Superstructure: Long range accuracy perks

[Sir. Cunningham]

I noticed something puzzling whilst looking at the stats for the superstructures of the various nations' BBs the other day;

For some reason the Japanese & US BB superstructures provide a higher Long Range Accuracy bonus than that of Germany & Britains. I find this a bit strange as for example the FCS on Japanese ships definitely weren't as complex as those on German BBs, which in turn were atleast on par with that on the US Iowa class. Infact AFAIK the Japanese FCS was based on British designs.

Thus if anything it seems it would make more sense that the highest tier German & US BB superstructures applied the highest long range accuracy bonuses, as I understand they were about equal historically.

 

Just a slight annoyance.

[madham82]

There's a lot of balancing that hasn't been implemented yet. Most of the hulls/guns/etc... we have today are the direct result of the missions in Naval Academy. Technically for a sandbox campaign, an equivalent tower should be available for all nations which research should unlock. Probably one of those things that won't happen until we get to Beta. 

[Skeksis]

Probably the beginnings of different nation traits, which IMO is the right way to go, the game doesn't want every nation tech to be exactly the same, players should be able to play every nation differently, build different types of ships, this gives the game long term repeatable content, better for us.

[madham82]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Probably the beginnings of different nation traits, which IMO is the right way to go, the game doesn't want every nation tech to be exactly the same, players should be able to play every nation differently, build different types of ships, this gives the game long term repeatable content, better for us.

I think we are on the same page, but traits and components should not be the same. In the OP's issue, any nation with research unlocked should be able to build an equivalent tower. Now a national bonus of 5% to long range accuracy would apply to all their towers, not one specific. We are a long ways away from having enough nation specific components, so it would only make sense to apply bonus to components based on national traits (bonus) 

Starting finances, infrastructure, ships in service, geography, and such will also make the nations very different to play.

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

Personally, I think national traits should develop from the way you play.

For example, if you always build heavily armored ships and focus R&D on armor (I'm assuming we have some influence on where to put focus in R&D), then, over time, you would get a bonus to your armor quality.

If you build mainly very fast ships and invest in engine research a lot, you would get a bonus to your engine technology.

You like big guns, put always the largest guns possible on your ships and invest heavily in even bigger guns? You probably should get a bonus to big guns, be it ROF, accuracy or damage.

I would much prefer such a system instead of the US always having a bonus to damage control and Japan on torpedoes. You'd have to _work_ for those bonuses and they could be different every game, depending on what you do.

[madham82]

9 hours ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

Personally, I think national traits should develop from the way you play.

For example, if you always build heavily armored ships and focus R&D on armor (I'm assuming we have some influence on where to put focus in R&D), then, over time, you would get a bonus to your armor quality.

If you build mainly very fast ships and invest in engine research a lot, you would get a bonus to your engine technology.

You like big guns, put always the largest guns possible on your ships and invest heavily in even bigger guns? You probably should get a bonus to big guns, be it ROF, accuracy or damage.

I would much prefer such a system instead of the US always having a bonus to damage control and Japan on torpedoes. You'd have to _work_ for those bonuses and they could be different every game, depending on what you do.

I like that idea too. You could have a campaign option to switch between historical traits or not, much like the thought between historical events toggle.

[RUSS663]

A

3 hours ago, IronKaputt said:

That and incoming shells whistle.

 

 

On 8/28/2020 at 12:22 AM, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

Personally, I think national traits should develop from the way you play.

For example, if you always build heavily armored ships and focus R&D on armor (I'm assuming we have some influence on where to put focus in R&D), then, over time, you would get a bonus to your armor quality.

If you build mainly very fast ships and invest in engine research a lot, you would get a bonus to your engine technology.

You like big guns, put always the largest guns possible on your ships and invest heavily in even bigger guns? You probably should get a bonus to big guns, be it ROF, accuracy or damage.

I would much prefer such a system instead of the US always having a bonus to damage control and Japan on torpedoes. You'd have to _work_ for those bonuses and they could be different every game, depending on what you do.

A lot of what you are suggesting could be implemented thru crew training and development. Your captain and senior ratings etc 

I do agree with nations having special bonus for historical content. Ie japan and night fighting.  US and British radar etc

Russ663

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

On 10/15/2020 at 4:56 PM, RUSS663 said:

A

 

A lot of what you are suggesting could be implemented thru crew training and development. Your captain and senior ratings etc 

I do agree with nations having special bonus for historical content. Ie japan and night fighting.  US and British radar etc

Russ663

I would be fine with historical boni being implemented as an option, like, at a game's start, you can tick a check-box for "historical advantages" so nations gain the boni they had historically but if you _don't_ check that box, then nobody gains any boni unless they develop them..

I would be opposed to those boni being hard coded without any way to remove/change them.

I mean, I'm pretty sure there isn't a law of nature that states that the IJN simply _has_ to develop the Long Lance and simply _has_ to train excessively in night combat. The IJN developed those techniques because they developed a doctrine that favored night engagements to whittle down a superior fleet before engaging it with their battle-line. Let's say I go for a jeune ecole approach as Japan and build mostly cruisers, why would I get a night combat advantage instead of, I don't know, a maneuverability advantage, since that is what I trained my navy over the last two decades?