|
|
Post by tortugapower on Jan 20, 2022 20:06:54 GMT -6
The results obtained by torpedoes in the game are hugely influenced by how you, personally, handle destroyers in the game. Aggressive manual control of destroyers will result in a percentage of hits that is far above what was ever achieved historically. This advantage is so extreme that experienced players can probably win most battles using just their destroyer force under manual control...
Whaaaaaaat?? ??
Nonsense!!!
I can't imagine what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by ameriz on Jan 21, 2022 10:12:57 GMT -6
Since we will see technology up until 1970, we should see some early guided torpedoes right?
Or where those exclusive to submarines at the time?
|
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 21, 2022 10:31:41 GMT -6
Since we will see technology up until 1970, we should see some early guided torpedoes right? Or where those exclusive to submarines at the time? I think you'll find the gamut of torpedo techs will be represented, though don't expect to be able to steer your own torpedoes- that's what they pay Lieutenants for.  |
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Jan 22, 2022 22:29:00 GMT -6
As an aside, I've generally found with online polls that people tend to vote in a meta-manner which means that you can't really interpret the results directly.
I think that a lot of people will vote for "let's change!" with only a fuzzy idea of what that actually means. And then they may dislike it if the choice they voted for actually gets implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2022 5:56:17 GMT -6
While I welcome further torpedo development, more extensive changes would have to be made.
And to be frank, I find NWS team stubborn in their ways, and don't think I'll see what I feel to be necessary sweeping reforms.
|
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Mar 3, 2022 10:51:31 GMT -6
I'm not sure what the "decreased accuracy" means in practical game terms...
2 thoughts for offsetting increased torp range.
1. Increased dud rates for angled / bow hits? An allowance to be able to keep charging the enemy / close the range.
2. Decreased reliability (such that they have a much higher chance of disappearing mid run) / "accuracy" (how ever that is defined) in bad weather (ship speed limited to lets say 22 knots or lower) to represent the chance of a bad entry into the water or broaching on its run.
I'm not sold on increasing torp speeds at this time for the vanilla game. I agree very much that the DDs are too survivable, that ship 2ndary guns are inadequate to deal with them and that the DDs and CLs are far too damage resistant (I suspect that mid to late game HE doesn't do enough structural damage, captains and crews fight to the death more than they ought and that their is a lack of modeling for damage control deficiencies due to casualties). Additionally, the vanilla HP speed curve is rather high with correspondingly low ship speeds - when ship speeds are increased via Seawolf (or is it Zergs) speed mods than the current torps are awfully slow and the player created DDs and CLs tend to be able to close the range rather well as they tend to be focused fast torpedo boats.
Any change in torp speeds needs to be looked at within the larger context of ship survivability (damage model, HE value, 2ndary gun accuracy and fire rate), ship speeds, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainoverkill on Mar 14, 2022 16:01:47 GMT -6
Since we will see technology up until 1970, we should see some early guided torpedoes right? Or where those exclusive to submarines at the time? I think you'll find the gamut of torpedo techs will be represented, though don't expect to be able to steer your own torpedoes- that's what they pay Lieutenants for.  What about Kaiten style guidance system? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2022 22:01:45 GMT -6
