree or another. 
 

It’s been what, 2 years? If the goals have changed, do a Find and Replace on the blog and take out “Realism”. Problem solved.

 

For what it’s worth, and because I’m tired about these tantrums, I’m a professional in defence too. I wouldn’t be puttering around on the forums, signed up to the Alpha and providing feedback if I didn’t think it would be relevant in some way. So to have that thrown back in our faces is insane. 

 

Again, we’re all playing the same game, gameplay feedback is shaped by our various knowledge and experiences. Some people have played more videogames and know more about that. Do you see this hostility levelled against them?

 

No. So what’s the deal? Do you go on the Forza forum and shout down guys who have studied/driven/worked on the various models of cars?

 

Stop dancing around it and get it all of your chest, because this is getting ridiculous. 

Doug,

 I tease doggies, jarheads and fly-fly boys too.  But in truth it just good humored fun (out of respect)  between  brothers in arms...   rather have em as friends then the other side.. can you imagine having 5 cousins all doggies and being the only squid...   lots of stories swapped however

You are spot on target bother, fire for effect!!!!     

I am or was trying to point out when I go Whisky Tango Foxtroat.  If i see something that just comes off wrong headed.  like ships running into each other,      Or what some call clown ships, torps never firing etc... i though they might think that is valuable feedback, (but maybe not.)   or  I wouldn't waste my time.

 

For the code-ies (post naval service)  spent 13 years an as an Application Eng taking code into the field for testing and support alpha/beta code.  I have worked with a number of developers sorting things out,  watching then code C#  I know it is hard work too,  I respect the effort. 

  I am not shooting at ya.  I am trying to give you feedback....   But someone puts a 5" across my bow, he might get an 8" returned...  Just saying  

  I am done here for a bit,  if Dev's don;t what to hear it  (if they do they need to say so)    I am not here for a pissin contest, either  I don't need it. better things to use my time for  like install   a gazelle trigger waiting to find  a home,   and my dog needs a bath, an moma has a hunny do list a mile long.   

I would give feedback if wanted if not, now where is that dog... 

[DougToss]

24 minutes ago, jimh said:

Thoughtful Reply

I hear you about taking some time away from the boards, if you look at @akd, @Steeltrap, most of the people who are bringing in some level of academic, hobby or professional experience need time away from the boards. I checked out for about a year, it just felt like banging my head against the wall. 
 

It’s not that they don’t care anymore, it’s that providing feedback and meeting silence would be disheartening enough, but to go twelve rounds over things like “Here’s a Royal Navy firing table I found, copied and cited, that shows 4 inch guns can’t split ships in half. I was on 105’s and those projectiles are only 33lb, maybe this could be toned down in the next patch?” makes it incredibly frustrating. It’s hard enough not knowing if the feedback is being received, having to exhaustively argue over it wears you down.

 

All that being said, I’m sure when @Nick Thomadis takes a look at the board, he’ll see your feedback. You’ve done what you can, there’s no harm in taking a break until there’s some sort of update.

Having said all that, the RTW 2 board is very active, and looking for Cold Warriors as they go into the missile age, ditto Sea Power and War on the Sea. I know a community member active here was able to produce the data and get AP bombs added to War on the Sea, it’s not all in vain.

 

Hope some of that helps, and good on you for not taking it too personally and sticking to arguing points here, it’s tough, but appreciated.

 

What’s the thing you guys always say?

 

Bravo Zulu

Edited November 8, 2021 by DougToss

[arkhangelsk]

On 11/5/2021 at 3:59 PM, DougToss said:

Why would you not just emulate real battleships?

First, because like it or not, the game may not line up with reality. In that case, it's important that you learn the game's position on the matter, before you decide on doing anything else.

Second, because like it or not, the real battleship isn't necessarily right. The fact is that we have not solved for the "Ideal Battleship" as well as we have solved for the Saturn V. We have gotten rid of some clear second best ideas - like wing turrets. But after a certain point, conservatism took over on a "good enough" design.

