Upcoming Alpha-5

[Shaftoe]

14 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Yeah it could say something like 'Super Battleship IJN Aki has been abandoned due to engines being destroyed!' Or 'CA Minotaur has been scuttled due to weapon destruction!' something along those lines basically.

Then it's very important to leave scuttling option to player. Otherwise, ships will automatically scuttle in combat situations, where they still could have been useful. In other words, you do not abandon a perfectly battleworthy battleship in the middle of combat due to engine failure. You keep fighting while you can. 

[Cptbarney]

26 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

Then it's very important to leave scuttling option to player. Otherwise, ships will automatically scuttle in combat situations, where they still could have been useful. In other words, you do not abandon a perfectly battleworthy battleship in the middle of combat due to engine failure. You keep fighting while you can. 

Yeah, i know they were just examples. Myself i wouldn't bother to scuttle ships anyways especially if they are outdated anyways.

Also we have no clue, if we can capture enemy ships so seems like a moot point until the game develops further in the future and introduces the mechanic (which im sure they will but still).

Edited March 13, 2020 by Cptbarney

[Marshall99]

When you and your friend are waiting for the next update.

[Cptbarney]

guess next week it is, not sure if they update on weekends.

[Shaftoe]

22 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

guess next week it is, not sure if they update on weekends.

I sure hope they do!

[Cptbarney]

25 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

I sure hope they do!

Well with whatever needs fixing, probs take awhile.

[Joryl]

1 hour ago, Shaftoe said:

I sure hope they do!

I think they want to be available to hotfix something gamebreaking so probably next week 😞  I am soo excited to play it.

[Bluishdoor76]

they should name this update "Alpha-5 The Big Reeeee" :D

[Hangar18]

5 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Yeah it could say something like 'Super Battleship IJN Aki has been abandoned due to engines being destroyed!' Or 'CA Minotaur has been scuttled due to weapon destruction!' something along those lines basically.

I would be alarmed if a crew scuttled a ship for either of those reasons. especially for the guns. but even with engines out, theres a chance to recover the ship.

11 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

 

 

The trouble is somewhat complicated.

Reality was that hits were infrequent at range. Thus the most important factor was giving yourself every chance TO HIT.

That meant being a stable platform, and firing all your guns as often as possible.

In the game, however, that's not the case. Scoring hits is remarkably easy against most targets, especially BB on BB. In fact the accuracy numbers for very long range with radar are frankly insane.

Thus damage mitigation becomes more important. If I can hit you firing 4 or 8 guns, but facing you at an angle means your hits are much less likely to damage me even IF it means I can only fire 4 guns, that's what makes sense.

With bloated hit rates the game needs to do something to make combat last longer than 3 minutes.

So we have the current system that, as @Hangar18 has said, starts to resemble WoWS. "Angling" and HE become far more relevant.

Trouble is no ship mounting large calibre naval rifle fires HE at a properly armoured target because it's well understood HE in all probability will NOT be likely to reach critical areas. Jellicoe himself said exactly that in his 'combat instructions' for want of a better term; he felt HE might rearrange the upper works and cause some issues and loss of effectiveness, but it was inside 10,000yds that he expected the real damage to be done WITH AP (the fact their AP had such poor performance was a different matter).

Given someone mentioned the Battle of Denmark Strait, the current game would tend to encourage Bismarck to fire HE at the oncoming Hood and Prince of Wales. Had she done so, however, no deck and magazine penetration, no catastrophic loss.

I all but know there's little point firing at a BB that is facing me bow/stern on, or at a steep angle. I might shoot HE at it if it's the only target. But I know I'm highly unlikely to achieve much until the ships shows me its broadside.

The trouble is this is rewarding me for tactical behaviour at odds with naval practice at the time. Being bow or stern on in a capital ship in a battle was a result of wanting to alter the range, not a question of reducing damage.

My view is the damage and armour systems are still very much works in progress. If the near-final systems continue all but to necessitate behaviour entirely at odds with actual naval doctrine then I will be extremely unhappy.

I have said elsewhere it's the damage/armour/damage control aspects I regard as the greatest issues for the success of the game. I've not a lot of interest in playing, regardless of all the new hulls (and I find the focus on late-game, 'modern' hulls rather underwhelming considering how the bulk of the period covered is pre-1930), precisely because of these things.