I'm not sure what the "decreased accuracy" means in practical game terms... 2 thoughts for offsetting increased torp range. 1. Increased dud rates for angled / bow hits? An allowance to be able to keep charging the enemy / close the range. 2. Decreased reliability (such that they have a much higher chance of disappearing mid run) / "accuracy" (how ever that is defined) in bad weather (ship speed limited to lets say 22 knots or lower) to represent the chance of a bad entry into the water or broaching on its run. I'm not sold on increasing torp speeds at this time for the vanilla game. I agree very much that the DDs are too survivable, that ship 2ndary guns are inadequate to deal with them and that the DDs and CLs are far too damage resistant (I suspect that mid to late game HE doesn't do enough structural damage, captains and crews fight to the death more than they ought and that their is a lack of modeling for damage control deficiencies due to casualties). Additionally, the vanilla HP speed curve is rather high with correspondingly low ship speeds - when ship speeds are increased via Seawolf (or is it Zergs) speed mods than the current torps are awfully slow and the player created DDs and CLs tend to be able to close the range rather well as they tend to be focused fast torpedo boats. Any change in torp speeds needs to be looked at within the larger context of ship survivability (damage model, HE value, 2ndary gun accuracy and fire rate), ship speeds, etc. Its not that DD is too survivable, its that guns perform much worse than real life. It isn't merely that they shoot slower, secondaries like 6 inch have artificially shorter range than the real guns do, and accuracy is strongly tied to the range stat of each gun. Not only that, destroyers take less critical damage than unarmored ships ought to. Just by changing the values this problem is solved. |
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Mar 19, 2022 13:56:24 GMT -6
I'm not sure what the "decreased accuracy" means in practical game terms... 2 thoughts for offsetting increased torp range. 1. Increased dud rates for angled / bow hits? An allowance to be able to keep charging the enemy / close the range. 2. Decreased reliability (such that they have a much higher chance of disappearing mid run) / "accuracy" (how ever that is defined) in bad weather (ship speed limited to lets say 22 knots or lower) to represent the chance of a bad entry into the water or broaching on its run. I'm not sold on increasing torp speeds at this time for the vanilla game. I agree very much that the DDs are too survivable, that ship 2ndary guns are inadequate to deal with them and that the DDs and CLs are far too damage resistant (I suspect that mid to late game HE doesn't do enough structural damage, captains and crews fight to the death more than they ought and that their is a lack of modeling for damage control deficiencies due to casualties). Additionally, the vanilla HP speed curve is rather high with correspondingly low ship speeds - when ship speeds are increased via Seawolf (or is it Zergs) speed mods than the current torps are awfully slow and the player created DDs and CLs tend to be able to close the range rather well as they tend to be focused fast torpedo boats. Any change in torp speeds needs to be looked at within the larger context of ship survivability (damage model, HE value, 2ndary gun accuracy and fire rate), ship speeds, etc. Its not that DD is too survivable, its that guns perform much worse than real life. It isn't merely that they shoot slower, secondaries like 6 inch have artificially shorter range than the real guns do, and accuracy is strongly tied to the range stat of each gun. Not only that, destroyers take less critical damage than unarmored ships ought to. Just by changing the values this problem is solved. I think we are saying similar things. I agree on the light or medium guns being underpowered / too low of a volume of fire. Your statement on DD taking less critical damage than they should, is one way by which they can be too survivable. It might be the key means by which they are too survivable in that they get too many pass throughs and not enough turrets or engineering space hits. Taffy 3 really shouldn't be a standard for determining DD damage models as the Japanese were firing delayed fuse / AP rounds... I see DD's and CL's taking pretty significant broadsides in the mid to late game, two or three 14"-17" or high multiple 4"-8" hits and keep operating with a high efficiency (small reduction of speed, turrets and torpedo tubs generally still operate, fairly rare to damage the rudder for extended periods of time). Worst I have seen has been a CL taking something in the 40 range for combined medium and heavy gun hits before sinking due to a couple of torp hits - last ship sunk to end the battle. 1500+ ton DD's often take 15+ small or medium hits to sink. |
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Mar 19, 2022 18:31:53 GMT -6
If torpedo properties are changed, they should be changed to whatever accurately reflects the properties of historic torpedoes.
