Rant/suggestion thread

[GrantK]

10 hours ago, Abuse_Claws said:

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.

You know, if an Iowa ever hit 35.2 knots under battle load conditions I would be very surprised.   I cant recollect the details, but some folk with decent credentials engaged in a long and highly technical and data based discussion of Iowa top speed, the thread went 30 pages or somesuch single spaced with say 50+ links to sources.   My honest conclusion having read that and other material over the years, here and there, is that the Iowas had an effective top speed of about 33 knots and given they were rather poor seaboats 32 operationally.

 

The Iowa WAS a bit of a speedboat.   The bosses realized they had no BBs capable of keeping up with the carriers and so optimized to get the speed needed.   Deck armor was good, however belt armor was both somewhat low quality (it can be argued) and only 12 inch, so while angled has similar side armor to the Hood (also angled).   But yes it was a BB, perhaps the best balanced overall BB ever made, particularly given the wonderful main armament and reliable long ranged super efficient powerplant.

Compare the South Dakotas to the Iowas, instead of vanguard against Iowa.    The Iowas were armed and armored very similarily to the SoDaks, and so the differences are what are required to add 5 knots between 28 to 33.   Which with that exponential thing is not at all like going from 35 to 40.   The displacement increase is almost all to gain speed and waterline length.   When you said somewhere that you can add engine weight with less penalty on a ship than a car or airplane, maybe so.   But you pay a substantial weight penalty nonetheless.   A battleship builders dictum might be that there is only so much weight available.   You have to apportion that weight out between armor guns and engines.   If you want to keep guns and armor the same you are going to need a lot of extra displacement (weight) to gain the speed.   And the higher the speed range you are adding increments to, the relatively more displacement or weight you will need.   So the power to weight and volume required for the engines becomes key, and fairly hard limits even with nuclear power start to approach due to the exponential increase in needed power as you get over 30 knots.

 

Hey my 44 knotter with its raft of 20 24 inch tubes and 15 long ranged rapid firing incendiary 5 inchers, hitting consistently at well over 15 k, thats not a real thing either.

[GrantK]

So the SoDaks made 27.5 knots on 45k and 130k hp.   To get this armor and armament up to 33 knots for a 5.5 knot improvement needed 210 hp, and a displacement increase of 11k tons.   Roughly.   So increase hp 70% and displacement up 25%.   It all goes up together for the speed, displacement and hp, to keep the same offense and defensive capability.   Now the range of 27 to 33 knots is up that exponential curve, but still much less than the higher speed ranges.   To get an Iowa to 40 knots would need dilithium reactors on the same weight, or something.   Not turbines and oil fired boilers, even with improvements there is a limit, weight of engine and the requirement for waterline length just cant be developed away.   Well it can in this game, thats fine.  Ships have a power against speed curve which they work out after launch and hope they get right before.   An Iowa speed curve may exist, you could roughly extrapolate the needed hp to get that hull and that displacement up to 40 knots.   I dunno, 400k+ hp?   Dilithium reactors.

 

Anyways, its just a game, isn't that it really?   I find that I approach it differently than most folks, long term enjoyment requires immersion, my immersion hinges in considerable part on the extent to which it is a simulator (which it is, somewhat).   Where it deviates I dont like going there, I dont like chasing meta to win and then what?   We all use 12.9 guns and 2.9s and gotta be picric acid and incendiary HE.    OK we squashed the AI, now what?   My view.   And DEFINITELY not assigning anything to you, just a general observation.

[GrantK]

Scharnhorst speed curve does exist.   To make 37 knots would need 400k hp.   So 6 knots between 31 and 37 for a 2.5 times of hp  To gain that without radically different engine tech implies say doubling+ of engine weight.  If the displacement doesn't go up (its the same hull we are driving to greater speeds) then armor and guns are falling away as we double and more the engine size and weight.   Who knows exactly, it is data from a text on German BBs.  It is some general idea however, and in the background it is based on the direct empirical measurement that every 4 knots extra speed for the scharnhorst requires you double the horsepower, from 10 to 14, 14 to 18 etc to 26 to 30.   Just keep going at double the horsepower for every 4 knots and you get 400k for 37 knots.   She did 30 knots on a 160k.    I didn't check the math.   And it leaves out some other exponential factors related to hull drag which would not have been seen below 30 knots.   So perhaps even conservative.   Engines are heavy.   You take your engines and say times 2.5 on weight and that may be half your armor, half your gun weight.   And extra hull volume needed.   Compromises, compromises.

 

Iowas used some of the extra displacement for waterline length.   And obviously to support the heavier engine plant.   So its not like making a SoDak hull go 33 knots.   Its taking the SoDak armor and armament and adding 5.5 knots to 'the package'. 

