TotalRampage

Serious question why cant they lay a grid over the naval map? Wouldn't that hypothetically solve the issue. Since you can take a slice of any map then lay it over? In large scale naval engagements wouldn't DD's be used like calvary? To use speed to exploit openings and create more openings in a a battle line?

Not really they have games such as civil war and gettysburg where the AI will take the initiative to attack specific weaknesses in the line. Also games such as total war have priority targeting where an AI will see you are not properly guarding your skirms or arty then send in calvary which would be the opposite to do an attack. They can code these behaviors it's more of a matter of will we get it before campaign? Or will we have campaigns that are so easy we can win every battle without being out numbered 4 to 1. My question is why do we have to settle for such 1D battles? If I know the AI is only going to group similar ships together i.e. bbs and dds and won't utilize them correctly it becomes boring and easy. Why can't the AI see that my support ships are to far away from my bb line then use that as an opportunity to do a torp run? Why does the AI use smoke at 10km out when the ship isn't even being targeted? Then when that ship needs the smoke it doesn't have it? You see this behavior in RTW2. The dd's will do runs and will back off when confronted with something they have no hope of beating such as a CA or CL only exposing themselves when the torpedoes are ready. As of the game state now the DD's will just charge in with no semblance of a plan from the AI. It seems the AI is content to use its ship piecemeal and just throw them away. The AI has more information initially than the player would if we were in a campaign correct? Because they might not tell us exactly what we are fighting. Why cant the AI realize that if it sends its dd's on the shortest path to an enemy CL that they will die? Why wouldn't it wait for a ship that can properly counter the CL then allow the DD's to do what they need to which is harass?

More variety in my opinion is worth it. Gotta think as well if someone wants to use an CL hull because they like the design or for the benefits they should be able to use it technically as a CA hull because for the most part after the washington treaty the main difference was really gun size. Like the Portland CA's belt was 3.25-5 inchs and then the cleveland CL's had the same armour thickness yet one was a CA and the other a CL. If i wanna put 8 inch guns on a traditionally CL hull I should be able to ya know?

Fair when it comes to noise alarms and such i'm more of the less is more category because I usually notice things without needing an alarm but personal preference. So an option to limit it would be nice if they improve upon it.

That's not really maneuvering. That's taking the shortest path to the target. My problem is the battles always end the same way unless its a scripted mission. The enemy ships will always take the closest path to an enemy. They won't split off a few ships to apply pressure from one side, they won't send the DD's in to do torp runs and pull them back or even smoke themselves at proper times. They just yolo in. Which results in very anticlimactic gameplay which unless you leave yourself at a huge disadvantage the player will win. But you see what I mean though right? The AI is very limited in what it can do. You stated they will intercept or try to cut across your bow but well that's all the AI will try to do that match which in my eyes seems very limited.

It's a cool idea. But you have to ask yourself if your in a huge battle would it be practical? Say a torpedo is being launched would it give the alarm for 1 ship or all ships near the spread? Also would the alarm for fire continue throughout the fire and process of putting it out or would it just alert you to the fire? I dont know about you but in a medium sized battle it could get pretty annoying with all the alarms you would be hearing.

Considering you say the physics are on my side then say they don't follow the same physics means well you don't know what your talking about here. Especially since you challenged me to prove you wrong which I did. Per your statement below But back to the topic. Since this argument was clearly about target size based on what angle is shown at a distance. It's true mathematically that an object like a ship has a smaller surface area nose in (because its smaller). Your first argument on this topic was I was wrong. Well you have yet to tell me exactly how that statement is wrong. Ships are mathematically smaller targets nose in. People have commented on this thread talking about it not being historically accurate which I can get (differences of opinion). We can use this diagram of a houses surface area. The Bow will be the 20' side the 45' would be port. Which side is bigger i.e. mathematically the bigger target? Which side is smaller? If you said the 20' side is smaller than the 45' side congrats you have agreed with every point i've made on this thread.

They just charge nose in right? I've noticed not a lot of maneuvering from the AI.