Others have commented that charging at an enemy fleet with torpedoes is often effective. The counters to this might be (1) make the AI more wary of enemy destroyers getting close, and (2) increasing the accuracy of secondary armament.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2022 19:14:18 GMT -6
Its not that DD is too survivable, its that guns perform much worse than real life. It isn't merely that they shoot slower, secondaries like 6 inch have artificially shorter range than the real guns do, and accuracy is strongly tied to the range stat of each gun. Not only that, destroyers take less critical damage than unarmored ships ought to. Just by changing the values this problem is solved. I think we are saying similar things. I agree on the light or medium guns being underpowered / too low of a volume of fire. Your statement on DD taking less critical damage than they should, is one way by which they can be too survivable. It might be the key means by which they are too survivable in that they get too many pass throughs and not enough turrets or engineering space hits. Taffy 3 really shouldn't be a standard for determining DD damage models as the Japanese were firing delayed fuse / AP rounds... I see DD's and CL's taking pretty significant broadsides in the mid to late game, two or three 14"-17" or high multiple 4"-8" hits and keep operating with a high efficiency (small reduction of speed, turrets and torpedo tubs generally still operate, fairly rare to damage the rudder for extended periods of time). Worst I have seen has been a CL taking something in the 40 range for combined medium and heavy gun hits before sinking due to a couple of torp hits - last ship sunk to end the battle. 1500+ ton DD's often take 15+ small or medium hits to sink. For Samar and Taffy 3: At 0721, the Yamato’s lookouts spotted the same cruiser they had seen at 0714 and opened fire
with her secondary battery. The Yamato then ordered the fleet to make a simultaneous turn to 90° true
at 0722. The Yamato’s logs read at 0725, “Open main battery gunfire on enemy cruiser.” The next
entry was at 0727, and it read, “Enemy cruiser warship, one count, hit and sinks.”First salvo (Johnston exits smoke and Yamato spots her), distance 20,300 yards, target ship USS Johnston. Six hits. USS Johnston damaged. 3 hits from main battery guns, 18.1 inch AP shells, 3 hits from secondary battery gun, 6.1 inch, AP. Johnston takes heavy damage and is crippled. Fire control for several turrets is down, electrical power is out, shell hoists disabled. Propulsion heavily damaged, ship reduced to manual steering. White Plains:0704: Straddled again. This salvo measured the carrier as
calipers, diagonally from port quarter to starboard bow, four shells dropping microscopically close
forward and aft. One of the latter two exploded below the surface under the port side of the stern.
... The vessel was shaken and twisted violently ... Steering control was lost, gyro and radar failed,
damage received in starboard
engine room and all lights were extinguished throughout the ship.
All electrical power was lost ...
Distance 34,587 yards, second 6 shell salvo, near miss! 18.1 inch AP, Yamato I think you should try Overpen mod, I do not think destroyers last particularly long in the mod. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Mar 23, 2022 2:38:28 GMT -6
I'm not sure what the "decreased accuracy" means in practical game terms... 2 thoughts for offsetting increased torp range. 1. Increased dud rates for angled / bow hits? An allowance to be able to keep charging the enemy / close the range. 2. Decreased reliability (such that they have a much higher chance of disappearing mid run) / "accuracy" (how ever that is defined) in bad weather (ship speed limited to lets say 22 knots or lower) to represent the chance of a bad entry into the water or broaching on its run. I'm not sold on increasing torp speeds at this time for the vanilla game. I agree very much that the DDs are too survivable, that ship 2ndary guns are inadequate to deal with them and that the DDs and CLs are far too damage resistant (I suspect that mid to late game HE doesn't do enough structural damage, captains and crews fight to the death more than they ought and that their is a lack of modeling for damage control deficiencies due to casualties). Additionally, the vanilla HP speed curve is rather high with correspondingly low ship speeds - when ship speeds are increased via Seawolf (or is it Zergs) speed mods than the current torps are awfully slow and the player created DDs and CLs tend to be able to close the range rather well as they tend to be focused fast torpedo boats. Any change in torp speeds needs to be looked at within the larger context of ship survivability (damage model, HE value, 2ndary gun accuracy and fire rate), ship speeds, etc. Decreased accuracy would just be adding more error to the aiming systems for torpedoes Aka when launched they have a higher bearing "error" (to account for firecontrol systems not being exactly accurate and torpedo drift). Totally agree on the (third ?) point ships especially smaller ones are far too survivable and with a proper speedmod (allowing somewhat realistic speeds) makes them EASILY able to outrun torpedoes, flank or get into a slippery position or just straight up escape Smoke is also hilariously strong |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Mar 23, 2022 2:44:09 GMT -6
I think we are saying similar things. I agree on the light or medium guns being underpowered / too low of a volume of fire. Your statement on DD taking less critical damage than they should, is one way by which they can be too survivable. It might be the key means by which they are too survivable in that they get too many pass throughs and not enough turrets or engineering space hits. Taffy 3 really shouldn't be a standard for determining DD damage models as the Japanese were firing delayed fuse / AP rounds... I see DD's and CL's taking pretty significant broadsides in the mid to late game, two or three 14"-17" or high multiple 4"-8" hits and keep operating with a high efficiency (small reduction of speed, turrets and torpedo tubs generally still operate, fairly rare to damage the rudder for extended periods of time). Worst I have seen has been a CL taking something in the 40 range for combined medium and heavy gun hits before sinking due to a couple of torp hits - last ship sunk to end the battle. 1500+ ton DD's often take 15+ small or medium hits to sink. For Samar and Taffy 3: At 0721, the Yamato’s lookouts spotted the same cruiser they had seen at 0714 and opened fire
with her secondary battery. The Yamato then ordered the fleet to make a simultaneous turn to 90° true
at 0722. The Yamato’s logs read at 0725, “Open main battery gunfire on enemy cruiser.” The next
entry was at 0727, and it read, “Enemy cruiser warship, one count, hit and sinks.”First salvo (Johnston exits smoke and Yamato spots her), distance 20,300 yards, target ship USS Johnston. Six hits. USS Johnston damaged. 3 hits from main battery guns, 18.1 inch AP shells, 3 hits from secondary battery gun, 6.1 inch, AP. Johnston takes heavy damage and is crippled. Fire control for several turrets is down, electrical power is out, shell hoists disabled. Propulsion heavily damaged, ship reduced to manual steering. White Plains:0704: Straddled again. This salvo measured the carrier as
calipers, diagonally from port quarter to starboard bow, four shells dropping microscopically close
forward and aft. One of the latter two exploded below the surface under the port side of the stern.