 

40 knots is fast if you need guns and armor too.   IRL. 

[Abuse_Claws]

2 hours ago, GrantK said:

Only and specifically under cross torps executed so the torps are arriving at similar times.

I did cross-torp them, but messed up the timing big time. One of the BCs still just waltzed right into torpedo soup, ate about 8 and sank. I can't say whether there was a way out for her, as I was more focused on getting my DDs the hell away safely. Maybe just the sheer number of torps made escape impossible, IDK

Sequence firing would be nice, yes. I remember some designs from UAD letsplays where say triples and quads were used on the same ship to try and make them fire separately with some gimmicks, so that their reload cycles would de-sync and then they could be fired one group after another, something to that effect.

Also I wonder if acoustic torps would be fun or break the game.

Another point is, I don't think you can quite dodge shells the same way you dodge torps in UAD.

Shells have a hit chance, where target speed and maneuver are just modificators. So if I'm not mistaken, if the enemy ship fired with say 80% accuracy and you then proceed to make a sharp turn and head away from the original point of aim, you still have an 80% chance of eating that shell. Am I wrong? IDK the exact mechanics for this.

Whereas torps you can actually see in the water and turn away, even before the exclamation point thingy appears if you pay attention.

 

2 hours ago, GrantK said:

And I made the point, they cant get on target, you need to get them switching and they do so

With hand-targeting you can usually persuade the ship to stay on target and keep gaining accuracy long enough to achieve hits on AI DDs. For example, when the AI tries to surround my ship with two groups of DDs, I usually turn to tangentially approach one of them and keep targeting the closest enemy DD in that group no matter what. This way, the futher flank of the enemy fleet is kept at range by their own maneuver, while the other flank can't get too close either, because the closest ship keeps getting destroyed time and again until there's none left. Usually works if I'm focused enough to spot and dodge enemy torps in time. The other option being just running away at flank speed and also always targeting the closest ship to slow down the enemy approach. And when enemy DDs go on reload, I can come back and strike down a couple before running again. Rinse and repeat until there are no more DDs.

Why the AI keeps switching targets every two seconds is honestly beyond me. This happens sometimes even in capital ship battles, where the battle lines sort of just sail in a straight line, so there's exactly zero reason to switch. If the AI was just better at staying on target, it would be a much more challenging opponent IMO. 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Abuse_Claws

[GrantK]

I should have checked the math duh.   You go from 30 to 34 and thats double 160 for 320k hp.   Now we go double again to get to a simpler number, 38 knots, so that is 640k hp.   Now THAT is one stout power plant. Its a powerplant potentially 4 times as heavy and 4 times as bulky.   There is no weight or room left for armor or guns, or much less anyways.   We re going to need waterline length, displacement and reduced beam to make it.  

[GrantK]

7 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

I did cross-torp them, but messed up the timing big time. One of the BCs still just waltzed right into torpedo soup, ate about 8 and sank. I can't say whether there was a way out for her, as I was more focused on getting my DDs the hell away safely. Maybe just the sheer number of torps made escape impossible, IDK

Sequence firing would be nice, yes. I remember some designs from UAD letsplays where say triples and quads were used on the same ship to try and make them fire separately with some gimmicks, so that their reload cycles would de-sync and then they could be fired one group after another, something to that effect.

Also I wonder if acoustic torps would be fun or break the game.

Another point is, I don't think you can quite dodge shells the same way you dodge torps in UAD.

Shells have a hit chance, where target speed and maneuver are just modificators. So if I'm not mistaken, if the enemy ship fired with say 80% accuracy and you then proceed to make a sharp turn and head away from the original point of aim, you still have an 80% chance of eating that shell. Am I wrong? IDK the exact mechanics for this.

Whereas torps you can actually see in the water and turn away, even before the exclamation point thingy appears if you pay attention.

 

With hand-targeting you can usually persuade the ship to stay on target and keep gaining accuracy long enough to achieve hits on AI DDs. For example, when the AI tries to surround my ship with two groups of DDs, I usually turn to tangentially approach one of them and keep targeting the closest enemy DD in that group no matter what. This way, the futher flank of the enemy fleet is kept at range by their own maneuver, while the other flank can't get too close either, because the closest ship keeps getting destroyed time and again until there's none left. Usually works if I'm focused enough to spot and dodge enemy torps in time. The other option being just running away at flank speed and also always targeting the closest ship to slow down the enemy approach. And when enemy DDs go on reload, I can come back and strike down a couple before running again. Rinse and repeat until there are no more DDs.