So I know Ultimate general: civil war and gettysburg where DRM free. The newest game the devs released Age of sail is currently still early access on steam so it will be awhile before they release it officially. I'd say probably eventually but I'd wait for a response from a dev on this thread. Hopefully @Nick Thomadis can answer more.

agreed

They could just be using 2 update scales. Like we could actually be on update 76 but alpha 8.

Mine says Alpha V76 as well. It might not match up

Correct I'm talking about far to medium ranges where shells could arch into the deck. Thatt would mean they could hit the whole for example I'm a little confused here. I'm guessing first part talking about close range engagements or gun effective ranges when you would want to be broadside. But if you don't mind I'd like alittle more clarification on the second part! Completely agree. Just saying at longer ranges shells can arch into the deck if you were say completely parallel so for arguments sake if you are facing someone on your port side instead of bow in or angled you are theoretically giving them a bigger target yes? So you wouldn't want to be parallel to him until you are also in your effective firing range. Say your a light cruiser fighting a heavy cruiser with bigger guns. Your going to want to close the distance so your guns are effective then expose more yourself to fire(or run)? That's the basis of my argument. But yes its still the same math. Flatter trajectories just have to do with the velocity that the shell is fired at and what angle. So when I talked about propellent getting shells out farther then you would start to see them arc down more like a bullet at the end of its travel arc. I was just explaning But good points tho I'm pretty sure we agree on most just you don't like me using angling instead of maneuvering. I consider maneuvering more of changing speed as well as direction/ orientation to a target while closing or running away. LMK if I miss understood anything

Anytime bud

If your far enough away you can hit the top of something. That's why you cant shoot a gun straight up into the air gravity brings it down on someone's house. By your definition an 20mm,40mm, 76mm cannon isn't technically a "cannon" because they don't have a separate propellent base? They still follow the same laws of physics something goes up it comes down. It all depend on the angle its fired at and how fast the object will drop but all objects eventually start dropping. Which is why you adjust the angle up to make sure the shell or bullet hits the target. Naval ships obviously have more propellent so they can force a shell out farther. Please look at these diagrams and tell me how they are different? To me a rifle and a cannon follow the same physics. Historically even machine guns could be used to provide indirect fire even without line of sight by shooting at the correct angle. We use the same principles today with the mk40 grenade launcher. A gun shooting at a 3d object follows the exact same principles as an ship shooting a 3d object. I can get a bullet to land anywhere with enough of an angle and distance from target. But say if that object is turned at a 180 degree angle instead of a 30 degree angle to yourself yes I can hit the deck but I also have 150 degrees more surface area to hit in conjunction with the surface area of the deck. That's why hunter prefer to shoot at an animal when its showing its side rather than nose in because it provides more of an opportunity to hit something. Smaller angles mathematically = Smaller target If a ship coming towards you had a bow that is 20 square meters plus the deck of lets say 100 square meters total area to hit if the ship didn't have a superstructure (think a barge) the total area to hit is 120 square meters. Now if the ship was at a paralle course to you and lets say the side provides 120 meters plus the deck that's 220 square meters of area to theoretically hit. So changing the angle of a ship does actually does change the surface area a shell can hit.

Its up in the air unfortunately because of covid they pushed back some planned features. We as in the community are hoping for a campaign release of 2020. Also on July 20th they said this So home by Christmas boys we hope

Both of you are right I did make the argument on suitable bearings of attack being historically while also gripping that the AI does none of that even when guns are out. Essentially the AI seems to like 90 degree angles of attack and will either go completely perpendicular to the lead or whatever ship they are targeted to close the distance. Then once closed they then switch to practically parallel to engage with no other forms of tactical movements.