For example, take the little problem of secondaries. Real battleships have them, so should your UA:D battleship? Even in real life, secondaries often brought in disappointing results (Graf Spee's didn't land a single hit) and it is often justified for a hoped for moral effect - obviously, the solutions are not as rigorously scientific or mathematical as those who made the Saturn V. In fact, some parts are almost ... religious ... in their justification. But no one dares to beach the secondaries.

Would you say even so you should just blindly emulate real battleships and unthinkingly stick on secondaries?

[Steeltrap]

9 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

Would you say even so you should just blindly emulate real battleships and unthinkingly stick on secondaries?

If the devs are going to ramp up their performance as they have, then yes.

🤣

[DougToss]

I was not going to reply to @arkhangelsk because I must have written 15 pages on secondary armaments at this point. However, in the interest of a positive community - let me respond.

The Chief Designer of the postwar Royal Navy, D.K. Brown, wrote four books that all explain the purpose, function, successes and failures of secondary armament from 1879-1960.  We have all relayed that information to you - as well as what O’Hara and Friedman, the other leading naval authorities have to say. 
 

Read the books or don’t, the evidence stands on its own. We as a community, @madham82, @akd, @Steeltrap and I have been very patient with you and @Skeksis in particular, on this issue (and others). There is no way you have engaged with our posts and our sources in good faith if you are still confused about this issue. 
 

Naval Architecture is a science. Secondary Armaments moved from turret tops, to superstructure, to casemates to turrets as a result of scientific analysis and combat experience. I know this because I have quoted primary and secondary sources at length - to you. 
 

Victorian engineers knew what centre of gravity, roll, and pitch were. They could calculate what moving mass higher and lower in a ship would do to stability. They conducted scientific firing tests both on static and dynamic targets, and in simulations of combat scenarios. I have posted dozens of these reports here - in reply to you. They could calculate shell weight, velocity (and therefore range), test it, and analyze it. They conducted multiple experiments on terminal effect, including sinking ships in live firings, raising them and precisely examining damage - down to casualties per compartment from splinters.

 

By all means, say you don’t understand secondary armaments, but don’t say nobody understood them. They did - you don’t - we have tried to bridge that gap.

 

What more do you want to be convinced?

 

E: @jimh, whose thread you are posting in, is a career sailor. Why don’t you ask him what secondary armaments are, what they do, their history and employment. He may know a thing or two.

Edited November 8, 2021 by DougToss

[jimh]

33 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

First, because like it or not, the game may not line up with reality. In that case, it's important that you learn the game's position on the matter, before you decide on doing anything else.

Second, because like it or not, the real battleship isn't necessarily right. The fact is that we have not solved for the "Ideal Battleship" as well as we have solved for the Saturn V. We have gotten rid of some clear second best ideas - like wing turrets. But after a certain point, conservatism took over on a "good enough" design.

For example, take the little problem of secondaries. Real battleships have them, so should your UA:D battleship? Even in real life, secondaries often brought in disappointing results (Graf Spee's didn't land a single hit) and it is often justified for a hoped for moral effect - obviously, the solutions are not as rigorously scientific or mathematical as those who made the Saturn V. In fact, some parts are almost ... religious ... in their justification. But no one dares to beach the secondaries.

Would you say even so you should just blindly emulate real battleships and unthinkingly stick on secondaries?

Doug my friend...

Ok so they  are back to real except we are not real.  

All stop  as a former Navy seal said  "shit filter is full"

I am calling bullshit   Grandma always said you can't cure stupid.

 doug we are trying  to teach a pig to whistle, you just frustrate yourself and irritate the pig.

this my friend is a pig no matter how much lipstick they put on it or how fancy a dresses it wears it is still a pig.

Pity I  t wasted $$, and time on these frauds,  Pitty i can't get it back    I am done this salior can't stand lairs and thieves.

Tip:  maybe  the seller should consider the customer the customer the just pushed away well fool me once shame on you,  fool, me twice shame on me.

not one more ounce of effort not one more penny from me you will see.  now lets see  how does uninstall work.   good riddance.  i am flushing this turd.

Oh make that " Nay sayer"   you convinced me!

