>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<

[DougToss]

9 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

I do not follow you here. That mean seeing enemy at night and during storm

No, it means how far you can see is limited by time of day (night) and weather (storms). Those are natural limitations on visibility I wholeheartedly support. I am only against artificially limited visibility.
 

I’m saying you should be able to see as far as you would given the light and atmospheric conditions.

 

[RedParadize]

2 minutes ago, DougToss said:

No, it means how far you can see is limited by time of day (night) and weather (storms). Those are natural limitations on visibility I wholeheartedly support. I am only against artificially limited visibility.  

I’m saying you should be able to see as far as you would given the light and atmospheric conditions.

Ah, I think we are now getting somewhere!

I would say that there is no issue with fog of war, the current spotting mechanic is not artificially limited per se. No, the real issue is that towers are really poorly balanced. In fact, the comment that started all this, form @akd, can be also read that way:

On 12/11/2021 at 4:42 PM, akd said:

The idea that spotting distances were lower in the pre-dreadnought era vs. later is bonkers and the real problem.  Human eyes and binoculars did not "upgrade" and battleship ship spotters were able to observe roughly the same distances in 1890 and 1930.  Only radar changed things significantly (and radar is not visual observation).

There should be a better visibility in modern tower because of the numerous minor ergonomic improvement they have over the older ones (more spotter, and generally speaking betterly protected from environment etc...) But all in all it should be fairly minor.

 

Tower are way too decisive atm, too much key metric are stacked into them. Spotting is one of those metric, and it ain't really linked to how tall the tower is atm. Problem is, the tower come in a single big block, and we do not have many of them. Good luck balancing them from tower to tower. It needs to be balanced across nations as well...

[ColonelHenry]

I would rather have the spotting mechanic heavily reworked. Again, a ship should be able to spot another ship up to the horizon as long as the weather condition allows. A 1890 BB is probably not going to be able to engage another ship at 10km unless new firing mechanisms and gunnery techniques were research, but it should be able to see that other ship coming from beyond 10km (20km+ or whatever).

It has nothing to do with towers being too decisive. It has everything to do with the spotting mechanic being absolutely gamey, unrealistic, and frustrating.

[DougToss]

You open by saying there aren’t artificial limits on visibility

27 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

I would say that there is no issue with fog of war, the current spotting mechanic is not artificially limited per se.

 And then immediately go on to describe how artificial it is:

27 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

No, the real issue is that towers are really poorly balanced. In fact, the comment that started all this, form

Not only is the mechanic invented out of whole cloth (the only way spotting tops determine how far you can see is their height. That’s it, that’s all), but you want another layer of artificiality do “balance” that. 

Taller mast = higher vantage point = horizon is further away.

There’s your balance. Higher masts increase top weight and centre of gravity, especially as fire control equipment gets heavier, masts can be damaged in combat, but stronger cage and tripod masts are heavier, “Pagodas” and “Queen Anne’s Mansions” can fit large amounts of fire control equipment and are more structurally sound than tripods and cages, but are heavier, costlier and have the aforementioned impact on stability.

 

All of that means that building the highest possible mast is not always practical. It’s much easier to have a very tall pole mast than to build a Queen Anne’s Mansion to the same height, but pole masts were limited in how much equipment they could fit. 
 

As design considerations: ship vibrations can impact the effectiveness of the spotting tops, smoke and heat from funnels could make them nearly unusable when masts were placed aft of funnels, as in early British dreadnoughts, there has to be backup fire control equipment elsewhere on the ship, either on the superstructure or turrets,  which - being lower down - have more limited horizons.

 

Those are all real factors that have to be “balanced”. Why would we need fake ones?

 

To summarize: There are all sorts of factors in mast design, but only height of observer determines visual distance. That’s fine - the other stuff provides more than enough that needs to be taken into account.

Edited December 12, 2021 by DougToss

[Grayknight]

Regarding the campaign i would also like to add that it would do well to give player ability to spend naval prestige on political actions such as atempting to get more money, more recruits and soo on.

[RedParadize]

@DougToss You missed the point. Result is artificial, but spotting mechanics are not to blame. I believe whats needed a balancing pass, not a code rewrite.
@ColonelHenry Lets try to analyze how it work. If you have a different interpretation let me know.