Yet it's only v5 of Alpha. They're nowhere near finished. So I'm not overly troubled given there's so much scope for change.

Cheers

not sure about the IRL hit rates, so i cant say. but this would be my guess.

[Dirlinger]

23 minutes ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

they should name this update "Alpha-5 The Big Reeeee"

This is why in the company I work for we don't inform about new software features unless the release is already being approved and blessed by QA and pilots. Then the sales/marketing is allowed to speak about the new "cool" stuff.

The owners learned this the tough way way back when they started the company.

[Fuems]

"The man walked to the end of the dock every morning and said: Goddamn it Nick, there's supposed to be a French Super Battleship here"

[KiltedKey]

2 hours ago, Dirlinger said:

This is why in the company I work for we don't inform about new software features unless the release is already being approved and blessed by QA and pilots. Then the sales/marketing is allowed to speak about the new "cool" stuff.

The owners learned this the tough way way back when they started the company.

We shall wait for the Arch-Magos to tell us it is safe. To doubt the wisdom of the ancients his heresy. 

[Steeltrap]

19 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Maybe it's just me, but do you have this sneaking suspicion that while end on, ships are harder to hit than the percentage indicator suggests (thus relatively easy to hit while broadside)?

I've looked for this many times and haven't any clear data on it. One thing I do know (the damage model data mined thread showed it) is you're far more likely to suffer tower and funnel damage from fire received over a 60 degree centred on the bow, so 30 degrees each side. I will often turn secondary guns on such targets and force HE because that IS damage that can have a significant impact on combat effectiveness, indeed arguably the main ways of doing so (that and KO main guns, which is relatively rare).

15 hours ago, madham82 said:

1. If this is true, the issue would be present when not bow/stern on as well. Plunging hits have to be doing some damage to lower decks otherwise you would never get an ammo detonation against a BC/BB at those ranges. Now maybe it isn't fully fleshed out, but has to be some modeling of it in the game's current state..... I agree better simulation of the armored decks is needed. Even if a plunging hit didn't damage the vitals because the armored deck stopped, it should be doing some structural damage. 

 

2. You nailed it. However I kind of see the high accuracy as part of trying to achieve a balance between fun and realism. Sure it isn't realistic, but I don't think 3 or 4 hour engagements that result in few ships sunk or damaged would be fun. Could things be improved, sure. Historically most engagements ended in one side withdrawing.  IMO this should be worked into the game. Some of the missions that force you to sink X ships are unrealistic, especially when the AI can simply turn tail and make it impossible to sink them. Forcing the enemy to withdraw should be counted as victory. 

1. Yes. We've had many discussions of this, and the fact is things have improved somewhat with each version. We had the really bad situation where the 16-18" guns firing HE shells were by far the most devastating. A plunging AP shell would bounce or partial pen, the an HE fired in the next salvo would wreck multiple compartments all the way down to the keel. Really silly, but clearly a reflection of the system at the time. I don't like the whole "structural kill" mechanism, but more on that later.

2. Yes, the inflated hit rates are clearly for that purpose. Most people won't know just how low common hit rates were, all the way up to WW2, unless you closed to much lower ranges or there was something else unusual (as an aside, I don't think the penalty for being stopped is great enough; it made a very significant difference if one target is moving slowly while the other isn't; just look at the last 'battle' with Bismarck where her main guns were KO'd within about 20 minutes and she took an astounding amount of hits). We've all discussed this, too, and have no problem with the idea of increased hit rates for the sake of less "die-hard realism" players and thus success of the game. The consequences, as I said, is it forces the damage model to move away from more 'realism' as a consequence.

14 hours ago, madham82 said:

You could make that work by having the ship scuttled/abandoned at X% or even better, when it's main weapons/engines/steering/other vitals are all destroyed. Maybe create some kind of value for combat effectiveness and use that to determine it. 

While I understand the reasons for the thinking, see below.

13 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

Then it's very important to leave scuttling option to player. Otherwise, ships will automatically scuttle in combat situations, where they still could have been useful. In other words, you do not abandon a perfectly battleworthy battleship in the middle of combat due to engine failure. You keep fighting while you can. 

Absolutely this.

I and others have discussed these ideas before (what haven't we? lol).