The review sure won;t be pretty.  the screen shots may just be epic.   as for me  CMO here I come  UAD Out you go, 

and to those I tried to be professional to , when you pull your heads from your asses let me know,  until then hello kitty off.

 

[Schmiddy]

When offering criticism you should ensure that your goals are aligned with the goals of the one you are critiquing. In this case you're missing the mark.

The missions are there to give interesting scenarios that make you think about how you design your ship leveraging different mechanics of the game to achieve an objective. If the objective was "design an effective ship / battlefleet" there would be maybe 3 missions per nation and they would all play out the same. That's not the objective of Naval Academy.

What you want out of the game is coming in the campaign where your whole job is to design effective ships and construct useful task forces. The game isn't done, just wait.

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

How about we all take a breath and calm down alright? There's been a lot of information and feedback brought up here, and it's clear that we all have different thoughts and opinions. And ya know what....that's just fine.

@jimh has brought up a lot of good points/observation/feedback from his time and experience playing this game and how his observations and suggestions were obviously influenced by his time in the service. I may not have understood a lot of the "technical jargan" he was using, but I'm not a Navy Man...I'm an engineering student in college who is also a history buff. Just because I don't know what he is saying/trying to convey doesn't discredit or make invalid what he has to say and it sure doesn't mean he's fishing for a "thank you." Furthermore, if he and others (such as @DougToss) have real world experience and/or sources they have cited...I would argue that their arguments/ideas would be some of the best ideas to listen to and consider.

How this thread has went off track from the original post and wound up turning into arguments over the "ideal battleship," how realistic this game should/shouldn't be, and secondary armaments is still beyond me. But here's the thing about all those points are HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE.

There is no "end-all-be-all" for an "ideal battleship." I might define the "ideal battleship" as being able to take on a range of threats from enemy BBs down to CLs while somebody else might define their "ideal battleship" as being able to utterly crush enemy BBs with huge main guns from long range while relying on other ships for protection from smaller ships: it all depends on doctrine and tactics when it comes to your playstyle or how you choose to utilize your ships when you play the game. Can you see where this is going? You can't define "ideal" because everyone's ideas about what a ship should/shouldn't be able to do is going to differ. (The previously mentioned "textbook battleship" is equally absurd imo as I have never seen a copy of "Warship Design for Dummies" at my local bookshop.) You don't need to be an amazing naval architect to build a decent ship in UA:D. Take me for example...I'm a college student who really only knows about the USS Enterprise (CV-6) and USS North Carolina (BB-55) because my great grandfather served on the Enterprise (I'm obviously going to be interested in the ship my family member served on) and the fact that I'm just genuinely interested in battleships and naval history: I have just as much fun trying to build a "good" ship as I do building an Iowa Class lookalike that has nothing but 3" guns...which would be considered probably one of the worst ships irl.

As for how realistic this game should be, that again is highly subjective. Some people wanted it to be a tactical sim, others want it to just be historically accurate as far as the models are concerned...and both of those viewpoints are fine (I'm personally somewhere in the middle of those two: I'm not going to be counting rivets, but I also want a little more than just accurate visuals). But there is a difference between realism and realistic. The former implies that it tries to mimic the real world as close as possible while the latter implies that it has a basis in reality, but is not a tactical sim. Yes, using the word "realistic" or "realism," whichever it was, something like 13 times in the game's description could be described as a bit obsessive and I can see why it could lead to folks thinking that UA:D would be very realistic...but just because you use the same word multiple times, that doesn't mean that the end product is going to be well represented by that word (I also don't think they've marketed this game as a super realistic/tac sim game either...but I could be wrong).

The secondary armaments issue is just tiring at this point (I basically share the same sentiments as DougToss): if you want secondary guns add them, if you don't want secondary guns then don't add them...plain and simple as that.

 

TL;DR jimh and DougToss probably have some of the most valuable feedback in this thread...they obviously know their shit. The other points that have been brought up thus far can best be summed up by this: build the ships you want, the way you want them and then use the ships you build how you see fit...you don't need to be a master naval architect or master tactician to design and use battleships in a computer game.