Why the AI keeps switching targets every two seconds is honestly beyond me. This happens sometimes even in capital ship battles, where the battle lines sort of just sail in a straight line, so there's exactly zero reason to switch. If the AI was just better at staying on target, it would be a much more challenging opponent IMO. 

I THINK I read that once the shell is in the air its hit probability is fixed, so agree.   However if you maneuver a lot when they fire they will already be losing the 'enemy ship maneuvering' at the point of firing.   I dont dodge salvoes but if I notice I may be sure I am turning hard when they fire.   Also I break divisions and smoke ships the AI seems to have a bead on.   And have divisions weaving in and out of threat range, that will get them switching.

Maybe its just more meta chasing on my part.   I dunno.   But a real life captain of a DD seeing shell splashes inching closer would likely start throwing his ship around and chasing salvoes?

More steadiness on targeting by the AI would I agree go a long way to fixing the disparity in battle management.   I too ponder how the AI might fight more effectively, and wish for it.

 

[Abuse_Claws]

1 minute ago, GrantK said:

I should have checked the math duh.   You go from 30 to 34 and thats double 160 for 320k hp.   Now we go double again to get to a simpler number, 38 knots, so that is 640k hp.   Now THAT is one stout power plant. Its a powerplant potentially 4 times as heavy and 4 times as bulky.   There is no weight or room left for armor or guns, or much less anyways.   We re going to need waterline length, displacement and reduced beam to make it.  

I think that's still hull-dependent, right?
Like, for more streamlined hulls the doubling point should be higher. And then also what's the displacement here?
In-game the Italian Large Cruiser II hull I used for this test has 38.5kn "max optimal speed" and 105 "hull form", while the American Fast BB hull (which I presume should represent the Iowa?) has 32kn "max optimal speed" and 82 "hull form", whatever those are. So the super-cruiser is much, much more streamlined than Iowa and also has significantly larger length to beam ratio from the looks of it at least. If IRL Iowa could reach 35kn with her hull being rated 32kn in game, I guess such a hull as the Large Cruiser II could in theory reach 40 with 38.5kn rating - although whether such a perfectly streamlined hull is technically possible is a huge question

[Abuse_Claws]

14 minutes ago, GrantK said:

However if you maneuver a lot when they fire they will already be losing the 'enemy ship maneuvering' at the point of firing.

True, though that penalty is not nearly enough I'd say. Gun accuracy is too good in general I think, with some designs genuinely behaving like missile cruisers, achieving 60+% accuracy at like 40km range, whereas IRL the longest recorded naval artillery hit was 24km iirc. That was in early 1.4 updates though, maybe they fixed that in 1.4.0.7-9

EDIT: it was earlier than I remember, 1.3.9.9 actually
EDIT (x2): https://imgur.com/a/Nj5nW4V

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Abuse_Claws

[GrantK]

8 minutes ago, GrantK said:

I THINK I read that once the shell is in the air its hit probability is fixed, so agree.   However if you maneuver a lot when they fire they will already be losing the 'enemy ship maneuvering' at the point of firing.   I dont dodge salvoes but if I notice I may be sure I am turning hard when they fire.   Also I break divisions and smoke ships the AI seems to have a bead on.   And have divisions weaving in and out of threat range, that will get them switching.

Maybe its just more meta chasing on my part.   I dunno.   But a real life captain of a DD seeing shell splashes inching closer would likely start throwing his ship around and chasing salvoes?

More steadiness on targeting by the AI would I agree go a long way to fixing the disparity in battle management.   I too ponder how the AI might fight more effectively, and wish for it.

 

Something not possible with a hit percent chance approach but would be very immersive would be to have the AI shell splashes reflect an actual targeting error.   They keep shooting ahead, they have your speed estimated too high.   Wreck their adjustment by what? increasing speed?   Same with shorts vs overs.    But I think not possible.   If they hit or dont hit IS NOT based on a process based thing where the AI struggles to achieve a firing solution based on speed and azimuth.   So the developers could never have shell splashes conform with reality.

 

But did they not say something happened in that regard?   What you COULD do is say if the enemy hit probability is increasing the shell splashes are tighter to the target.   That might be doable?   They did SOMETHING on that, I should look.   It would be nice to see the brackets getting tight and be able to assume they are 'getting on target'.

 

Or maybe it is best not to know, play a lot, and see if you gain an impression of how it works, if it works?   Keep mystery and to some extent immersion alive?   So many approaches to this game.......

