Rant/suggestion thread

[Abuse_Claws]

First of all, I want to thank the devs for this game. Designing custom warships and taking my own creations to battle is an amazing experience, and every penny & hour invested in the game was definitely more than worth it for me (700+ hours in the game plus about as much watching BrotherMunro and Stealth17, bought UAD for myself and gifted to a friend).
I've seen this game develop from Alpha all the way to release and played all the major updates since I think 1.0.6 or something like that.
However, as the game reached later stages of development, I've found myself having progressively less fun playing. It is to be expected, that after 700 hours I may just be tired of the game, but I don't think that's the case. I'm still excited about the game as a concept, I still return to it from time to time, but no matter how long a break I take, some things are never fun.
I've been thinking about this for a while now: what is stopping me from having fun in UAD? What new features could solve the problems and let me have fun again? What quality of life improvements could prevent the game from feeling like a chore at times? This is a thread of my personal gripes and feature requests in no particular order based on those thoughts.
I do not expect the devs to follow my advice, these are just my thoughts and suggestions on the current state of the game. Maybe some modder can find inspiration in this, IDK. Personally I don't think I will have time or resources to make a mod out of this.

Gripe 1: Random/uncontrollable politics.
Yes, the player is but a minister of the navy / head admiral, not the ruler of the country. Yes, it is realistic for political events to take unexpected and often really dumb turns. Yes, random is the cheapest way to simulate AI behaviour.
But.
Random politics in the game feel terrible. Be it an alliance that falls apart the next turn after forming with no consequence for the AI admiral responsible, the government making peace with the enemy a turn before province is captured, the government accepting peace even though the enemy refused to surrender requested provinces, the army repeatedly invading the same minor nation time and again with 0 chances of success (I'm looking at you, China and AH) or the government plain refusing to see a gigantic invasion fleet primed and ready near the coast of say Northern Egypt, it sucks to not be able to influence important decisions at all or at least nearly enough. It's always a gamble.
Same goes for some basically uncontrollable aspects of politics, mainly the GDP. Sure, we get random events now and again that have a minor effect on GDP. Sure, we can build extra transports. We can stay out of wars for decades just to see that number climb... All for nothing. Why? Because the base value of GDP growth dominates all other factors. An absolute monarchy can never be as effective as a centrist democracy. If say France rolls a good base value for GDP growth and is not destroyed early, the campaign is doomed. No matter how well you develop as say China, you end up 50 years later with your GDP being a fraction of that of France.
You can't change your government form save for intentionally losing a war to get Unrest really high while trying to keep Naval Prestige from sinking... Which honestly feels like so much of a hassle, I've never done it and don't want to try.
A Navy minister is a political figure after all, and a Navy minister with 500 Naval Prestige (which is basically Ruyter levels of admiration if 100 is "admired" I guess?) sure as shit will have a say in political matters, definitely those that in one way or the other concern the Navy.

Gripe 2: Submarines and mines. But mostly submarines.
Just open any feedback topic on this forum, scroll for a minute and you'll see a post complaining about subs. I don't think there was an update in which the subs felt good. It's all been said, but I'll reiterate a few points:
They are random; they are never balanced, jumping from being useless to being insanely OP and back; they may just freeze large fleet groups in place for multiple turns.
Mines honestly feel much better between the two: sure, they deal damage, but at least they don't straight up prevent movement. Also, demining seems to work fine and a TF with a sufficient number of mine hunter DDs will pass through unimpeded, while a TF with not enough mine sweeping capability will get decimated (which often leads to AI TFs consisting exclusively of damaged ships at least for me).

Gripe 3: Nonsensical TF behaviour
Sometimes a single DD will block an entire fleet for literal years without ever generating a battle. Sometimes a force of old and slow AI BBs will just escape fast modern player BC hunter groups. Sometimes two giant fleets would sit side to side again for literal years without ever generating a battle, at least a full-scale one (you will sometimes get like a "cruiser duel" with 2 CLs duking it out while 3 dozen BBs just sit and watch the show I guess)
It's not great. This is a game about naval battles, and all these TF shenanigans just prevent the player from having a battle in the first place.

Gripe 4: Light ships in late game
This is a bit of a curveball, let me explain. Suppose the year is 1930. Capital ships are almost as fast as light ships. Every capital ship can be equipped with a radar and a sonar, making it able to detect enemy ships and torpedoes (in a galaxy) far far away. Gun accuracy is sufficient for say a 4x3x12" supercruiser to effectively demolish numerous light ships with 2-3 salvoes each at the range of two dozen km while never letting them get close enough for a successful torpedo attack.
What do I do with my DDs and cruisers in battle? Close-range torpedo runs are out of question, long-range torpedo spam doesn't seem to bear fruit aside from making the enemy zigzag like crazy. Supercruisers perform much better as escorts, as they can keep the enemy light ships further away while also not dying randomly to a single stray 16" HE shell and being able to punch up against even super-BBs to some extent. I'd take a single super-cruiser instead of 5 CLs any day.
What about small engagements, where there are no capital ships? I simply do not care. I usually try to retreat and autoresolve if that fails. No matter who wins, it's so few VPs that I can't be bothered to spend 20 minutes trying to hunt down an enemy CL or whatever.
Out of battle, there are mines and subs, sure. I do need some (and by "some" I mean "a lot") of DDs with every task force for ASW and mine laying/sweeping. But should they participate in battles? Hell no. Hence the Frigate-class, which I have in every campaign from as soon as DDs are available right to the end.
Minimal armament and modules, no armor, max mine and ASW equipment, 30-35kn speed to be able to more or less reliably run away from any threats. I build hundreds of them. I've just built a BB or BC? Here, half a dozen Frigate escorts to keep it safe. 
A small port on the far side of the map that needs to be protected? Build a dozen Frigates there, so they will set up a minefield that will effectively delay enemy ships while a strike force sails to the rescue.
Enemy subs wreaking havok? Send a few Frigates to deal with it or at least prevent it from attacking more valuable ships.
A TF of Frigates got intercepted and destroyed? No matter, I can replace it for the cost of a cup of tea in but a few turns.
I'm honestly trying to find reasons to build any non-Frigate light ship in the campaign after 1930 (in my last few campaign runs I switched to Frigates as early as 1910 with no apparent downsides), and I can't.

Gripe 4.5: Torpedoes in the late game
This is intertwined with gripe 4, but basically I don't think torps serve much of a purpose in late game, aside from the AI forcing me to micro-manage my ships like crazy and thus making large TFs of smaller ships unsustainable, further worsening the previous problem.  