[Tousansons]

4 hours ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:

(I also don't think they've marketed this game as a super realistic/tac sim game either...but I could be wrong).

The whole paragraph should be in bold with bigger size.

 

 

[arkhangelsk]

On 11/8/2021 at 12:51 PM, DougToss said:

I was not going to reply to @arkhangelsk because I must have written 15 pages on secondary armaments at this point. However, in the interest of a positive community - let me respond.

The Chief Designer of the postwar Royal Navy, D.K. Brown, wrote four books that all explain the purpose, function, successes and failures of secondary armament from 1879-1960.  We have all relayed that information to you - as well as what O’Hara and Friedman, the other leading naval authorities have to say. 

And as I've told you previously, I not only have most of the sources you use (Captain Hughes seems to be a favorite citing source of yours these days), but am even sufficiently familiar with them that even if you hadn't bothered to cite properly I can often just read the quoted portion and figure out which work it is.

I understand you are undergoing significant stress talking with Skeksis, but don't just shove the blame over here as well. I don't even post that much - just over 40 posts total since September 15 (and the post before that was in February)

If you are not having success with your opponents, try making sure your evidence even supports you.

On 10/18/2021 at 9:52 PM, DougToss said:

Also, as always, historically the point of secondary armaments was not to protect warships singlehanded - they very rarely (1-3%) hit, and when they did, did not sink small torpedo craft, but rather acted as a deterrent. 

From one of your "fifteen pages". I don't know how to interpret this other than to say you agree that the game actually broadly simulates the mechanical aspect of secondaries properly.

On 10/22/2021 at 2:02 AM, DougToss said:

I think it’s more that neither was very accurate but the threat of either was a huge consideration. I could be misreading that though.  

[Hughes]

All of that to say, it’s *really* hard to account for Torpedoes being simultaneous incredibly dangerous *and* not often very effective.  

Your second post takes extensively from Hughes, and concerns the torpedo more than the defensive secondary gun. If you ask me, torpedoes are indeed threatening to me in game. Maybe if my evasive skills are better, but anyway I agree the risk of them hitting makes me want to take countermeasures. But it says nothing about whether I should use the secondary gun or divert rounds from main armament, does it?

On 10/29/2021 at 8:20 PM, DougToss said:

No kidding about the Iowa pumping out rounds at close range.

I see Iowa is pumping out a lot of lead (says your chart taken from Hughes again). It doesn't say much about the effectiveness of said rounds, or their hit rate.

And your succeeding posts in that thread don't really help your argument either. In fact, I can't see how it is greatly different than what I wrote - I also said that the results are often "disappointing" and you agree the hit rate is low. Your own post says their justification is for deterrence, while I said it is for a "hoped for moral effect" - what's the difference here?

I thus conclude that the player should be tested to the limit (so he won't install secondaries out of inertia) to realize what the game's position on the matter is, which you seem to agree is not even that far from reality.

To cite a bit more from Brown:

Quote

 

Hits were unlikely as one might expect from hand-worked guns, close to the waterline and hence with poor visibility. Inertia forces on the heavy and fairly long barrel of the 6in 45cal would make it difficult to train and elevate rapidly, particularly when the ship was pitching and rolling or turning. Fire was normally opened at 7500 – 8000yds. German accounts say that firing on their destroyers by British battleships was not very effective.13 One can only wonder if director control, fitted later, would have made a big difference.

Brown, D. K.. The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906-1922 . Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition. 

 

Quote

 

In conclusion, 6in (or 5.9in) secondary batteries aboard capital ships were expensive, unlikely to score hits and their exposed ammunition could endanger the ship. The correct way to protect battleships from destroyer attack was a screen of light cruisers and destroyers. A light 4in battery may well have been desirable to boost morale rather than protect the ship.

Brown, D. K.. The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906-1922 . Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition.

 

Wow, Brown is really enthusiastic about secondary guns. Why are you biting my head off for suggesting allowing the player to see if he'll need them in this game, or maybe the game can conclude they really are useless?

[DougToss]

2 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Why are you biting my head off for suggesting allowing the player to see if he'll need them in this game, or maybe the game can conclude they really are useless?