Leaving aside tower balance, how the mechanics seem to work is that you have a spotting value attached to front and rear towers. Note that these value do not stack, only the best of the two value is is retained. That value is then reduced by factor like weather and time of the day. Finally, the target signature is taken into consideration. I ain't sure how that part is calculated yet. Anything wrong there? Granted, it could be more complex, they could add humidity and all to that, but in itself it isn't bad. I think that adding more factor would just confuse the player.

Now, if we do look at tower balance:

Early game tower have a spotting metric ranging from +800 for TB up to +5000 for the US BB cage mast. Most of the BB/BC/CA sit around +2500.

Late game, value are sitting around +2000 for DD to up to +8000 for the best BB tower. On average, BB/BC/CA are around +7000

On top of that, you need to take a look at target signature balance. Not only there is huge disparity between early and late game, and also between tower. For me the problem resides there.

[ColonelHenry]

55 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Lets try to analyze how it work. If you have a different interpretation let me know.

Leaving aside tower balance, how the mechanics seem to work is that you have a spotting value attached to front and rear towers. Note that these value do not stack, only the best of the two value is is retained. That value is then reduced by factor like weather and time of the day. Finally, the target signature is taken into consideration. I ain't sure how that part is calculated yet. Anything wrong there? Granted, it could be more complex, they could add humidity and all to that, but in itself it isn't bad. I think that adding more factor would just confuse the player.

Now, if we do look at tower balance:

Early game tower have a spotting metric ranging from +800 for TB up to +5000 for the US BB cage mast. Most of the BB/BC/CA sit around +2500.

Late game, value are sitting around +2000 for DD to up to +8000 for the best BB tower. On average, BB/BC/CA are around +7000

On top of that, you need to take a look at target signature balance. Not only there is huge disparity between early and late game, and also between tower. For me the problem resides there.

Again... I know vaguely how the currently system works with all the spotting bonuses. And what I am saying is, it is not realistic or fun. People have wrote paragraphs before me on how to change it, and I'm not going to write paragraphs of what have already been said better.

[Grayknight]

There is big problem with battle generator - if enemy have more ships then you he will impose blocade which will damage your economy + chance of loosing transport increases - however i found myself while having far better navy constantly having my transport destroyed for aparently no reason with no missions generated for entire years (i belive i went one year of war without any battles) just loosing more and more transport each year. Which is super stupid seeing while i have only CA i have almost about the same amount of them as total number on enemies. My ships are faster and more effective

Like common... I have to restart campaign due to a unbalanced rng transport loosing and when you are on the death spirale you cannot come out of it... like at all.
 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Grayknight

[DougToss]

1 hour ago, ColonelHenry said:

On top of that, you need to take a look at target signature balance. Not only there is huge disparity between early and late game, and also between tower. For me the problem resides there.

Right - which is why we’re saying the tower visibility thing and target signature are bad systems. They’re unbalanced because they have no basis in reality, and don’t feel right because they aren’t right.

 

The closer the system approximates reality, the more balanced and natural it will feel. 

[captinjoehenry]

Really loving the game and the various improvements that have come in over time!  Currently I only really have two issues I'd want to see addressed.

1. For custom battles being able to set the ships or at least the hulls that the enemy uses would be really appreciated.  As when I'm making fleets in custom battles I want to be able to take my fleet up against a broadly similar fleet.  Like enemy ships having roughly a similar tonnage or similar main gun caliber for Battleships.  Ideally I'd want to be able custom build the enemy fleet as well as my own so I can test my own fleet more consistently.  For example if I make a change to one of the ships in my fleet and start a new battle currently each fight is mostly different which makes getting a like to like comparison between one change and another very hard.  This is amplified even more in the 1940 time setting as taking a 120,000+ ton BB vs old dinky 50,000 ton dreadnoughts isn't really a good test setup unless you just want to stomp some harmless AI ships

2. For the campaigns I quite like them as they are given that this is very much the early development and testing phase of it.  But there is one big issue which mostly just shows up in the 1930 campaign.  And that is the starting techs you have.  As in 1930 the starting techs you have can play a massive role.  For example a campaign can almost be decided just on the basis of you having or not having the Radar 2 tech.  As if you're enemy has it and you don't they get tons of free shots on you under almost all situations and the same the other way around.  There are other techs in the 1930 that play a big role as well like oxygen fueled torpedoes and tube powder or other such options.  This can be highly annoying as it pretty much requires you to restart the 1930 campaign over and over until you get good RNG on the techs that you have unlocked.  This is also a bit of an issue in earlier campaigns but no where near to the same extent.  As the campaigns before 1930 just don't have techs that have any where near the impact as the 1930 campaign.  And I don't think it'll be as much as an issue in the 1940 campaign either as you unlock most of the major game changing techs in the 1930s which amplifies the issues with RNG tech rolls as pretty much in the 1930 RNG starting tech plays a vastly outsized role.