Okay first you can angle without losing guns on target. I've never been advocating for any lose of firepower unless the situation deemed it extremely important i.e. Spees fight where one of her guns initially didn't work so she turned out (so I guess no real lose of firepower but she also tried to keep the range). Unless she loses firepower to close the distance fast enough. I've been saying an admiral would not just kindly line up as a perfect parallel line to an enemy formation and slug it out. They would angle away (i.e. turn out) to reposition themselves in a more favorable way for the engagement either to close the distance or expand it while minimizing the target. And yes you can move towards or away from an enemy while keeping guns on target And as of right now the AI will either charge in blindly or present themselves at an angle that puts them at a disadvantage for no rhyme or reason other than to close the distance extremely fast or if you start the fight within spitting range they will just sail parallel to you. Hope that clears it up a bit but also what would be the difference between a sniper shooting at 2km or a cannon? The both have to account for the rotation of the earth, wind and weather, while also taking target size into the equation?

Just saw this now. Isn't that the AI just sending the ship to the back of the battle line? Also when they go to the back of the battle line it sometimes messed up the whole battle line. I don't know if you saw that.

O here we go again. I've got to paste a copy of a vertex with some rays here. You can angle to avoid fire, angle to present all your guns to a specific target, angle to move away without being completely broadside which has been my point. Because well hate to break it to you but that's what they did. They plot a course due to the heading of your ship and the enemy. Its almost like every warship ever made since the age of sail has had a map, a pencil, a compass, a mathematical compass and maybe protractor to use angles to plot courses and headings due to the bearing of an enemy ship to I don't know maybe angle appropriately to the enemy ships position? I have not disagreed with you at all about the importance of firing ranges and or importance of guns on target well because fights are decided that way. If you again bothered to actually read my posts just as much as you claim to love reading then you would have seen my post where I say this.... Which is what happened in the river plate with The fore gun out so this battle proves this statement right here. Explain to me why you would continue on a heading broadside to someone if it presents a bigger target while also providing no benefit with a turret out? In that little tidbit I'm also clearly complaining about the LACK OF AI MANUVERING and the fact that the AI just shows none of your let me quote you Because you know the AI right now does that. They seem to control their engagement range by just choosing the shortest path to an enemy ship and rushing in like a brain dead monkey and continuing bow in at some points even if all the AI's fore guns are knocked out. Go to this post since I don't feel like writing it out again where I talk about angling to present a proper broadside again which the AI doesn't do. I think you miss understand what I mean by kiting. Kiting is just a term I use when someone keeps the enemy at range and then proceeds to block there movement to a specific location which jellico did at the battle of Jutland by stopping the enemy fleet from returning to port but refusing to definitively engage. Also in the first picture you posted (5) 16:45 hrs, Beatty's battlecruisers move out of range of Hipper.(6) 16:54 hrs, Evan-Thomas's battleships turn north behind Beatty With this action they put themselves in a position to Kite or be chased by the main fleet and scouting fleet of the Germans. Essentially making them chase them which was the appropriate action because they wanted to drag the German high seas fleet out into combat with the rest of the battle fleet led by Jellico. Also you can see an actual example by Jellico here where he talks about the enemy actually maneuvering by turning away and I quote "The enemy constantly turned away and opened the range under cover of destroyer attacks and smoke screens as the effect of the British fire was felt, and the alterations of course had the effect of bringing the British Fleet (which commenced the action in a position of advantage on the bow of the enemy) to a quarterly bearing from the enemy battle line, but at the same time placed us between the enemy and his bases." https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/jutland_jellicoe.htm Essentially its just as you put it maneuvering which the AI does none of. Which goes back to my previous point of they just go broadside even your very own AI when you give an attack order completely burning there speed and also decreasing the accuracy of your own guns by making an extreme turn. In the example link I posted before you see prince of wales angle accordingly to Bismark during the battle of the Denmark straight not go completely broadside thus giving a bigger target to bismark. And Graf Spee at the river plate actively angles away to provide less of a target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait#/media/File:090102_PoW_gunnery_plot.png Also here is Graf Spee "kiting" away from enemy contacts during the battle of river plate. At the time stamps you can see that graf is actively trying to angle away from Achilles and ajax at first to give those ships "who had the majority of the firepower in terms of number of cannons" as little a target as possible to then focus its guns at Exeter to essentially fight as little people are possible while getting rid of the biggest threat to her. Which once she did she didn't capitalise on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Plate#/media/File:HMSO_Graf_Spee_battle_map.jpg This just supports my statement that the AI makes no engagement maneuvers what so ever to get out of fire range to re-position for another engagement or adjust fire on a side with the wind more advantageous for them. They just go broadside. Also when you say isolated instances I know an admiral doesn't go into a giant fleet battle thinking "im going to kite them away" That's not the point I was trying to make at all. Angling refers to how much a target you make yourself and historical admirals were very well aware of how to get all guns on target without completely going broadside which was my main point. The ships dont ANGLE properly they just go broadside which is a bug. If i can get all my guns on target at 45 degrees why am I sailing at 90 degrees to the enemy? It makes no sense what so ever so not only will you keep your speed and be able to continue to move away or pursue based on if the enemy is larger or smaller than you. Wait...maybe he angled away from them so he wouldn't hit them! Gosh and here I thought I had to keep my ships sailing at the same vector. You say the damn word angle and you get a bunch of people screaming WOWS and ThAt's NoT RiGhT. Guys you can angle away from a ship for range, angle to close, angle to present all your guns you don't need to be broadside. In the river plate he clearly saw the Exeter as the bigger threat which is why he ANGLED towards it to give it his attention. That was his target he gave him self a position to shoot it. He wasn't going to choose a single vector and stay on it for the whole battle to be out flanked. He will choose a vector based on each situation weather its a ship chasing him, shooting at him, or the one he's targeting to limit the chance of his ship being hit "By sailing away from the other 2 cruisers" while focusing fire on the other the bigger threat. I'm not imagining an captain yelling at his sailors to angle here. To forget the mathematics that went into every single battle is madness. They don't just grab the damn helmsman screaming angle. He gives him a vector that has been thought out to provide the most benefits and least risk to the ship. Also @Steeltrap http://globalmaritimehistory.com/battle-of-the-river-plate-part-iii-battle/ This is a good video if your interested where he talks about the battle and combatants which I'm sure you know. I'm done responding to this I feel you aren't understanding me or I you. I see most of your points but the fact remains angling while they might not say angling against was done. In the maneuvers they conducted or the ships they targeted. It all went through there head.