... The vessel was shaken and twisted violently ... Steering control was lost, gyro and radar failed,
damage received in starboard
engine room and all lights were extinguished throughout the ship.
All electrical power was lost ...
Distance 34,587 yards, second 6 shell salvo, near miss! 18.1 inch AP, Yamato I think you should try Overpen mod, I do not think destroyers last particularly long in the mod. Overpen does not fix the problem You shoot faster with secondaries sure but 250 rounds of ammo is not enough and you quickly run out Destroyers are as fast as ever and torpedoes still as effective and secondary accuracy low In addition to that most secondary's by 1940 in game (base game) shoot at 4 RPM and no matter what you cant make them shoot faster even with mods Overpen does not change damage from projectiles in any way its ONLY penetration and ROF for larger guns. Id like to note the ships in question were firing ARMOR PIERCING at johnston and other american destroyers on top of japanese AP having fuses designed for heavy cruisers and bigger and underwater travel (high fuse time) this means that projectiles would go straight through johnston without detonating. A HE projectile would explode on the surface of johnston and considering it has a guaranteed kill radius of 81 meters against aircraft (according to the american naval technical mission to japan and testing) would have shredded her hull. Johnston is not very large and would probably have her bow almost ripped off entirely by a 46cm HE projectile. where as 46cm AP would just make a 46cm hole through the ship (still bad but not as bad) There are several examples of american destroyers being crippled or disabled in less than 4-6, 5-6 inch hits |
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Mar 26, 2022 17:06:51 GMT -6
I'm not sure what the "decreased accuracy" means in practical game terms... 2 thoughts for offsetting increased torp range. 1. Increased dud rates for angled / bow hits? An allowance to be able to keep charging the enemy / close the range. 2. Decreased reliability (such that they have a much higher chance of disappearing mid run) / "accuracy" (how ever that is defined) in bad weather (ship speed limited to lets say 22 knots or lower) to represent the chance of a bad entry into the water or broaching on its run. I'm not sold on increasing torp speeds at this time for the vanilla game. I agree very much that the DDs are too survivable, that ship 2ndary guns are inadequate to deal with them and that the DDs and CLs are far too damage resistant (I suspect that mid to late game HE doesn't do enough structural damage, captains and crews fight to the death more than they ought and that their is a lack of modeling for damage control deficiencies due to casualties). Additionally, the vanilla HP speed curve is rather high with correspondingly low ship speeds - when ship speeds are increased via Seawolf (or is it Zergs) speed mods than the current torps are awfully slow and the player created DDs and CLs tend to be able to close the range rather well as they tend to be focused fast torpedo boats. Any change in torp speeds needs to be looked at within the larger context of ship survivability (damage model, HE value, 2ndary gun accuracy and fire rate), ship speeds, etc. Decreased accuracy would just be adding more error to the aiming systems for torpedoes Aka when launched they have a higher bearing "error" (to account for firecontrol systems not being exactly accurate and torpedo drift). Totally agree on the (third ?) point ships especially smaller ones are far too survivable and with a proper speedmod (allowing somewhat realistic speeds) makes them EASILY able to outrun torpedoes, flank or get into a slippery position or just straight up escape Smoke is also hilariously strong I forgot about smoke, it is incredibly strong even with radar FC. If accuracy is being defined by bearing error, which I'm reading as variation in the firing solution box, than I think there would need to be a change in the ship hit box or dodging die roll (at some ranges or angles like broadside vs. bow on) to warrant the increased variation in firing solution angles. My concern was if we were talking about the torpedo dodge roll or another mechanism. I'll tailor a few comments on the targeting angle adjustment. My thoughts are: 1. Short range, torps probably need to hit more