[Littorio]

Oh boyyy, more responses required:

9 hours ago, Skeksis said:

I reckon Dev’s would have tested horizon visibility and probably decided (obviously) that dogged fights was too problematic and offer no mystery. Dogged fights to the end would be the result if all is visible.

Approaching stealth fleets (using unity’s fog-of-war engine)  starts tactical gameplay right off the bat, the player has ‘mystery’ when beginning the battle. I think that has got to count for something when offering a ‘gameplay package’ to the player.

 

8 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Have you ever played WOWS ‘ocean map’? There’s no cover for anyone, essentially it’s a dogged fight to the end, players mill around until one makes a mistake or just one guy sinks first, at that point one fleet outnumbers the other and then it’s a numbers game to the end (not always but mostly).

With full horizonal view, at exactly the point of the first sinking, the battle could be as good as over. No mystery! Just a dogged fight to the end.

While the fog-of-war system is challenging, it still might be the best system developed for our game.

I don't want to hear anything about "tactical gameplay" until

A ) We actually have visible weather and backdrops in which to fight

B ) Formations are actually valuable beyond just a single division, and even then it's often better to dissolve them to prevent crashes

Anything beyond this is a moot point until these issues are addressed sufficiently. Just because you can see someone 20+ km away doesn't mean some "dogged fight to the end" will result, simply because most often your ships won't hit anything at that range. Conservation of ammunition also matters as well. If you fire off all your ammo at 15-20km and hit nothing, well now you better hope you are faster and can flee...

 

8 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Fog of war is necessary... and as it is in the current version of the game its not bad at all. The problem is that night and weather isn't displayed. The day it will be players will know why they did not see that DD until it was right on top of them.

I would say it IS bad when enemy warships can literally open fire on me at some given range and all I see is a shell coming at me. I can literally see where this shell was shot from, but somehow I can't see the vessel responsible!? How can my men see a single artillery shell coming at us, but not the vessel firing it? If there is some kind of "fog" in the way that obstructs my vision, how then can the enemy even see me, let alone get a quasi-accurate firing solution? It's nuts

 

7 hours ago, Danelin Aruna said:

and yes there should be no fog of war, just simple realistic spotting mechanics.

i should say they shouldn't give you a break down of what you are fighting. Make it more like RTW, CA encounter, Fleet Encounter, meeting engagement. I don't want to know what I'm going into battle against before i spot them.

Agreed, look at Dangerous Cold Waters (Dangerous Waters is an old modern naval sim!). You detect noises on the hydrophone when you encounter something on the operational map, but you simply have no idea what it actually IS until you identify it tactically. Sometimes you never even find what your sonarman first heard, and that's ok.

 

7 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@Danelin Aruna In RTW there is fog of war, at night you do not see anything. In RTW a DD can drop its torpedo before you see them. It is like that because its something real. The Titanic did not see the iceberg. The Empress of Ireland did not see the Storstad. There is a long list of ship that ran into England cliffs because they could not see them in time.

In a night or in a storm, you can't see very far. And not all ships are equal regarding this.
 

Yes, night or a storm can limit visibility. I don't think anyone actually has a serious problem with either of those being included. But I don't want to have to worry about them until we can actually SEE them in-game. Applying penalties to invisible effects is just plain annoying. If they weren't visually ready, they should have been withheld until the appropriate systems were in place to support them.

 

7 hours ago, DougToss said:

There is a huge difference. Again Detection ≠ Engagement.

 

Alright, so you can see them. You still have to plan and manoeuvre to effectively hit and sink them! That’s where the tactics come in! 
 

And that is where the difference between shooting not seeing at 5, 10, 25 kms comes in. There is a massive difference between engaging at those ranges. The challenge is positioning yourself so you can bring the enemy under effective fire, crossing the T, closing range, breaking contact when in a bad position etc.