Gripe 5: Random invasions
Holy hell, aside from subs this is probably the most frustrating part of the game. You come in with 4 times the required tonnage, you get a 60% success chance due to a single enemy DD loafing around that you can't catch (see Gripe 2), you wait 5 turns with most of your fleet being stuck in a single point of the map, you fail the roll. Rinse, repeat.
I get that random is neccessary here, but maybe the odds can be a little more controllable, aside from just putting all your ships near the target and praying.

Gripe 6: Clicker simulator
It honestly is what the game sometimes turns into. "Recent provocations of such and such were simply ignored..." - click! Submarine engagement or single CL duel - auto resolve. A bunch of Frigates got intercepted by an enemy TF - retreat and auto resolve if failed. Mine damage to the fleet of a country I'm not at war with - click! I need to improve relations with someone? Click-click-click every other turn and then an extra click on the result. Random political event for which I already chose a policy once and wish to keep excercising it indefinitely? (i.e. always spending extra money on economy boosts where applicable). Sigh and click.
I wish I could only dedicate attention to really important matters where I, the player, do have a more or less definitive say. 

Gripe 7: Bland battles
From the AI rarely presenting an actual strategy or challenge to there basically being no variations in battles aside from the occasional convoy attacks, the battles themselves may need an overhaul so that they don't feel the same every time.

Feature request 1: Wrap-around map.
Partially addresses Gripe 6
I mean... It's only the most frequently requested feature since the entire world map was added. Just saying.

Feature request 2: Cutting subs.
Addresses Gripe 2
There hasn't been a single update where subs got a positive feedback I think. Trying to make them balanced and fun seems to take a lot of precious devs' time away from other stuff like AI or campaign economy while achieving little. If you ask players whether to make subs balanced or cut them out entirely and make any other improvement instead, I think 8/10 would choose the latter.
Mines on their own seem more or less fine, I don't think it's necessary to cut them. Subs gotta go.

Feature request 3: Coups, revolutions and political affiliation.
Partially addresses Gripe 1
In the Politics tab, add a list of options for own country:
⦁    Stage a coup: massive cost in NP (about 100 I'd say), massive cost in Unrest (immediately rising by say 25), although possibly cheaper if Unrest is already high (as the people welcome the changes). Some NP refunded if coup is successful (success chance is determined by current Unrest and NP and clearly displayed prior to making the choice). On success allows the player to hand-pick any government form they desire.
⦁    Incite a revolution: only available with 25+ Unrest and positive NP. On success, a revolution immediately happens as if unrest got maxxed out, the new government form is chosen randomly, NP is set to zero on success, -50 on failure. Success rate is mostly determined by current Unrest and somewhat NP.
⦁    Mitigate tension: exchange NP for Unrest reduction
⦁    Denounce government: exchange NP for Unrest increase
The latter two options (as well as "Improve/Worsen relations") may get an option to auto-repeat them X times if possible to partially address Gripe 6.
When an election happens, add a list of options:
⦁    Endorse ruling party: slight NP bonus, if ruling party loses, it turns into a penalty.
⦁    Stay neutral: no effect
⦁    Endorse opposition: costs 10 NP (refunded with a bonus if selected party wins) to increase the amount of seats for the selected opposition party.

Feature request 4: TF behaviour setup
Addresses Gripe 3.
Give TFs a list of specific stances, for example:
⦁    Avoid combat: do not attack enemy TFs under any circumstances. no control radius, reduced fuel consumption and no passive ammo consumption. Enhanced movement speed on map.
⦁    Hunt: attack only when advantage available (enemy ships damaged, overall power advantage, convoy raids, maybe port strikes, possibly like trying to separate some enemy ships and gang up on them, idk). Enhanced control radius, max fuel and passive ammo consumption. Reduced movement speed on map.
⦁    Blockade: attack ALL ships that come within control radius. Destroy transports whenever possible. Enemy can only disengage backwards, unless "Blockade run" option is selected (described below). Reduced control radius, reduced fuel consumption, max passive ammo consumption. EDIT: NO movement speed at all. Forgot this part while writing it first
⦁    Engage: attack enemy TFs while ignoring transports. Normal control radius and normal fuel consumption, some passive ammo consumption.
When two TFs meet, i.e. one is in control radius of the other, the latter may choose to attack depending on its stance. If both TFs can and wish to attack each other, Hunt attacks Blockade, Blockade attacks Engage, Engage attacks Hunt, for same stance it's 50/50.
Depending on the owners choice, some ships in the attacked TF may try to make escape rolls depending on speed difference between them and attacking ships (for the attacker it's the minimum of all speed values in the TF, for defender it depends on their choice), other ships may engage in battle straight up.
Ships that successfully disengage keep moving as a TF along their previous route unless otherwise specified (see Blockade). The ships that end up in battle (including the attacking side) do not move this turn.
AI ships that end up in battle DO NOT RETREAT (as it is considered that either they do not want to do so or that they've exhausted their retreat options)
The attacked side has the following options (selected in the engagement popup):
⦁    Counterattack: all applicable ships get into battle. If the attacker is in Hunt stance and there is some mechanic of them trying to separate the attacked TF, get a bonus to resist
⦁    Every ship for herself: all ships try to disengage on their own, making individual escape rolls.
⦁    Organised retreat: all ships try to disengage as a unit, making a collective escape roll with minimal of their speed as the collective speed.
⦁    Sacrifice escorts: a separate checkbox. Capital ships (CA+ in this case I guess makes sense) that wish to disengage, do so with a bonus. CL, DD and TB end up in battle automatically. If any capital ships fail to disengage, they start as reinforcements. Bonus depends on number of escorts with no escorts effectively nullifying this option.
⦁    Blockade run: a separate checkbox available only if attacker is in Blockade stance. If selected, all ships that try to disengage do so with a penalty, successful ships keep moving along previous route, failures end up in battle.

Feature request 5: Battle missions
Addresses Gripe 7 and potentially Gripes 4 and 6 in that light ship battles may start to matter if mission VP prizes are high enough.
Kinda like Warhammer 40k the board game: there's a main mission that's the same for both sides and some side missions of their own like:
⦁    Reach a certain point on map (prevent enemy from reaching it) with specified ship
⦁    Sink (save) the specified ship
⦁    Control points
⦁    CTF
Basically, whatever goes. Any mission can get some flavor text like "capture important intel", "warn allies of danger" or "kill prominent admiral", and I think realism here matters less than fun that can be had if battles are no longer just "try to sink all enemies unless you kinda feel like running away, then do that I guess". Mission success results in a hefty VP bonus, so that sometimes you can get ahead on VP even while losing most or all ships.