Bear in mind we're fighting battles with no consequences beyond the battle itself. Once we're within a campaign setting, a ship that is going to be a nightmare to return to a friendly base, assuming it's even possible, will be a significant drain on resources. We'll have to tie up dry dock/shipyard facilities for ages, pay loads to do repairs, pay for maintenance (although one would hope it's reduced in some respects as the crew would be removed etc), and thus there are a TON of "opportunity costs" associated.

In short, even if you CAN get a ship back to friendly facilities, there will have to be a tipping point at which the costs/benefits favour not doing so. Rescuing the crew ought to be a thing, and there might even be a possibility of bringing a ship back for salvage as opposed to repairs.

That's before we consider the battle situation. Given Bismarck is the obvious worst case, there was concern on the part of Tovey as to whether they would have to leave her given ammunition was becoming a critical problem. Illustrates the value of having CAs and DDs with torps. I doubt it's ever going to be the case something will be wrecked but not sunk once we're in the campaign setting without artificial timers and the like.

It's because of that, incidentally, I do NOT like the "kill the structure HP and the ship sinks" mechanic. While there were cases of terrible structural damage and fires, to the best of my knowledge they weren't what destroyed ships.

Ships sink because of loss of positive buoyancy, period. Just how that happens can be for all sorts of reasons, but usually it's torpedoes, mines, or catastrophic explosions (usually magazines of course). If the ship becomes uninhabitable for the crew, that might cause them to take steps to scuttle their ship. Yet there are well known cases of crews evacuating only to find their ship didn't sink as expected (CV Yorktown at Midway from memory, for example), or taking off much of the crew other than specific damage control teams.

The introduction of a crew system and experience and the like will itself be a pretty big deal, and no doubt is going to need a fair bit of testing to get "right enough" if done well (which I'm sure is intended).

At some point I expect the damage model to advance beyond a crude "structure loss" or "excessive fires", although as I said the latter can cause crew abandonment etc.

We'll just have to wait for a more in depth model, especially around crew and damage control capacity, not to mention things like rapid loss of stability due to flooding. That last one is vital as we know from various reports etc that the first 10 minutes after a significant flooding issue, usually torpedo or detonating a mine, were the most crucial. I know the USN put out various studies that resulted in warnings/instructions and changes to designs and damage control doctrines as a result of real world events (such as some cases where BBs and other ships were torpedoed in the Guadalcanal campaign.

It's all fertile ground for discussions. I'm sure Nick and co are well aware of it, and have plans accordingly.

I suspect we're suffering from "we've played enough with these mechanics, give us new ones". Inevitable, but a good thing as I see it as proof we're all enjoying the ride and are encouraging (a polite way of putting it 🙃) our hard working and friendly dev team.

Patience is a PITA sometimes, LOL.

Cheers all.

[Steeltrap]

Mid you, the fact that there isn't a "proper" citadel model with magazines placed 'outside' a properly armoured transverse bulkheads can produce some unfortunate consequences from going "bow on".

A 2"/50mm hit from 4.2km did this to a CL charging me. 😲

Gun's damage is listed as 30.

Did 864 damage through 7" magazine explosion, straight through the bow.

I'd say that's a pretty good return on a minimal investment. 😎

It's easy to poke fun at the current system, and I mean it solely for entertainment. It did make me laugh, however.

If I were a CL with max effective armour of 1.6mm I'd probably NOT charge a BC that's going faster than I can, making it impossible to torpedo unless I'm approaching it more or less head on (it was coming from pretty much 90 degrees off my port beam).

I don't care how magical I think my travelling smoke screen is. 😃

 

 

Edited March 14, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Skeksis]

Biggest bug in the world...

But Nicks one is bigger!!!

Edited March 14, 2020 by Skeksis

[Steeltrap]

 4 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Biggest bug in the world...

But Nicks one is bigger!!!

That's rather terrifying.

You seem to have an endless supply of amusing (if sometimes disturbing) pics and gifs.

I'm going to PM Nick and ask him to delay the next one by a few days, too. The entertainment to be found in this thread is worth it.

😎

[Shaftoe]

1 hour ago, Steeltrap said:

I'm going to PM Nick and ask him to delay the next one by a few days, too. The entertainment to be found in this thread is worth it.

😎

When you mysteriously disappear, nobody will ever find your body...

[Erwin_the_fox]

Will there be an emergency reverse "gear" to slow down a bit faster, especially when it comes to the battleships?

[Cptbarney]

Alpha reee the big 5.

 

[Cptbarney]

It should be here soon lads just hang on for a few moar days (so monday-wednesday)!

