>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<

[RedParadize]

4 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

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

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.

[Danelin Aruna]

8 minutes 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.

This isnt a arcade game, this is a naval simulator. The players expect some form of reality, what they have now is not.

[Skeksis]

4 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

The problem is that night and weather isn't displayed.

Oh yeah, skybox art probably not implemented yet, it'll be my guess.

3 minutes ago, Danelin Aruna said:

This isnt a arcade game, this is a naval simulator.

Agree, it's an Admiral simulator. 

[RedParadize]

@Danelin Aruna I am sorry, but what players have been debating for 3 pages isn't about realism at all.
 

[DougToss]

43 minutes 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.

Literally yes, that is what we want!! Lol

 

What you’re missing is the chance to disengage and not fight to the end - which we also want!

 

There are lots of ways to break contact - but they require tactics. Manoeuvre, use of screens and smoke, speed. 
 

I want fleets to try to disengage, break contact with an enemy that can see them as far as the horizon, and head for home, without fighting to the last ship.

 

Because that’s what happened! That’s what doctrine, ships and tactics were designed around. 
 

As @Steeltrap said fog of war is only “needed” because of harebrained Borg spotting and insane hit rates.

Edited December 12, 2021 by DougToss

[RedParadize]

@DougToss you want to have no fog of war at all?

[Danelin Aruna]

3 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Literally yes, that is what we want!! Lol

 

What you’re missing is the chance to disengage and not fight to the end - which we also want!

 

There are lots of ways to break contact - but they require tactics. Manoeuvre, use of screens and smoke, speed. 
 

I want fleets to try to disengage, break contact with an enemy that can see them as far as the horizon, and head for home, without fighting to the last ship.

 

Because that’s what happened! That’s what doctrine, ships and tactics were designed around. 
 

As @Steeltrap said fog of war is only “needed” because of harebrained Borg spotting and insane hit rates.

I agree RTW's did this well, and when you were to engage it didn't show you what you were going against, but because you could see them from far away you could determine if you wanted to engage.

[Danelin Aruna]

2 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@DougToss you want to have no fog of war at all?

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.

[RedParadize]

@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.
 

[DougToss]

16 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@DougToss you want to have no fog of war at all?

I want to have fog in war, like in the North Sea.

On the strategic level, the fog of war is finding the enemy fleet and bringing them to battle in the first place, which is an equally exciting game of cat and mouse, as well as routine patrol and fumbling in the dark. Lots of opportunities there. 

[RedParadize]

Just now, DougToss said:

I want to have fog in war, like in the North Sea.

On the strategic level, the fog of war is finding the enemy fleet and bringing them to battle in the first place, which is an equally exciting game of cat and mouse, as well as routine patrol and fumbling in the dark. Lots of opportunities there. 

That I agree, tracking the bismark kind of thing. But we were not talking about that. What about the fog of war?

[Skeksis]

Well I see no difference from seeing targets at 24km or 10km, you would engage both when visible, makes no difference.

But hidden from 24km to 10km provokes the player more, stresses the situation, better gameplay. This includes torp-walls. 

[T_the_ferret]

I mean let's be honest at least target signature as a stat addition really doesn't matter much in it anyway

[RedParadize]

1 minute ago, T_the_ferret said:

I mean let's be honest at least target signature as a stat addition really doesn't matter much in it anyway

It does,  but much less than it use to. It ain't perfect, but such is life. The way it currently work is not that bad.

[DougToss]

11 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Well I see no difference from seeing targets at 24km or 10km, you would engage both when visible, makes no difference.

But hidden from 24km to 10km provokes the player more, stresses the situation, better gameplay. This includes torp-walls. 

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.

[Skeksis]

4 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:

I mean let's be honest at least target signature as a stat addition really doesn't matter much in it anyway

I think it does but it’s very hard not to max out your cruiser! The AI builds cheaper versions, subsequently builds stealthy ships, blind-firers often.

[T_the_ferret]

I've honestly never noted much of a difference as maxing out your hull tonnage generally puts you in the same range of visibility no matter the type of build you're going for

[DougToss]

22 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

That I agree, tracking the bismark kind of thing. But we were not talking about that. What about the fog of war?

The “Fog of War” is an abstraction used to represent unknowns. At sea, what you see is not one of those on a day with good visibility.

 

The Fog of War then is:

-is this the main force of the enemy?

- Could it be a screen or patrol? 
 

- What are their strength and intentions?
 

- Where are they going and why? 
 

- What do I think their tactical mission is?

 

- How do I achieve mine and prevent them from achieving theirs?

 

- What how do I use manoeuvre, firepower, dispersion and concentration to achieve this?

- How do I bring the most firepower to bear at the critical point to achieve my goals?

 

- What manoeuvres are required for this position relative the enemy to be achieved?