Feature request 6: stabilized invasion rolls.
Addresses Gripe 5.
Basically, I propose to do them like this: every turn there's a certain success chance calculated more or less like it is now, maybe TF stances (see Feature request 4) may have an effect on that. You then do say best of 3, 5 or maybe even 7 depending on province size I guess (or just a fixed best of 5 maybe).

Edited December 7, 2023 by Abuse_Claws
Adding important detail to one of the points

[Abuse_Claws]

So I decided to test, whether my disdain for late-game light ships was reasonable
I've designed an Italian 1935 BC (Large cruiser II hull, 3.2b total cost, 40kn speed, 4x4x12" guns, 2" secondaries mostly for looks, pretty much max everything, 16-8.4-4.4" Turtleback armor scheme). I did give myself veteran crew, as most of the time by late game I tend to have veteran crews on my capital ships.

Keep in mind, that I did it in Custom Battles, so the enemy light ships were not encumbered with depth charges/mines/sweeping kits.

This is pretty much a normal ship type that I tend to run in my campaigns with small variations. Now, one mistake I did make was taking increased HE and base-fused HE shells. Normal type distribution and some type of capped HE shells would've probably been more effective.

The enemy got a 5 year tech advantage (to accomodate for faster construction and refits of small ships), also I set the weather to Overcast, so that enemy light ships and torpedoes were somewhat harder to spot.

All enemy ships were autodesigned by the AI, as I was to lazy to do it myself. Also, the enemy was Japan every time, as they have the best late-game DDs IMO and I was too lazy to switch the enemy country for the CLs
 

1BC vs 10DD: Flawless victory, 0 damage taken. Haven't even seen a single torpedo in the water. The enemy DDs were extremely cheap at 156m each, so I destroyed about half the cost of my ship without so much as breaking a sweat.
 

1BC vs 21DD: (as the last time the DDs were about 21 times cheaper than my ship). This time I did receive 1.2k damage, mostly from the two torps I ate in the end when I got bored and sailed straight between two blobs of DDs, putting myself into torpedo soup. This time, however, the enemy DDs were MUCH more expensive at 1.8b each, so I destroyed about 10 times the cost of my ship while my BC was only lightly scratched (and even that mostly because I got cocky)

1BC vs 40DD: Alright, despite my best efforts the horde of DDs swarmed my lonely ship and sank it by turning water into lava with their torps... Just kidding. I won again, while receiving 3.1k damage. 2.2k of that came from a single 24" torp hit - the only one the whole gang managed to land on me, as after that I turned away and kept them at range by hand-targeting those that came too close. DDs cost 762 mil each, so I basically destroyed the same amount of money as last time.

Alright, I don't think my laptop can render 81 ships without dying, so let's switch to CLs

1BC vs 10CL: I actually forgot to pause the game when going AFK, so most of the time my ship sailed in a straight line perpendicular to the original enemy direction. The CLs tried their best, dealing 4.4k damage to my ship with an ungodly amount of 4" shells (luckily, they had no torps, so I didn't get punished for AFKing that hard). Each CL cost 1.5 billion, so I destroyed almost 5 times the cost of my ship while it was seriously damaged due mostly to my negligence.

1BC vs 20CL: Okay, this one proved to be a challenge... Mostly because I AFKed again and ate 4 23" torps in quick succession. 9.5k damage received put my ship into "orange" status by the end of battle and I had less than half buoyancy left. Also, for this battle the enemy was actually slower than me (39.2kn max speed vs 40), so I could've just run away if I so desired. Each CL cost 1.8 billion, so I destroyed more than 10 times my cost while getting a serious beating in return (once again, massive negligence on my part), yet still keeping the BC afloat.

1BC vs 40CL: No jokes and AFK this time, I've met my match. The AI managed to design a CL that was both inexpensive (1.1 billion), survivable (required 2-3 good salvoes to sink) and deadly (12 tubes per ship plus 4x2x6.6" guns). Now, until I ran out of AP shells things were fine. But then, as base-fused HE shells were less effective, the AI managed to push closer, force me to eat 6 torps by putting me in crossfire and ultimately destroying me with thousands (3500+ hits) of 6.6" shells.

Keep in mind that these CLs were only marginally faster than my BC (40.4kn max speed vs 40), so I most likely could've disengaged at some point before my ship was slowed down by damage, but a) this is a custom battle and b) I wanted to see the full trade, so my poor Ruggiero fought to the bitter end.
I still managed to sink 18 CLs and seriously damage 4 more (and scratch like 10 more to various extent. Honestly, if my ship hadn't constantly switched targets for no reason, I would've probably had killed at least a couple more.

Still this was a good trade, 3.2 billion for 20+ billion

So, all in all:

1. Super-cruisers seem to be quite capable escorts, as even one or two of them can keep dozens of enemy light ships at bay with ease
2. AI-controlled light ships don't seem to be willing or able to do close-range torpedo runs (if I was running the 40DD battle, I'd probably have zerg rushed the opponent with all I had and sunk the BC while losing most of my ships in the process - still not the best trade honestly)
3. Long-range torpedo spam against few player-controlled ships (when the player still can micro-manage their entire fleet effectively) seems to not work that great. As the AI is notoriously insanely good at dodging torps, I'd say that vice versa it would've been about the same.
4. This is even with the light ships being designed solely for battle, while in the campaign some of the money and tonnage would've gone to mine and sub warfare gear
5. Using BCs as escorts is even more cost-effective, as they are not so often destroyed as light escorts, and even when they are, they can take down quite a chunk of the enemy fleet with them
6. Spotting seems not to be really relevant after the development of Radar at least, as capital ships are more or less able to spot the enemy at long enough range themselves.
7. I still see exactly zero reasons to build non-Frigate light ships in the late game. They just become obsolete, plain and simple.
8. Same goes for torps in general. No use.

If I'm wrong in my conclusions or there's a flaw in my testing process, please let me know.

Edited December 7, 2023 by Abuse_Claws

[Seleukos of Olympia]

What I like to do is use some destroyers or light cruisers to divert the attention of the enemy battleships. Let them try to hit my fast little escorts from a distance and maybe zigzag to avoid some long range torpedoes. If an escort gets hit, they're cheap anyway. Meanwhile, my own battleships focus their firepower on theirs, so they can cripple them before taking much damage in return. This is useful when facing more or more advanced battleships than I've got in the particular battle.

[GrantK]

On 12/7/2023 at 12:34 PM, Abuse_Claws said:

So I decided to test, whether my disdain for late-game light ships was reasonable
I've designed an Italian 1935 BC (Large cruiser II hull, 3.2b total cost, 40kn speed, 4x4x12" guns, 2" secondaries mostly for looks, pretty much max everything, 16-8.4-4.4" Turtleback armor scheme). I did give myself veteran crew, as most of the time by late game I tend to have veteran crews on my capital ships.