What's a bigger target the front or the side? Or maybe we could angle the ship to maximize firepower while limiting our size at the same time. Also my argument is you don't need to be broadside to get the most out of your guns. Also a rifle works just like a cannon........................

Your kidding right? While yes crossing the T is important you can cross a ships T without being at an 90 degree angle. And I hate to break it to you but distance and movement of ships DEFINETLY increases the difficulty of landing a hit and or how a warships crew calculated distance for targets. A smaller target is always smaller to hit because its SMALLER. At the battle of river plate I mentioned because if you look at the picture below with the time stamps you can see how he activly angled against 2 cruisers while positioning his ship to bring all guns to bear on another. This LIMITED the amount of fire he took while maximizing his damage.

I mean. I don't understand why people refuse to accept that a Captain would angle away from an enemy ship to present less of a target to an enemy. Which is why gun inclinations where important. Why fight at a 40 degree angle giving a bigger target to a superior ships for example if you can limit your target to 30 degrees and keep all guns on target

Not what I was referring to. Angling as in POS of enemy fleets in regards to engagements. i.e. not bring guns to bear or even having any semblance of a strategy when they go into the battle. Angling in combat is extremely important. In most instances in WW1 and WW2 battles commanders would angle to target specific ships more effectively while reducing the target presented to the enemy. I'm sure I've posted an analysis about battle of river plate and how Langsdorff used the POS of his ship to properly angle against enemy ships to reduce incoming fire while also keeping all his guns on target.

I've found the devs to be pretty good tbh. I report a bug its usually fixed in a patch or two, we gotta remember that while content is important we are beta testers for bugs and imbalances first. Content can always be added at a later date.