[Shaftoe]

8 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

It should be here soon lads just hang on for a few moar days (so monday-wednesday)!

What is the basis for this assumption?

[nimbalo500]

me waiting for update

[Quigglebert]

4 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Mid you, the fact that there isn't a "proper" citadel model with magazines placed 'outside' a properly armoured transverse bulkheads can produce some unfortunate consequences from going "bow on".

A 2"/50mm hit from 4.2km did this to a CL charging me. 😲

Gun's damage is listed as 30.

Did 864 damage through 7" magazine explosion, straight through the bow.

I'd say that's a pretty good return on a minimal investment. 😎

It's easy to poke fun at the current system, and I mean it solely for entertainment. It did make me laugh, however.

If I were a CL with max effective armour of 1.6mm I'd probably NOT charge a BC that's going faster than I can, making it impossible to torpedo unless I'm approaching it more or less head on (it was coming from pretty much 90 degrees off my port beam).

I don't care how magical I think my travelling smoke screen is. 😃

 

 

Look up the battle of Samar, one US DD with bollocld the size of the yamato

 

Here's a friendly link for you

 

[Dan Dare]

 

 

dear Steeltrap...fully dissagree with your view of scuttling a vessel...afaik, the scuttling by the crew of a navy vessel had only happened if there was a danger of she being captured or to speed up the inevitable if you are being pursued by enemy forces. If not, she "must" come back home ...apart from that matter of honor and prestige of a navy (you know, those crazy navy guys have a tendency to sunk with their ships) there is also the ecomomics that you mentioned...here i do also dissagree with your point of view, if feasible (a thing that you only know when she is in the drydock), repairing a vessel is much shorter in time than building a new one, and even more in the period this game is focused ...even if the cost of repair vs build is the same it will bring you a vessel back in line in a shorter period... the dock space and time, belive me is not that much...you give her flotability and lay her on a pier for repairs...

the scuttling thing from my point of view is as if it is already implemented on the enemy side...you only have to think that when she sunks is cause their crew scuttled her and that's all...on the friend side, if I´m the admiral and somebody scuttle one of my ship in the middle of a battle, there will be no martial court...just a bullet in the front of the b*?t*rd's head....if you want to scuttle her afterwards...well...i guess the game has to have something that helps you in that matter, like a scrapping option or similar, if not we will end  up with some 1890s BB in the 40s, and thats beyond any modernization capabillity... unless you use them as monitors.

IMHO, the  problem we face in the game is not to scuttle or not to scuttle but enemy ships that we have almost sunk  and are shooting at us as if there is no damage on them at all...is not that they shall not fire at all...they should fire ala chester in jutland...but.. they are firing with all guns and reloading as brend new!!! (of course the same happens on the friend side)

so basis on the above, is how damage is modeled what matters here and maybe the game should introduce things that downgrade the quantity of guns a massively damaged vessel could operate.

so maybe will be good if the game introduce things like:

a) flooding colateral effect: guns should not be able to shoot (at least sideways) when the listing of the vessel pass certain angle...so no more firing stbd with a 45º port listing...not only cause of the depression of the gun, if it was not enough, but the cranes and elements to feed the gun shouldn't work quite well...if they recover great...so, then it comes counterflooding, that thing that if you do in some cases will sunk your ship...or impair your capability of suffering additional damage...

b) fire collateral effect: a fire that affects the supossed area of the magazines could only bring two things...a big BOOOM, or the flooding of the magazine by the crew if they care for their lives, both cases (supposing it survives the explosion) should render the affected gun/s inoperative

c) crew casualties: at some high % the vessel should turn somehow ineffective, focus should be given to sailing away and firefight/repair teams. Cookers could help on firing guns but then it should affect their efectiveness...and so and so

just some ideas..

[Maty83]

Well, I just got the chase problem again. I was chasing a BB with my speed being around about 3kts faster than the enemy... Who started running at 70% Hull HP. Despite me trying everything-even HE to crack open his can, I couldn't damage him until I closed to around 3km (After a good hour of chasing). Even then the ship stubbornly refused to budge even a little, rendering my AP shells useless. Could there be some wear-and-tear mechanic as large shells hit certain areas? I finished a 3h mission only 5 minutes before a timer ran out due to a slower, less powerfuls ship I had as an objective simply refusing to slow down even when 14" HE and AP was raining on her stern.