Keep in mind, that I did it in Custom Battles, so the enemy light ships were not encumbered with depth charges/mines/sweeping kits.

This is pretty much a normal ship type that I tend to run in my campaigns with small variations. Now, one mistake I did make was taking increased HE and base-fused HE shells. Normal type distribution and some type of capped HE shells would've probably been more effective.

The enemy got a 5 year tech advantage (to accomodate for faster construction and refits of small ships), also I set the weather to Overcast, so that enemy light ships and torpedoes were somewhat harder to spot.

All enemy ships were autodesigned by the AI, as I was to lazy to do it myself. Also, the enemy was Japan every time, as they have the best late-game DDs IMO and I was too lazy to switch the enemy country for the CLs
 

1BC vs 10DD: Flawless victory, 0 damage taken. Haven't even seen a single torpedo in the water. The enemy DDs were extremely cheap at 156m each, so I destroyed about half the cost of my ship without so much as breaking a sweat.
 

1BC vs 21DD: (as the last time the DDs were about 21 times cheaper than my ship). This time I did receive 1.2k damage, mostly from the two torps I ate in the end when I got bored and sailed straight between two blobs of DDs, putting myself into torpedo soup. This time, however, the enemy DDs were MUCH more expensive at 1.8b each, so I destroyed about 10 times the cost of my ship while my BC was only lightly scratched (and even that mostly because I got cocky)

1BC vs 40DD: Alright, despite my best efforts the horde of DDs swarmed my lonely ship and sank it by turning water into lava with their torps... Just kidding. I won again, while receiving 3.1k damage. 2.2k of that came from a single 24" torp hit - the only one the whole gang managed to land on me, as after that I turned away and kept them at range by hand-targeting those that came too close. DDs cost 762 mil each, so I basically destroyed the same amount of money as last time.

Alright, I don't think my laptop can render 81 ships without dying, so let's switch to CLs

1BC vs 10CL: I actually forgot to pause the game when going AFK, so most of the time my ship sailed in a straight line perpendicular to the original enemy direction. The CLs tried their best, dealing 4.4k damage to my ship with an ungodly amount of 4" shells (luckily, they had no torps, so I didn't get punished for AFKing that hard). Each CL cost 1.5 billion, so I destroyed almost 5 times the cost of my ship while it was seriously damaged due mostly to my negligence.

1BC vs 20CL: Okay, this one proved to be a challenge... Mostly because I AFKed again and ate 4 23" torps in quick succession. 9.5k damage received put my ship into "orange" status by the end of battle and I had less than half buoyancy left. Also, for this battle the enemy was actually slower than me (39.2kn max speed vs 40), so I could've just run away if I so desired. Each CL cost 1.8 billion, so I destroyed more than 10 times my cost while getting a serious beating in return (once again, massive negligence on my part), yet still keeping the BC afloat.

1BC vs 40CL: No jokes and AFK this time, I've met my match. The AI managed to design a CL that was both inexpensive (1.1 billion), survivable (required 2-3 good salvoes to sink) and deadly (12 tubes per ship plus 4x2x6.6" guns). Now, until I ran out of AP shells things were fine. But then, as base-fused HE shells were less effective, the AI managed to push closer, force me to eat 6 torps by putting me in crossfire and ultimately destroying me with thousands (3500+ hits) of 6.6" shells.

Keep in mind that these CLs were only marginally faster than my BC (40.4kn max speed vs 40), so I most likely could've disengaged at some point before my ship was slowed down by damage, but a) this is a custom battle and b) I wanted to see the full trade, so my poor Ruggiero fought to the bitter end.
I still managed to sink 18 CLs and seriously damage 4 more (and scratch like 10 more to various extent. Honestly, if my ship hadn't constantly switched targets for no reason, I would've probably had killed at least a couple more.

Still this was a good trade, 3.2 billion for 20+ billion

So, all in all:

1. Super-cruisers seem to be quite capable escorts, as even one or two of them can keep dozens of enemy light ships at bay with ease
2. AI-controlled light ships don't seem to be willing or able to do close-range torpedo runs (if I was running the 40DD battle, I'd probably have zerg rushed the opponent with all I had and sunk the BC while losing most of my ships in the process - still not the best trade honestly)
3. Long-range torpedo spam against few player-controlled ships (when the player still can micro-manage their entire fleet effectively) seems to not work that great. As the AI is notoriously insanely good at dodging torps, I'd say that vice versa it would've been about the same.
4. This is even with the light ships being designed solely for battle, while in the campaign some of the money and tonnage would've gone to mine and sub warfare gear
5. Using BCs as escorts is even more cost-effective, as they are not so often destroyed as light escorts, and even when they are, they can take down quite a chunk of the enemy fleet with them
6. Spotting seems not to be really relevant after the development of Radar at least, as capital ships are more or less able to spot the enemy at long enough range themselves.
7. I still see exactly zero reasons to build non-Frigate light ships in the late game. They just become obsolete, plain and simple.
8. Same goes for torps in general. No use.

If I'm wrong in my conclusions or there's a flaw in my testing process, please let me know.

 You are testing three things simultaneously.   AI vs Human battle management, light ship against heavy, and AI designed ships against human designed.  Hard to say if light ships are useless or perhaps the AI is?  At least add human run and designed light ship divisions against heavy ships, designed and battled by AI?   

I am fairly good with destroyer design and tactics.   If I had 10 of my late game Japanese DDs with their 15 or 20 torp broadsides, ringing you about with their 42 to 44 knot speeds, you might find escape difficult?   Hard to say, that is definitely not what you tested however.  I do know I can reliably sink an enemy AI heavy with 10 of my killers, maybe lose 2 3 or no ships depending on how patient I am.

Another thought, you could run equal money heavy vs light, full AI both sides.   Just give over control of your division or ship to the AI and let it go. Its maybe not so important but would still be interesting, no human factor either side?  Never happens in the game so not so important?

Anyways a few thoughts.  

 

 

 

 

[Abuse_Claws]

5 hours ago, GrantK said:

Hard to say if light ships are useless or perhaps the AI is?