Agree on all counts. Some people seem to think that just because you have seen some enemies, then the battle is already over. On the contrary, it has just begun! You might not even have identified what you're facing yet...

 

4 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

I would rather have the spotting mechanic heavily reworked. Again, a ship should be able to spot another ship up to the horizon as long as the weather condition allows. A 1890 BB is probably not going to be able to engage another ship at 10km unless new firing mechanisms and gunnery techniques were research, but it should be able to see that other ship coming from beyond 10km (20km+ or whatever).

It has nothing to do with towers being too decisive. It has everything to do with the spotting mechanic being absolutely gamey, unrealistic, and frustrating.

+1 to this

 

4 hours ago, Grayknight said:

Regarding the campaign i would also like to add that it would do well to give player ability to spend naval prestige on political actions such as atempting to get more money, more recruits and soo on.

Very interesting. As it stands I am not entirely sure exactly what naval prestige does except (possibly) bolster your nation against unrest...

 

2 hours ago, Grayknight said:

There is big problem with battle generator - if enemy have more ships then you he will impose blocade which will damage your economy + chance of loosing transport increases - however i found myself while having far better navy constantly having my transport destroyed for aparently no reason with no missions generated for entire years (i belive i went one year of war without any battles) just loosing more and more transport each year. Which is super stupid seeing while i have only CA i have almost about the same amount of them as total number on enemies. My ships are faster and more effective

Like common... I have to restart campaign due to a unbalanced rng transport loosing and when you are on the death spirale you cannot come out of it... like at all.
 

I would say your issues are:

1) Basing - spread out your vessels at more bases and watch to see if things change. Sometimes the game moves your vessels to other ports without telling you, messing up your deployments. Check EVERY turn...

2) Range - make sure your vessels have high range and good speed

3)Funding for TP - go as high as you can in paying for TPs. If that % is less than 100, you will get monetary damages. Keep it 100% or over

4) Build a balanced fleet - I suspect just heavy cruisers won't cut it. You will need some smaller vessels with more range

Edited December 13, 2021 by Littorio

[akd]

This game does not have fog of war in any shape.  Fog of war means units are left to make decisions and act based only on what they can directly observe and discern, with limited input from other units that is governed by technology and time limitations. This game takes that and craps all over it.  This is a game where if friendly unit A sees enemy unit Z, friendly unit A-X can all fire instantly on unit Z (not to mention “know” and act with perfect knowledge of it’s exact location, but that is the usual problem with player as god that no single player computer game is going to deal with).  And on top of that also gives you X-ray vision of everything that is happening aboard unit Z.  That is not fog of war as it is defined in war games.

What we have is a spotting system that says that if Unit A can see Unit B, Unit C can be in between and not be seen at all by Unit A (and I don’t mean have lower chance of being seen, I mean it is simply invisible at a given range).  This is not fog of war.

Edited December 13, 2021 by akd

[Skeksis]

25 minutes ago, Littorio said:

I don't want to hear anything about "tactical gameplay"

You haven't got a choice.

25 minutes ago, Littorio said:

A ) We actually have visible weather and backdrops in which to fight

Read the weather situation, then imagine backdrop, tabular info just fine while WIP. 

27 minutes ago, Littorio said:

Just because you can see someone 20+ km away doesn't mean some "dogged fight to the end" will result, simply because most often your ships won't hit anything at that range.

Have you not heard of 'concentrate your fire', human very good at it, human can sink first ship, then the next, and and and...... even easier for human if human can see AI has ducks in row for 20km out.

33 minutes ago, Littorio said:

I would say it IS bad when enemy warships can literally open fire on me at some given range and all I see is a shell coming at me. I can literally see where this shell was shot from, but somehow I can't see the vessel responsible!? How can my men see a single artillery shell coming at us, but not the vessel firing it? If there is some kind of "fog" in the way that obstructs my vision, how then can the enemy even see me, let alone get a quasi-accurate firing solution? It's nuts

As I said before you can match AI stealth but human always builds big guns ship first, AI smarter. 

 

[Skeksis]

1 hour ago, akd said:

This game does not have fog of war in any shape.

We're using fog-of-war as a description of engagements from beyond visible range.