Mostly directed at Skerskis or whatever, and I apologize for assuming you were trying to prop up broken gunnery as a feature, not a bug. Also going to bat for @jimh a bona fide SME, who was dismissed out of hand for no reason I can see. All of that to say, it was inappropriate, and I’m sorry for taking it out on you @arkhangelsk.

 

Still, I generally like what you have to say, as I’ve said before you seem to be one of the people here who knows his sources, so even if we differ on the philosophy of it, I think your feedback has been positive and I don’t want you to think I have personal animosity towards you. I don’t, I apologize for the tone, and for taking my frustration out on you. It was uncalled for, and you’re a valued member of this community.

Edited November 9, 2021 by DougToss

[Cptbarney]

Bit of a mess init lads?

[Redletter45]

On 11/7/2021 at 12:44 PM, DougToss said:

Absolutely uncalled for @Redletter45. I don’t like squids as much as the next guy, but a SME sharing relevant experience on a testing forum, during an alpha, is good feedback. 
 

I don’t see him slamming his MPRR on the desk and saying “hello kitty you, you weren’t downrange, you don’t know, here are my jump wings.” He wasn’t big leaguing you, he was simply saying he knows a thing or two beyond playing computer games that might help. That’s a positive contribution. Jesus Murphy. 

 

He’s making concrete observations, providing usable feedback and connecting experience playing the game to relevant experience in the field. He was not asking for an attaboy, and hello kitty you for implying it. If he had a degree in Naval Architecture or was a War College grad, would you be upset about his feedback then too? A degree in computer science? Game design?

When did offering relevant experience become a strike against? Here’s the thing - he wasn’t shouting you down or edging you out. He wasn’t monopolizing discussion, or talking down to anyone. His experience doesn’t negate your feedback. We’re all sitting at the table here. You took someone having real-world experience as a threat and threw a fit, but he’s always carried on like a fellow enthusiast, not a SME holding court.
 

As for the “Realism” thing - the Devs courted the Wargaming Press which is how the Grogs and Rivet Counters came by this title and this forum. Don’t try to weasel out of it by saying Realism doesn’t mean Realism when in the context it was used 13 times in the description, @jimh clearly offered a good faith reading. You would have to contort yourself to say they didn’t mean it would be simulating reality to one degree or another. 
 

It’s been what, 2 years? If the goals have changed, do a Find and Replace on the blog and take out “Realism”. Problem solved.

 

For what it’s worth, and because I’m tired about these tantrums, I’m a professional in defence too. I wouldn’t be puttering around on the forums, signed up to the Alpha and providing feedback if I didn’t think it would be relevant in some way. So to have that thrown back in our faces is insane. 

 

Again, we’re all playing the same game, gameplay feedback is shaped by our various knowledge and experiences. Some people have played more videogames and know more about that. Do you see this hostility levelled against them?

 

No. So what’s the deal? Do you go on the Forza forum and shout down guys who have studied/driven/worked on the various models of cars?

 

Stop dancing around it and get it all of your chest, because this is getting ridiculous. 

 

Don't really care if it's uncalled for. He posted all sorts of irrelevant things that the vast majority of people would never want. 

 

Realism ≠ Simulation

 

I still can't find where this said this will be a simulator of dreadnought naval fighting only "realistic" which is a huge and broad category. Look at games like Warthunder with its "realistic battles or games like Squad and ArmA. They are realistic but are not simulators. 

 

Also the boomer style typing, and the boomer style "you millenials are self absorbed" is hilarious after we just fought two wars that lasted 20 years and yes, I deployed to both as an infantryman before I get attacked for that too. 

 

It's a videogame and making it fun should be the number one priority over making it some simulator where most people will shun it. If you look at their advertisements you can easily tell they are focusing on "make your own cool design ships and fight other ships!".

The one complaint I whole heartedly agree with is the devs need better communication and probably should do something akin to biweekly or at least monthly devblogs. 

[Cptbarney]

On 11/12/2021 at 11:22 PM, Redletter45 said:

 

Don't really care if it's uncalled for. He posted all sorts of irrelevant things that the vast majority of people would never want. 