I tried the same test in 1915 (vs 1920 light ships) and got demolished. Twice, actually (tried two different designs, one BC-based and one BB-based). No radar, no autoloader, no sonar - the AI light ships swarmed and destroyed my poor creations quite efficiently actually. I did manage to beat 20 DDs both times, but with extreme effort and heavy damage to my ship, anything above that - forget it. And the cost ratio was not in my favor this time. It seems that specifically in the late game light ships are weak - at least under AI control, but here's the thing: I can't effectively control 40 ships at once. If I play with 40 light ships instead of 1-2 capital ships, they will mostly be AI-controlled anyway

[Abuse_Claws]

5 hours ago, GrantK said:

I am fairly good with destroyer design and tactics.   If I had 10 of my late game Japanese DDs with their 15 or 20 torp broadsides, ringing you about with their 42 to 44 knot speeds, you might find escape difficult?   Hard to say, that is definitely not what you tested however.  I do know I can reliably sink an enemy AI heavy with 10 of my killers, maybe lose 2 3 or no ships depending on how patient I am.

With late-game super-cruisers having 40kn top speed the difference is really not enough, considering the detection range with radar. Long-range torpedo spam proved ineffective, especially considering the fact I was playing on x5 the whole time, so my reaction time was extremely limited, and yet I still managed to dodge most if not all torps.

Sadly, PvP is not a feature UAD has, so we have to rely solely on human vs AI tests (or AI vs AI, but that is not quite representative of how the game is actually played).

I can try designing the DDs myself and also switching sides, will post on that here when I get to it

[GrantK]

1 hour ago, Abuse_Claws said:

With late-game super-cruisers having 40kn top speed the difference is really not enough, considering the detection range with radar. Long-range torpedo spam proved ineffective, especially considering the fact I was playing on x5 the whole time, so my reaction time was extremely limited, and yet I still managed to dodge most if not all torps.

Sadly, PvP is not a feature UAD has, so we have to rely solely on human vs AI tests (or AI vs AI, but that is not quite representative of how the game is actually played).

I can try designing the DDs myself and also switching sides, will post on that here when I get to it

Yes sadly PvP is not a thing.    Give me an hour or two against your supercruiser and you might find a quickly closing ring from all directions and very quickly from the front.  A couple of the ten launch early and force maneuvering....  you'd get a few seems likely but 5 might survive for a cross torp you might not get out of.....   however we'll never know as you say.   It would be interesting to try against a human for sure, best out of ten as both learn best tactics.

 

Taking out AI enemy heavies even when moving away at max speed is time consuming but seems, in my experience, always possible.   Late game AI heavies go to high 30 knots as I have gone against, a french BC with 39.2 I destroyed.  The AI doesn't seem able to stay on a light ship long enough before switching targets, if there is a trick it is to present the AI with quickly shifting 'priority' targets, and throw off targeting by forcing maneuvers.   However your mileage may vary.   It is definitely a matter of micro managing ships for the light side.   My experience is not that extensive, perhaps I am maybe too arrogant, I have run down maybe 5 or 6 heavies in various campaigns, some fast ones are just not worth it, let them go.   Time is real even at 5x.  In several of these my own torps were the worst danger, I remember crossing my fingers the battle would end in time to not die to own torps  haha.

 

Torping against AI fleets seems 90% useful.    Pretty common to cause all sorts of flooding and kills with effective simultaneous attacks with individual DDs targeting (micromanaged) to create beautiful cross torps actually aimed at other ships than those you are targeting.   End of battle my DDs are right up there with the heavies in damage done by ship.  My Cls are also torp heavy and can launch for some designs perhaps 40 torps in a run with slight turns too and fro off the front axis.   10 Cls doing that combined with say 8 DDs a side each launching 20, sort of timed to get there within a moderate time frame, well that can really tear up an enemy fleet and definitely throw their shooting off  and formations just trashed for quite a while.   An enemy BB in the red on flooding and listed is an easy kill for my heavies.

[Abuse_Claws]

@GrantK can you please show me a DD design of yours for 1940 Japan. Haven't designed late-game DDs for so long, I honestly don't remember how to do it well anymore. Experimental DD hull, 3x4x24" torps and maximize speed I guess?

EDIT: Is this fine or should I change something?
https://imgur.com/a/SGkfGio

Edited December 18, 2023 by Abuse_Claws
made a design

[GrantK]

2 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

@GrantK can you please show me a DD design of yours for 1940 Japan. Haven't designed late-game DDs for so long, I honestly don't remember how to do it well anymore. Experimental DD hull, 3x4x24" torps and maximize speed I guess?

  Sure later.   44 knots means dropping some guns in my experience, 42 works with an outfit of 6 twin 5 inchers with lengthened barrels.   In classic japanese fashion and in line with real life my designs are top heavy.   Just like a lot of real japanese cruisers and destroyers.   For immersion I like to pretend like the real nation and their real history.   The Japanese were masters of the torpedo with both cruisers and destroyers, so I do the same.   Samurai and Bushido and kamikaze for the kill and the glory of the emperor and all that.   Politically I never make deals or buy off potential opponents, try and extort cash from my Japan under threat of war never works for the AI.   More likely I will turn on them and provoke a war for insulting us and impugning our honour....   haha.   I plan on playing as American, my political and technical approach will vary a lot.   I plan on happily using my monster GDP to buy off opponents right left and centre, go to war in 1920 or somesuch with monster tech and a huge fleet grown with decades of bought off peace....  surprise!  The iron fist will come out of the velvet glove.....

 

Wandering.   Later on the design.

[GrantK]

15 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

@GrantK can you please show me a DD design of yours for 1940 Japan. Haven't designed late-game DDs for so long, I honestly don't remember how to do it well anymore. Experimental DD hull, 3x4x24" torps and maximize speed I guess?

 

Actually 4 quintuple launchers, sometimes just 3 'quints'.   For 15 to 20 torp broadsides, and different firing arcs end up so the launching off each DD as you approach closely is in sequence sort of, so the AI maneuvers cant miss them all.   24 inch torps are no joke.   3200 tons roughly, dont remember hull some are useless, typically stretch the ship with min or close to min beam and sometimes reduced draught as well, to gain room for all the launchers.   Thats the basics.   Triple gun turrets late war help save weight and maintain some real gunpower out to over 15k with lengthened barrels.   They are usually burning pretty good as I make my final coordinated run.

[Abuse_Claws]

23 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

EDIT: Is this fine or should I change something?
https://imgur.com/a/SGkfGio

Okay, 20 of those dealt a grand total of 10 damage to my BC. Apparently, they are too large, and me spotting them at 20+km even in overcast weather means they're toast before they even realise what hit them

[Abuse_Claws]

Dropped some range and reduced hull to double bottom, in exchange made launchers quint instead of quad, switched to oxygen torps, installed RDF and Gen III Radar. Oh, and upped shaft to III because I had some displacement left. 