As described in this passage from the official site:

"Realistic Visibility

Depending on battle conditions, fleets may start an engagement from beyond visible range. Spotting the enemy in Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts will be a realistic procedure that succeeds in accordance with ship technology and tactical maneuvering. Screening with light ships ahead of battleships will ensure the enemy does not surprise you with a torpedo attack."

I.e. it is directly and purposely built into the game. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Skeksis

[Littorio]

22 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

You haven't got a choice.

Read the weather situation, then imagine backdrop, tabular info just fine while WIP. 

Have you not heard of 'concentrate your fire', human very good at it, human can sink first ship, then the next, and and and...... even easier for human if human can see AI has ducks in row for 20km out.

As I said before you can match AI stealth but human always builds big guns ship first, AI smarter. 

 

1. Really? Because no one is talking about it except the people trying to someone defend the current system as God's gift to naval combat.

2. I do read the weather situation, and in fact put out a whole post on it. My issues are how jarring it is when basic night/day, stormy/clear backdrops are a quick fix that goes a long way, and yet aren't ever even mentioned by the devs.

3. I have seen the AI concentrate fire numerous times, often more than myself. It isn't always some game-winning tactic that you seem to think it is. In a certain tactical situation perhaps, but not if there are say...flankers, closing torpedo boats, etc. I would hardly classify for most time periods and technology levels as 20km+ distant enemies as "ducks in a row." I think you vastly overestimate the game's measures of accuracy and precision as @DougToss frequently mentions.

4. Really? I don't always. Often times I have smaller guns than comparable AI vessels but better armor schemes. It's all a balance and tradeoff. This idea that having realistic sighting ranges will mean that the "AI is no competition and humans always win" because of "bigger guns" is ridiculous. The AI is free to build what it wants. Will it ever be as smart as a person? No, but that's any game and any AI, not just this one. I don't see how AI limitations means that the game needs to be intentionally stunted.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Littorio

[Skeksis]

40 minutes ago, Littorio said:

1. Really? Because no one is talking about it except the people trying to someone defend the current system as God's gift to naval combat.

2. I do read the weather situation, and in fact put out a whole post on it. My issues are how jarring it is when basic night/day, stormy/clear backdrops are a quick fix that goes a long way, and yet aren't ever even mentioned by the devs.

3. I have seen the AI concentrate fire numerous times, often more than myself. It isn't always some game-winning tactic that you seem to think it is. In a certain tactical situation perhaps, but not if there are say...flankers, closing torpedo boats, etc. I would hardly classify for most time periods and technology levels as 20km+ distant enemies as "ducks in a row." I think you vastly overestimate the game's measures of accuracy and precision as @DougToss frequently mentions.

4. Really? I don't always. Often times I have smaller guns than comparable AI vessels but better armor schemes. It's all a balance and tradeoff. This idea that having realistic sighting ranges will mean that the "AI is no competition and humans always win" because of "bigger guns" is ridiculous. The AI is free to build what it wants. Will it ever be as smart as a person? No, but that's any game and any AI, not just this one. I don't see how AI limitations means that the game needs to be intentionally stunted.

It's all situational, as you know, examples are not absolute and are generalized. Without fog-of-war the AI would be massively disadvantaged, and so IMO, detrimental to the game. I'm not defending the game, I just don't think to the horizon visibility would work. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Skeksis

[SpardaSon21]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

"Realistic Visibility

Depending on battle conditions, fleets may start an engagement from beyond visible range. Spotting the enemy in Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts will be a realistic procedure that succeeds in accordance with ship technology and tactical maneuvering. Screening with light ships ahead of battleships will ensure the enemy does not surprise you with a torpedo attack."

 

We literally don't have that though.  We have unrealistic visibility where it can be high noon and clear skies and a 25k ton battleship is completely invisible at ranges well within the horizon.

But hey, at least the lookouts can tell us there's smoke in some vague general direction.

Edited December 13, 2021 by SpardaSon21

[JaM]

Some feedback on game:

Campaign layer:

- Technology while nice to have, plays minimal role as campaigns tend to be way too short... focusing on technology research is completely waste of money as you can easily win within a year or two, which  is not enough time to research something and then put it on a ship, and get that ship into battle..

- Mission generator is completely random, with player having no control over mission types. There should be more in terms of war strategy player should control. Let player to decide what forces he wants to use to protect transports, raid enemy transports, or for port defense, instead of game deciding these things for the player.