often. Images below - I'm showing about 7 degrees of target-able ![]() angles at 600 yards which is kinda stupid high in my opinion (I think 1 degree covers around 5.2 feet at 100 yards so about 31.2 feet at 600 yards; so the 7 targeting degrees covers 210 feet for a roughly 600-700 foot BC at a max 26 knots at 600 yards - please correct the math)... In my current French game, about 1922, I've been seeing about a 6 degree variation in firing angle when I have a ship around 500 yards from a TP or CA or larger. (At some point, this seems to reduce down to about a 3-4 degree spread and I think I might be right on the cusp of that occurring.) In my opinion, when a broadside 15,000+ ton ship is fired upon at under 500 yards it should be hit rather consistently with even slow torps / few knots for closing speed for the torps. In game if the target ship is undamaged and at 20+ knots than their is a very high chance of only one or two of those angles providing a hit and a very low chance of multiple hits if firing multiple torps. At slower speeds, their is a much higher chance of multiple hits, I think due to a speed element being included in the torp dodge die roll. Ultimately, I think the torp dodge die roll probably needs reworking or removal at super short ranges for medium and larger ships. It is fairly rare to hit enemy DDs and CLs at short range with torps as they are generally maneuvering like mad.
2. Medium and Long range, ships have time and the ability to dodge, so I'm not sure how decreasing the accuracy would really address the need to balance increased torp speed. At longer ranges, lets say 1K or longer, I think the ships have a pretty good opportunity to zig and zag to avoid being hit. In reality, firing multiple torps, is designed to increase a hit chance by covering the area where a ship may be by the time the torps get their... In-game I'm seeing a lot of torps go behind the target ship. So I'm thinking their is already sufficient randomness (maybe too much if you are doing the torpedo training) in the targeting algorithm. Final thought is that I think the bearing angle adjustment / accuracy penalty would be most impactful at medium range 800 yards to about 2000 yards. I think the torp dodge roll is fine at medium or longer ranges where larger ships do have the time and sea space to make significant adjustments in their course and speed. Short range should probably be closer to torpedo menace that the Russians feared in 1904-1905 (high hit chance with very low chance to dodge simply as a result of not having time to make major corrections in speed or course, and 100 yard ship covers more degrees at closer ranges than at longer ranges...).
Image below is targeting angles (67-74) at 2100 yards with a moderately bow on shot, three torps were launched at 71 degrees and one hit and two passed astern.
As Christian noted, the point with Samar / Taffy 3 was that the Japanese were mostly firing delayed fused rounds, resulting in over-pens, and thus weren't causing critical damage to ships with HE effects. By many accounts, a properly fused HE round of 6" or greater would mission kill a good number of treaty CLs (Japanese 4th fleet incident showed very weak construction on their ships) and smaller ships within a few rounds. Mission kills can come from equipment loss but also loss of crew members and thus loss of moral along with efficiency in damage control and fighting capability. The latter (fighting capacity) seems to be rather limited to a couple of events in-game (splinters cut down secondary crew is the only event that comes to mind) and the others don't seem to be included from what I can see. (I'll add, that with the new captain system, if a captain lost a ship or two, I would like to see something along the lines of a "shell shocked" trait that makes signaling errors away from the enemy more prevalent to represent their reduced willingness to charge into battle.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2022 5:10:25 GMT -6
The purpose of my describing the damage was to point out that the Japanese AP rounds, not even HE, caused critical systems damage, and one shot, *missing its target* at ~30 km nearly split a CVL in half. The ship was rushed out of action for repairs and would be relegated to aircraft transport for the rest of its life.
|
|
_(edited)_Screenshot_(739).png?width=180&height=180&fit=bounds)