Sure, this time I've lost the fight, but only after taking down 10 enemy DDs with me and severely damaging 4 more. Keep in mind, those DDs cost 1.6b each, v.s 3.2b for my ship, so I took down more or less 5 times the cost of my ship (more than that if you count the crippled DDs). Oxygen torps seem to work... As long as the DDs can get in range, that is.

Most of the damage was taken after I ran out of HE shells, so possibly with Increased ammo the result would've been a bit different. Also of note, I only have Sonar I on my ship, as the AI usually does not go THAT much torpedo-heavy. Might change that too, give me a minute

[Abuse_Claws]

Made some tweaks to my ship (reduced armor slightly here and there to get Sonar III and Increased ammo). Killed 16/20 DDs before going down, that's roughly 8 times the cost of my ship. Honestly, it may be possible to tweak the BC even more to combat those giga-TBs, but I want to still keep the BC campaign-viable and versatile, so I don't want to say cut the range to add a larger anti-torp belt

Edit: also I could've removed the 2" guns and try to squeeze in 1 extra grade of torpedo belt instead, but I want to keep the AA battery if only for the looks

Edit (x2): I also calculated the costs without crew (as in the campaign you can't just buy a veteran crew), it's still about 2 DDs for the price of one BC

Edited December 18, 2023 by Abuse_Claws

[GrantK]

3 hours ago, Abuse_Claws said:

Made some tweaks to my ship (reduced armor slightly here and there to get Sonar III and Increased ammo). Killed 16/20 DDs before going down, that's roughly 8 times the cost of my ship. Honestly, it may be possible to tweak the BC even more to combat those giga-TBs, but I want to still keep the BC campaign-viable and versatile, so I don't want to say cut the range to add a larger anti-torp belt

Edit: also I could've removed the 2" guns and try to squeeze in 1 extra grade of torpedo belt instead, but I want to keep the AA battery if only for the looks

Edit (x2): I also calculated the costs without crew (as in the campaign you can't just buy a veteran crew), it's still about 2 DDs for the price of one BC

Is this you micromanaging DDs to attack your BC run by AI?   If so perhaps your tactics are not all they could be on the DD side.   It takes time to take 5 2 ship divisions and get the AI where you want it, ahead and to the sides with a division behind just out of effective gun range.   AI heavies even with radar and type 5 rangefinders dont hit DDs travelling at 42 or 44 knots and constantly altering course.   Ease a division in fire off some incendiary HE, when the AI starts getting on target retreat, maybe with smoke as you ease a division in from the other side.   Fire some long range torps to force the AI to start turning and avoiding....   and so on.   When you get abreast the AI doesn't like it and will try and put their tail on you, but you got DDs that side too.   

Its work for sure.   But I have had success, mostly.   As I say your experience may vary.

And as to 40 knot BCs, well the DD equivalent of this 'impossible in IRL build' would be a 50+ knot DD?   Such might be able to be built ingame, I dont like to push the envelope that far on reality however and have not and will not try.   And a 50 knot DD is impossible IRL of course, but a reasonably armored and armed BC at 40 knots is perhaps even more out of phase with reality.   A 44 knot DD is in with a shout on real life builds though.   Russkies had some 40 knot plus DDs, and some others, the Italians?   The french built some very fast and large DDs interwar.   But a 40 knot heavy?  Nope.   When the yanks started putting nuclear reactors in ships they finally had the steam to get big ships up to such monstrous speeds, but even then 40 knots is out of reach for such a large hull.   Hull resistance to speed goes up as something like the cube of the speed, meaning practically and for a rough eg you might have to double the horsepower to get from 30 to say 34 knots.   HMS Vanguard on I recollect 130k hp did 30 knots, the Iowas did 33 knots on 240k horsepower.   Not a one to one but both were large ships, the Iowas at say 60 k tonnes and the Vanguard at say 52k, so in the ballpark.   40 knots is really really fast in this logarithmic scale of needed power, off the charts really.

Interesting discussion, trade viewpoints.

[Abuse_Claws]

3 minutes ago, GrantK said:

Is this you micromanaging DDs to attack your BC run by AI?

Nope, I'm still controlling the BC, but the AI-controlled DDs are now hand-designed

[GrantK]

20 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

Nope, I'm still controlling the BC, but the AI-controlled DDs are now hand-designed

If your question was not really 'are light ships useless late game', but rather 'can I defeat AI light ships late game without deviating from a 'fast large cruiser' concept' on my (human) side', then you've answered it.   Yes you can.

But you did pose it as a generic statement - 'light ships are useless late game and so are torps".   Thats different, get the human running the light ships against AI heavies and the world changes and it starts to look like the answer was more "AI is pretty useless in battle tactics and perhaps no matter the ship type the human always wins'.    ??

 

 

[GrantK]

4 minutes ago, GrantK said:

If your question was not really 'are light ships useless late game', but rather 'can I defeat AI light ships late game without deviating from a 'fast large cruiser' concept' on my (human) side', then you've answered it.   Yes you can.

But you did pose it as a generic statement - 'light ships are useless late game and so are torps".   Thats different, get the human running the light ships against AI heavies and the world changes and it starts to look like the answer was more "AI is pretty useless in battle tactics and perhaps no matter the ship type the human always wins'.    ??

 

 

I should say, I have a particular way of approaching this game.   Since I dont believe anyone could ever have made an effective BC with more than say 34 knots IRL, I wont build them.   I pondered DD speeds and settled on 44 knots as a 'pushing the envelope' max speed.   When I play out battles I never look the enemies torp reloads, or torp range, or armor type and quality, or fuel status, certainly never let their engagement ranges surface.   I wont look how damaged they are.   Fog of war.   Its bad enough I cant avoid knowing it is eg my 4 Cls and 10 DDs against a precise enemy fleet, you cant get in the battle without seeing that.   So thats my way of gaining immersion and letting the AI have some chance.

I say this because its why I flog the 40 knot BC thing.   The game is the game, it is only so realistic.   A person can always find workarounds and meta builds that win every time.   This is not reality though....   so I self limit the information I have in battle, and build ships I think MIGHT have been possible IRL.   Its already pretty easy to beat the AI. poor sods need something back.   So we all approach it different.   As I said elsewhere, I am pondering a campaign where maybe I limit my research slider to 50% throughout.   Something.   Radar in 1920 is just silly, of course you can smash the poor sods.   And 40 knot BCs with good guns and effective armor.   So all that different perspective colors our discussion.   You want to run a 40 knot BC?   OK Ill run a 54 knot DD, hit THAT.   Equally unrealistic....  you see?