Battle Layer:

- AI and mission generator need to be in sync. If mission is to destroy transports, AI should not run away first thing the mission starts.. At the same time, transports should provide Victory Points.. so losing them all should mean you lose the mission even if you manage to sink all enemies, because you failed at your objective... but of course, ship tonnage should still matter, so if enemy raids a small convoy with a battleship, sinks 2-3 transports but losses the BB, its hardly a win..

Same logic should be applied to all missions.. AI should not run from battle, there should be no missions where enemy is running away and is actually faster, because this just creates dull mission with player getting frustrated to never see enemy..

 

[Danelin Aruna]

6 hours ago, Skeksis said:

We're using fog-of-war as a description of engagements from beyond visible range.

As described in this passage from the official site:

"Realistic Visibility

Depending on battle conditions, fleets may start an engagement from beyond visible range. Spotting the enemy in Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts will be a realistic procedure that succeeds in accordance with ship technology and tactical maneuvering. Screening with light ships ahead of battleships will ensure the enemy does not surprise you with a torpedo attack."

I.e. it is directly and purposely built into the game. 

This made me laugh. It is no where near reality, look through history and you will se how this isn't even in the realm of close to true.

Give us a real sighting system that makes sense, again this half backed stealth mechanic is insanity and doesn't make it fun in the least, even WoWS lets you spot ships that fire at you. this game is like nope, so dont tell me this is going for realistic naval sim.

[RedParadize]

1 hour ago, Danelin Aruna said:

This made me laugh. It is no where near reality, look through history and you will se how this isn't even in the realm of close to true.

Give us a real sighting system that makes sense, again this half backed stealth mechanic is insanity and doesn't make it fun in the least, even WoWS lets you spot ships that fire at you. this game is like nope, so dont tell me this is going for realistic naval sim.

It isn't stealth, its weather and time of day. Its already in the game, it just isn't displayed. You can argue that view range is too short across the board and cite example that support this, I will gladly concede that it is true. But there is also instance where ships had to get right next to each other.  All thing considered, what we got isn't that far from reality.

I find the realism argument mildly annoying at this point. Because when it come to what is actually wanted, this is the kind of answer I get:

13 hours ago, DougToss said:

Not only is the mechanic invented out of whole cloth (the only way spotting tops determine how far you can see is their height. That’s it, that’s all), but you want another layer of artificiality do “balance” that. 

Taller mast = higher vantage point = horizon is further away.

There’s your balance. Higher masts increase top weight and centre of gravity, especially as fire control equipment gets heavier, masts can be damaged in combat, but stronger cage and tripod masts are heavier, “Pagodas” and “Queen Anne’s Mansions” can fit large amounts of fire control equipment and are more structurally sound than tripods and cages, but are heavier, costlier and have the aforementioned impact on stability.

All of that means that building the highest possible mast is not always practical. It’s much easier to have a very tall pole mast than to build a Queen Anne’s Mansion to the same height, but pole masts were limited in how much equipment they could fit.

As design considerations: ship vibrations can impact the effectiveness of the spotting tops, smoke and heat from funnels could make them nearly unusable when masts were placed aft of funnels, as in early British dreadnoughts, there has to be backup fire control equipment elsewhere on the ship, either on the superstructure or turrets,  which - being lower down - have more limited horizons.

Those are all real factors that have to be “balanced”. Why would we need fake ones?

To summarize: There are all sorts of factors in mast design, but only height of observer determines visual distance. That’s fine - the other stuff provides more than enough that needs to be taken into account.

The dev could redo spotting mechanic, make it calculate mast high, structural stability, heat wave from funnels, number of windows and so on... Or they could take a exel sheet and re-balance the spotting value of every tower... Effectively, its the same thing! Except one detail: The first option could take weeks and that the later could be pulled off in a single day.

But you know what? Either way it doesn't matter. At the end of the day it would still fell like arbitrary values. Because spotting distance rationals can't be easily explained to the player. We would end up exactly in the same situation as we are in now.

I have been around since 2017. Back then noone was really complaining about spotting distance. Why? there was 10 towers, all more or less balanced against each other. But over the course of the last 4 years they added dozens of them across era that were not covered before. It ain't a surprise that it need some readjusting. Considering what is left to do, that part of the game is more than fine.