 

It’s not a literal fog, it’s about putting together the larger picture based on the information available to you - including visual information that may be very good. The Fog of War is as much about what you can see as what you can’t and also - in this instance - also means anything not within the horizon is in the Fog of War as you described it. The horizon isn’t infinite, you still only have that radius around your fleet, which on the scale of the sea is infinitesimally small, and you have to find out what’s lurking in the “Fog” beyond it. The Fog of War then, is also whatever is outside of the horizon.

 

Imagine a ship viewed from above, as in an RTS. Draw a circle around it. That’s visibility distance, anything beyond it is in the Fog of War. We actually agree about that. That circle is around 20km because the directors are located about 30m up in the air in this example. Now, you’re saying that’s way too big, it eliminates the Fog of War.  What I’m saying is, zoom out, and looking from above, 20km on the scale of the ocean is nothing, and you still have a Fog of War extending in all directions around the ship beyond that circle.

 

You’re thinking too small in scale.

Edited December 12, 2021 by DougToss

[RedParadize]

13 minutes ago, DougToss said:

The “Fog of War” is an abstraction used to represent unknowns. At sea, what you see is not one of those on a day with good visibility.

 

The Fog of War then is:

-is this the main force of the enemy?

- Could it be a screen or patrol? 
 

- What are their strength and intentions?
 

- Where are they going and why? 
 

- What do I think their tactical mission is?

 

- How do I achieve mine and prevent them from achieving theirs?

 

It’s not a literal fog, it’s about putting together the larger picture based on the information available to you - including visual information that may be very good.

I feel you are moving the goal post here. The matter at hand was that people said that spotting distance was unrealistic. Literal fog in this case.

[Skeksis]

18 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:

maxing out your hull tonnage

Not tonnage but components,  every component increases your visibility. 

[DougToss]

2 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

I feel you are moving the goal post here. The matter at hand was that people said that spotting distance was unrealistic. Literal fog in this case.

The Fog of War is as far as you can see. At sea, on a clear day, that’s the horizon, around 20km. Everything beyond that is still in the Fog of War.

You’re thinking too small in scale. Think about the Scarborough Raid or Jutland - fleets still missed each other, or were surprised out of the Fog of War. Now, if you like, there can be little animated fog beyond 20km of a selected ship. Certainly, there will still have to be a way to indicate what is visible and what is over the horizon.  

[T_the_ferret]

Yeah i know but generally using your tonnage to the fullest means you'll use enough components to not make much of a difference anyway

[RedParadize]

13 minutes ago, DougToss said:

The Fog of War is as far as you can see. At sea, on a clear day, that’s the horizon, around 20km. Everything beyond that is still in the Fog of War.

You’re thinking too small in scale. Think about the Scarborough Raid or Jutland - fleets still missed each other, or were surprised out of the Fog of War. Now, if you like, there can be little animated fog beyond 20km of a selected ship. Certainly, there will still have to be a way to indicate what is visible and what is over the horizon.  

I am not thinking on the small scale. I am trying to get back to the context. The context was that people complained about the spotting mechanic. My point, since the very beginning, was that day/night and storm are not displayed currently. Fog of war, in that context, isn't just the line of horizon, but how far can something be seen.

You still did not anwered my question. You said:

1 hour ago, DougToss said:

Literally yes, that is what we want!! Lol

 

What you’re missing is the chance to disengage and not fight to the end - which we also want!

 

There are lots of ways to break contact - but they require tactics. Manoeuvre, use of screens and smoke, speed. 
 

I want fleets to try to disengage, break contact with an enemy that can see them as far as the horizon, and head for home, without fighting to the last ship.

 

Because that’s what happened! That’s what doctrine, ships and tactics were designed around. 
 

As @Steeltrap said fog of war is only “needed” because of harebrained Borg spotting and insane hit rates.

Does that mean you want the fog of war to be removed? Here I mean the actual fog of war, as the game mechanic, not the philosophical one.

Edited December 12, 2021 by RedParadize

[DougToss]

43 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Does that mean you want the fog of war to be removed? Here I mean the actual fog of war, as the game mechanic, not the philosophical one.

Yes. Absolutely. 
 

That doesn’t mean visibility is perfect all the time - this is where weather, time of day, time of year and later destroyers laying smoke and smoke rafts come in, but artificial Fog of War?

 

Not only do I think it should be removed, I’m puzzled why it was ever included in the first place.

[RedParadize]

8 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Yes. Absolutely. 
 

That doesn’t mean visibility is perfect all the time - this is where weather, time of day, time of year and later destroyers laying smoke and smoke rafts come in, but artificial Fog of War?

Not only do I think it should be removed, I’m puzzled why it was ever included in the first place.

I do not follow you here. That mean seeing enemy at night and during storm, regardless of the range. That would also translate into perfect tactical knowledge, which contradict one of your previous comment.

What do you mean by "That doesn’t mean visibility is perfect all the time" ? In term of firing mechanic we already have the penality for bad visibility, I am not sure what form it would take.