[Abuse_Claws]

21 hours ago, GrantK said:

You are testing three things simultaneously.   AI vs Human battle management, light ship against heavy, and AI designed ships against human designed. 

I'm trying to eliminate factors one by one. Now we see, that AI designs were responsible for some of the effect, although it should be noted that the DDs I built are much more expensive.

I also wanted to iterate through DD designs to see what works, so than I can use more successful ships when I switch to the DD side.
I also want to do one more test vs AI light ships to see if a smaller DD design will work (minimal dimensions, max speed and say 2 quint launchers, still oxygen torps and radar III), as the capital ship will have a hard time detecting them. They should also be quite a bit cheaper, so when doing the "same cost" battle, they wouldn't find themselves in a 10v5.

Then I will probably do two tests playing for the DD side (one for the Japanese super-DDs and one for a swarm of smaller DDs). As the AI is indeed not great and will probably blunder a single BC immediately, I will do this test in the "same cost" format, so 10 super-DDs vs 5 BC super-cruisers and presumably 20v5 for the smaller DDs, IDK since I haven't built those yet. BTW, if you wish to help with these, I can show you my BC design. It might be better, as you are more well-versed in light ship tactics than I am.
 

7 hours ago, GrantK said:

AI is pretty useless in battle tactics and perhaps no matter the ship type the human always wins

Actually, I don't think that's the case anymore. Huge props to the devs, the AI can now sometimes produce a real threat. In my 1915v1920 attempt, the AI-controlled light ships did pretty well and ate me for dinner, while still being AI designed too. The cost comparison there was certainly on the AI side too. This doesn't happen often, but sometimes the AI finds its game and valiantly fights back.

Also of note, when I'm saying "light ships are useless" what I mean is "all the tactical applications for light ships in late game are either obsolete or better performed by capital ships, particularly BC-based fast cruiser killers and/or frigates". What are those tactical applications?

1. ASW - best left to the frigates. Why? Maths. Frigates are dirt cheap, you can build dozens and dozens, and you need the numbers to bring up the average. You can build a 2622 ASW frigate for 20-25 mil, so at least 5 of them for the cost of even a cheap universal DD, let alone super-DDs such as ones used above, which cost 1.6B apiece
2. Mining/sweeping - same thing, frigates are the best tool due to numbers. Even when I run normal light ships in my campaigns, I still use frigates to perform ASW and mine duties, so that I can remove all that gear from battle-line light ships.
3. Spotting - as we can see, it is more or less obsolete by the late game. radar-equipped capital ships can spot even large DDs at 20km in Overcast weather. With clear weather or larger enemy ships it's even further, super-BBs sometimes can be detected at extreme range like 40+km. That's enough for me honestly. Sure, there may be some tactical advantage in using dedicated light spotter ships, but they would need to be manually controlled at all times with extreme care so they themselves are not detected and destroyed. And I need my full attention for dodging torps and wrestling with the AI auto-targeting on my capital ships.
4. Keeping enemy light ships at bay - as demonstrated by the test above, the super-cruisers do this quite well. A squadron of them can pulverize enemy light ships before they can harm my capital ships, while being quite cost-effective and not suffering partial losses: even if my BC is beat up, it still can be repaired, and since most of the crew survives, the training level doesn't drop that much when crew is replenished from reserves. In contrast, if say 3/10 DDs are lost, they are dead, and so is their crew.
5. Hunting enemy capital ships with torps. Honestly, this one is mostly a matter of personal taste. Doesn't really matter if the enemy BB is sunk with big guns or torps, as long as it is sunk and you haven't lost your ships. The last batch of tests (player DDs vs AI super-cruisers, maybe also player DDs vs regular AI BBs just for the fun of it) is specifically aimed to test this application.

Keep in mind, the sentiment is applicable both ways: are light ships any good for the player in the late game and are they any good for the AI?
The second part may even be more important: while the players can build whatever they personally prefer and are best at controlling, what the AI builds impacts greatly the level of challenge it presents. You said it yourself, most of the time the AI doesn't feel like a hard opponent to beat. It's more about "how long will it take me to beat this giant AI fleet", whether it is possible or not isn't much of a question. Among other things, I'm trying to look for ways the AI may be improved.

[Abuse_Claws]

9 hours ago, GrantK said:

And as to 40 knot BCs, well the DD equivalent of this 'impossible in IRL build' would be a 50+ knot DD? 

Actually, we don't know. The BC concept was largely abandoned after the Jutland fireworks, some BCs being converted into BBs or carriers, other spending the rest of their service life in what the game describes as "Limited" state, and HMS Hood, well, following the trail of her predecessors. The only post-1920 BCs that actually saw service were the Alaska-class ships (not counting Soviet missile cruisers).

Also, with the development of carriers and torpedo bombers, fast capital ships lost a lot of their meaning: you can't exactly outrun a Swordfish squadron. You needed a shit ton of AAA on your ship more than you needed speed

Also also, the Washington and London treaties happened IRL, which severely limited any BC development: you couldn't exactly label them as cruisers due to tonnage and the capital ship tonnage limit meant that building modern BCs just to see whether the concept works was not an option even for rich nations.

All three factors aren't really applicable in the game: planes don't exist, naval treaties are not a thing and if you don't use cordite/dunnite combo with insufficient barbette protection, your BCs won't go boom.

The one modern BC that did get (mostly) completed (Stalingrad) had a top speed of 35.5kn at 40k ton displacement (whereas my BC for this test has 40kn at 34k ton displacement). Now, sure, the gap between 35 and 40kn is harder to close than one between 30 and 35, logarithmic scale and all that.

But consider a world, where BC development went unhindered all across the globe. Constant search for improvement and competition between nations, Air Force doesn't exist at all, so a bigger percentage of military spending goes to the Navy and related research. No carriers are needed, so there's more room in dockyards for artillery ships. Is it possible under such conditions that a 40kn 30k+ ton BC is developed? I'd say yes.

Another thing to consider: unlike planes (where more engine mass means more lift is needed) and cars (where more engine mass means more friction), more mass in a ship doesn't neccessarily increase water resistance: you can (to a reasonable extent) make a ship longer. In theory, as long as the hull structure holds, you can increase the engine weight (and hence top speed) quite a bit on a ship, if you are willing to make it larger and more expensive. USS Iowa at light load could almost match the speed of USS Fletcher (35.2kn vs 36.5kn) despite being about 23 times larger in displacement. And you can't exactly call Iowa just a speedboat - it was a 16" BB with decent armor and a whole load of secondaries, plus spotter planes and later helis.