[GrantK]

13 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

I think that's still hull-dependent, right?
Like, for more streamlined hulls the doubling point should be higher. And then also what's the displacement here?
In-game the Italian Large Cruiser II hull I used for this test has 38.5kn "max optimal speed" and 105 "hull form", while the American Fast BB hull (which I presume should represent the Iowa?) has 32kn "max optimal speed" and 82 "hull form", whatever those are. So the super-cruiser is much, much more streamlined than Iowa and also has significantly larger length to beam ratio from the looks of it at least. If IRL Iowa could reach 35kn with her hull being rated 32kn in game, I guess such a hull as the Large Cruiser II could in theory reach 40 with 38.5kn rating - although whether such a perfectly streamlined hull is technically possible is a huge question

  Yes it is hull dependent.   The example assumes the hull does not change.    Just shows that when the hull is held steady what hp is needed.   The SoDak to Iowa example is how you do it RL.   You increase the waterline length, on purpose, you add more motor (as is required), you change hull resistance and power iteratively.   

 

So if they slimmed Scharnhorst down and lengthened it, you could have situation where for a given displacement you wouldn't need double the power to increment 4 knots, you need double the power to increment say 5 knots.    Its still a pretty steep curve even as you work with the basics of hull design, in this case most important are waterline length and length to beam.   And that only gets you so far.   Reducing beam has major implications on all sorts of things, roll, final stability, turn rate, resistance to flooding after battle damage, steadiness as a gunnery platform.   As the speed reaches higher and higher into the doubling of HP every 4, or maybe at best 6 knots, the tradeoffs become too severe, and the designers just dont do it.

 

So maybe a skinny mildly unstable Scharnhorst with hull optimized for speed might get 5 knots for every doubling of hp instead.   So 35 knots, already v fast, doubles again to get to 40.   I think engines are in with a shout on something like 25% of displacement typical BB?   Maybe its not that high, but still to double engine weight and volume is just an enormous tradeoff?

 

[GrantK]

19 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

True, though that penalty is not nearly enough I'd say. Gun accuracy is too good in general I think, with some designs genuinely behaving like missile cruisers, achieving 60+% accuracy at like 40km range, whereas IRL the longest recorded naval artillery hit was 24km iirc. That was in early 1.4 updates though, maybe they fixed that in 1.4.0.7-9

EDIT: it was earlier than I remember, 1.3.9.9 actually
EDIT (x2): https://imgur.com/a/Nj5nW4V

 

I agree.   I too have commented that gunnery accuracy is very much too high.   I guess as a game and secondarily a simulator, people need hits or they dont come back.   Who wants to maneuver at range for 2 literal hours and get like 20 hits between 2 fleets?   So the gamemakers did the thing.

 

I thought and mentioned that a workaround would be to tone down that 'range found' thing to something much less.   Keep it, but really 80% hit chances with fast firing CLs just tears the AI up.   And again, the AI never steadies long enough to get there it seems.   So the human reaps the benefit.

[Abuse_Claws]

4 minutes ago, GrantK said:

Who wants to maneuver at range for 2 literal hours and get like 20 hits between 2 fleets?

That would be me vs the Spanish small DDs I mentioned above xD
That is literally how that fight went more or less, with me spending a few in-game hours and burning through the entire 1k HE 12" rounds I had just to sink 20 fast bois
Honestly - the most thrilling battle in UAD I've had in months.

But I get what you're saying. Still, there should be some balance point between IRL "3% accuracy of the German fleet at Jutland was regarded as a display of outstanding marksmanship for the era" and the current in-game "The hyper-intelligent 16 inch shell will hunt you down from extreme range no matter what you do! You can run, but you can't hide! Coming soon to cinemas near you!"

[GrantK]

1 hour ago, Abuse_Claws said:

That would be me vs the Spanish small DDs I mentioned above xD
That is literally how that fight went more or less, with me spending a few in-game hours and burning through the entire 1k HE 12" rounds I had just to sink 20 fast bois
Honestly - the most thrilling battle in UAD I've had in months.

But I get what you're saying. Still, there should be some balance point between IRL "3% accuracy of the German fleet at Jutland was regarded as a display of outstanding marksmanship for the era" and the current in-game "The hyper-intelligent 16 inch shell will hunt you down from extreme range no matter what you do! You can run, but you can't hide! Coming soon to cinemas near you!"

Yah agreed.   I think the game developers could get traction with more folk if they enabled sliders for accuracy, armor weight and other important stuff to let folk fine tune their gaming experience.     Full real so to speak would be a nice option to try out.   Its too easy to build a ship without significant compromise, give the hardcore crowd a tough option.    And too easy to beat the AI in battle.   However we have what we have. Kiev is not the most stable place these days, Im not hoping for very much really.