Edited December 13, 2021 by RedParadize

[Grayknight]

Concerning campaign -

Right now AI in my opinion is mostly making decent-ish designs, which could have been used in real life. It is using them ineffectivly however when for example in 1vs1 bb thats just 2k tons lighter and SLOWER (and this is often problem even in bigger battles (i have one in which 6 cruiser atempted to escape from me making line and atempting to make circles around me becouse i spread my formations and AI lost it ) with HEAVIER broadside atempt to escape. So we have funny situation in which BB that have 5x2 12 inch guns and 4 x2 8 inch guns of which most is located in front will show its back in atempt to escape from fighting against enemy that has only 4x2 13 inch guns and and 4x2 8 inch guns. 

Which is well stupid as if used properly this ship could very well threaten mine - which is nearly 30 knots in speed due to the fact that each enemy is atempting to escape and i am bored with them runing away





Also this is cas of using something that is decent or even good in bad way but this... this should not exist

[T_the_ferret]

Concerning visibility i'd to at the very least have a ship that fires at you be more visibile, because this is just ridiculous tbh

[RedParadize]

2 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:

Concerning visibility i'd to at the very least have a ship that fires at you be more visibile, because this is just ridiculous tbh

I could concede that, but form a gameplay perspective, not realism. If you look at night battles like Guadalcanal it really show that it doesn't work that way. Or at the very least you can see roughly where they are but you can't fire at them, but isn't that already the case? you see where the shell are coming from.

[Danelin Aruna]

6 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

It isn't stealth, its weather and time of day. Its already in the game, it just isn't displayed. You can argue that view range is too short across the board and cite example that support this, I will gladly concede that it is true. But there is also instance where ships had to get right next to each other.  All thing considered, what we got isn't that far from reality.

I find the realism argument mildly annoying at this point. Because when it come to what is actually wanted, this is the kind of answer I get:

The dev could redo spotting mechanic, make it calculate mast high, structural stability, heat wave from funnels, number of windows and so on... Or they could take a exel sheet and re-balance the spotting value of every tower... Effectively, its the same thing! Except one detail: The first option could take weeks and that the later could be pulled off in a single day.

But you know what? Either way it doesn't matter. At the end of the day it would still fell like arbitrary values. Because spotting distance rationals can't be easily explained to the player. We would end up exactly in the same situation as we are in now.

I have been around since 2017. Back then noone was really complaining about spotting distance. Why? there was 10 towers, all more or less balanced against each other. But over the course of the last 4 years they added dozens of them across era that were not covered before. It ain't a surprise that it need some readjusting. Considering what is left to do, that part of the game is more than fine.

I am well aware that weather is in the game. But if the enemy can see you, you can see the enemy. This insanity of ships shooting from concealment is beyond comprehension. Especially when they shoot. Yes its harder to see at night and during weather. I understand that, but weather and night conditions do not give ships the ability to not be seen especially when they are shooting at you. RtW does this a lot better imho. So you finding the argument mildly annoying is hilarious, as for historical references, look to Jutland the battle of Saragaso straight, Leyte Gulf, Iron bottom sound, Battle of cape Esperanza... the list goes on and on. what they have right now is a half backed poorly implemented gimmick so you can have "tactics" which is not close to the realm of realistic.  Look at the evolution of naval warfare, for the most part its form a battle line and slug it out, well trying to gain the advantage by crossing the T. This game does not do well at any of these points, sight ranges are to low and the AI just loves to flee.

[Danelin Aruna]

5 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

I could concede that, but form a gameplay perspective, not realism. If you look at night battles like Guadalcanal it really show that it doesn't work that way. Or at the very least you can see roughly where they are but you can't fire at them, but isn't that already the case? you see where the shell are coming from.

this is in no way close to reality the at Salvo Island when the Japanese navy opened up the Americans tried to return fire, they were just at a disadvantage for multiple reasons. American Cruisers had a very real problem with catching fire amidships uncontrollably due to the presence of the sea plan hangers. Also the commander didn't trust radar and had turned it off. It was a failure on the American Side and a crushing win for the Japanese Navy. But if you follow the campaign the Americans come back with a vengeance see Battle of Cape Esperanza. So yes Historically you opening fire led to the others shooting back at you.