 

Realism ≠ Simulation

 

I still can't find where this said this will be a simulator of dreadnought naval fighting only "realistic" which is a huge and broad category. Look at games like Warthunder with its "realistic battles or games like Squad and ArmA. They are realistic but are not simulators. 

 

Also the boomer style typing, and the boomer style "you millenials are self absorbed" is hilarious after we just fought two wars that lasted 20 years and yes, I deployed to both as an infantryman before I get attacked for that too. 

 

It's a videogame and making it fun should be the number one priority over making it some simulator where most people will shun it. If you look at their advertisements you can easily tell they are focusing on "make your own cool design ships and fight other ships!".

The one complaint I whole heartedly agree with is the devs need better communication and probably should do something akin to biweekly or at least monthly devblogs. 

I sit in the middle between realism, arcade and sim. But more towards realism, as i do like RTW's and how it handles things, but you could make a few elements more arcadey here as unity is more of a general game engine than a static one built around a certain genre/concept/game etc.

I think they should focus more mechanics however and get those fleshed out whenever possible, and introduce new ones when and where possible. Although i respect peeps if they don't want full on realism or sim or those who do want that.

The community is on edge, because most are fed up with waiting and along with no comms from the devs not even a weekly 2min read post (like i do on my ko-fi) or bi-weekly 5min read with a few images or even a monthly update thats more long winded.

Plus, it seems we have no idea what direction the devs are going in as the game is still quite barebones, so arguments like these will just keep coming up time and time again.

Also if it can avoid the terrible schemes some of the bigger companies use in the gaming industry that would be nice as well.

[DougToss]

On 11/12/2021 at 6:22 PM, Redletter45 said:

Also the boomer style typing, and the boomer style "you millenials are self absorbed" is hilarious after we just fought two wars that lasted 20 years and yes, I deployed to both as an infantryman before I get attacked for that too. 

Lol I mean, I just kind of chuckled because that’s SNCO mindset, but I take your point. It’s weird seeing it online, for sure, but unlike your formation SM, he can’t give you a hard time - so there’s that!

Mostly I agree that communication is the way out of this jam. 

[coalminer]

On 11/13/2021 at 7:22 AM, Redletter45 said:

 

It's a videogame and making it fun should be the number one priority over making it some simulator where most people will shun it. If you look at their advertisements you can easily tell they are focusing on "make your own cool design ships and fight other ships!".

The one complaint I whole heartedly agree with is the devs need better communication and probably should do something akin to biweekly or at least monthly devblogs. 

Putting all the personal drama aside, unfortunately as much as we want to support the game even the main selling point of the game falls flat on its premise. the designer as it is is pretty much useless except for building a variant of the original historical ship the hull was based on otherwise it would be unoptimised (just look at how the AI tries to slap things all over). For the most part late war hulls only allows ABY triple mounts because of how the game forces you down and early game being variants of AY guns and hoping that the devs gives the nation of your choosing better "stats and resistance" because apparently thats how armour and GA works. 

[Commander Reed]

Yeah. Would probably work better if you had to build the hull yourself. Some hulls are just so crappy IMO, you cant get much originality out of em. 

[SonicB]

4 hours ago, coalminer said:

Putting all the personal drama aside, unfortunately as much as we want to support the game even the main selling point of the game falls flat on its premise. the designer as it is is pretty much useless except for building a variant of the original historical ship the hull was based on otherwise it would be unoptimised (just look at how the AI tries to slap things all over). For the most part late war hulls only allows ABY triple mounts because of how the game forces you down and early game being variants of AY guns and hoping that the devs gives the nation of your choosing better "stats and resistance" because apparently thats how armour and GA works. 

This is why I wish they had just gone down the generic route, and paid a designer to come up with plausible-looking hulls and superstructures that worked better with a mix-and-match approach, inspired by RL designs of the era, but never sacrificing modularity for slavish copying of one precise design.

Instead of individual national models, three or four basic styles (alongside kitbashed variants) for each hull and era would have been far better.