[Abuse_Claws]

This is what I came up with for my "smaller DD" design. Mixed feelings - on one hand, it's extremely expensive for a 1300t torpedo boat, on the other hand - it's much harder to spot, and those pesky little ships appearing out of fog and smoke less than 10km away is genuinely scary. However, I did manage to beat twenty of them - on my second attempt, that is. In the first run I got a bit too complacent, got ambushed, ate a dozen torps and sank after destroying only 3 enemy DDs (still technically cost-effective, but not impressive by any standards).

In the second battle I had to muster all my concentration, skill and patience. I still ate 4 torps for a total of 2.8k damage, but carefully timed hit'n'run attacks did the trick. Maybe I could've won against the giga-TBs too with the same tactics, but that I will find out some other day

 

[Abuse_Claws]

First test for me controlling the DDs: 10 Japanese giga-TBs vs 5 Italian super-cruisers

4 cruisers sunk for 1 sunk and 3 damaged DDs. The last cruiser escaped (the only two DDs of mine with torps left were damaged and could not properly chase down the enemy BC due to the speed penalty)

IDK if AI got worse at dodging torps or what, but the AI BCs seemed not to even change course before being hit with torp salvoes. On the other hand, the AI somehow detected my DDs a bit further away than when I did the opposite test (20-25km, sometimes even up to 30 vs 15-20km back then)

EDIT: Also, the AI kept switching targets like every two salvoes, so that's why the BCs couldn't hit shit and that's why I have to constantly wrestle with auto-targeting when playing big gun ships myself

Edited December 19, 2023 by Abuse_Claws

[GrantK]

 

I put together one of the torp heavy late campaign models heavier than I remember.   I was in a hurry not really optimized.   Engines at back because I like firepower up front and Japanese hulls seem to want you to reverse the gun arrangement I have here

 

 

A design with weight to spare for depth charges minehunter and mines, better rear tower, has all the safety excepting triple hull

 

 

These arent optimized I just did them quick to give an idea.   the 20 torp and 15 torp versions.   More beam on the 42 knotter

If I get some time I may take ten of these out against a 40 knot BC although then I would have to build a ship not really versed in.   The french BC I ran down a while back I checked as it was sinking on the speed, why I remember it was 39.2.   I dont believe I lost a ship in that particular case?  Not sure anymore.

Yes you are right, there is a long way between 35 and 40 knots, you would approach needing double the horsepower to do it.   Im only going from memory here on articles and such read long ago concerning hull design, years actually.  In the ballpark though.

Iowa is used as an example contrasted to Vanguard.   We add some weight (but longer waterline length as well) and approach doubling the hp needed to gain 3 knots.   The contrast was the point, not that Iowa represents BCs

If BC development was pushed, and since hull length and width are fixed as physical factors beyond 'development', you are left with subtleties of hull form and installed power to gain the extra speed.   Hull form can help, a fair bit, but is a small effect compared to waterline length and length to beam ratios, IF the hull form is at all modern, say IRL 1920 plus.   So its mainly the motors.   Improve the motors to gain the extra horsepower needed and all ship classes get the benefit.   So your theoretical 40 knot BC is opposed by a theoretical say 52 knot DD.   Or something like.

The game allows stuff as was not practical IRL under any development scenario.   My 44 knotter is not actually a viable ship, absurd topweight of torpedoes, AND triple 5 inch mounts for 15 5 inch rapid firing.   Fuggedaboutit.   The 42 knotter with 15 torps resembles some real life ships however. a little fast for the armament I would say.   I shouldn't have said your 40 knotter was 'impossible' IRL but I daresay impossible with decent armament and armor is probably fair?   Like my 44 knotter doesn't represent an as built possible real ship.   Maybe at 34 knots and twin gun mountings?   Something like.   And the topweight would be dangerous.

Hey man, you like your 40 knotters.   The game says A-OK, the AI builds similar.   Have at er and enjoy! 

 

[GrantK]

I scanned and quickly found relative costs for BBs and DDs for the british, ww1.   The fine V+Ws coming out end of war were 200k.   1912 BBs were 10X that.   Not saying that ratio applies out to 1945 mind, however I have ran into that 10 to 1 ratio in several places over the years.   Perhaps the game is  little harsh on DD costs?   Honestly when I play I concentrate on GDP via oil and territory, and otherwise always build ships with zero attention to cost.   Yes thats unrealistic.   It means I was surprised your cost ratio was 1 bb for 2 dd, id never looked.

 I may try campaigns were I limit my tech development somewhat, limit refits to something like 'possible' and see what happens.   And Im not sure any more of my 20 torp 44 knotters will be built, they work well, honestly, turn fine, accelerate great.   Lots of very dangerous torps and autoloading 15 5 inchers firing incendiary at 15k+ can start a lot of fires.   But burning ships down is not satisfactory somehow, although its meta, and the ships themselves are just not immersive for me.

 

 

 

 

[GrantK]

58 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

First test for me controlling the DDs: 10 Japanese giga-TBs vs 5 Italian super-cruisers

4 cruisers sunk for 1 sunk and 3 damaged DDs. The last cruiser escaped (the only two DDs of mine with torps left were damaged and could not properly chase down the enemy BC due to the speed penalty)

IDK if AI got worse at dodging torps or what, but the AI BCs seemed not to even change course before being hit with torp salvoes. On the other hand, the AI somehow detected my DDs a bit further away than when I did the opposite test (20-25km, sometimes even up to 30 vs 15-20km back then)

EDIT: Also, the AI kept switching targets like every two salvoes, so that's why the BCs couldn't hit shit and that's why I have to constantly wrestle with auto-targeting when playing big gun ships myself

Yes I did not want to boast but I generally dont lose a ship although against 5 heavy cruisers light BCs I would I daresay.   And I made the point, they cant get on target, you need to get them switching and they do so.   IRL a dodging destroyer division, presenting different threats through time, did get lots of target switching going on, I think eg off Samar BBs under Kurita?   

[GrantK]

Just now, GrantK said:

Yes I did not want to boast but I generally dont lose a ship although against 5 heavy cruisers light BCs I would I daresay.   And I made the point, they cant get on target, you need to get them switching and they do so.   IRL a dodging destroyer division, presenting different threats through time, did get lots of target switching going on, I think eg off Samar BBs under Kurita?   

Ive not seen non dodging from AI ever, in my recollection?   Only and specifically under cross torps executed so the torps are arriving at similar times.   Maybe the AI has been changed?   AI has always been clever at avoid torps, and the game does not allow shooting your torps where you want.    Why having torp launchers that fire in sequence is handy, the first lot goes off, the target starts maneuvering, the other tubes go off on the new aiming point.   If the range is close and you get a heavy swinging in one direction they just cant change direction in time, same with cross torps.