|
Post by christian on Apr 16, 2020 6:12:00 GMT -6
while the game seems to accurately represent naval warfare from 1900 to 1955 BUT i feel there are some very glaring issues which need to be fixed which can not as of this moment be fixed with modding if the game remained as is but more modding options were added i would not have a problem as those who wished to as faithfully recreate real life battles could do it by editing their game and modding it a bit the main problems right now mostly stem from hard coded features/things which modders have no control over and severely limits them i was unsure where to post this so il post it here since it incorporates a bit of bug reporting and suggestions i do understand that currently there is alot to do with the missile update i just hope you will keep these issues in mind and not forget them so at some point they can be fixed for a better experience playing the game (unlike what happend with armor weight which still has not been changed ever since the super small fix in update 1.03) 1)the rate of fire limit the game has does not allow any gun to fire beyond 4 rounds per minute as showed in my thread about it on modding nws-online.proboards.com/thread/4739/increase-rate-fire-cap-15this for me is a major major irritation it completely warps the balance of naval ships and makes ships such as destroyers far too powerful (secondaries have insane trouble dealing with them with so low rate of fire and as a result low damage output) addition to that it changes the time to kill on ships dramatically lowering it by atleast half if not more it is possible to make large guns fire at their realistic rates of fire (10 inchers +) but smaller guns cannot fire faster than 4 rounds per minute no matter what you do it would be nice if if was changed to 20-30 so modders could have more freedom (OR REMOVED INTIRELY if possible) 2) armor weight seems to have problems i wont say anything about this topic further except that it seems its about 33% too heavy this was taken from nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2345/armor-large-ships-scale-volumenws-online.proboards.com/thread/2236/math-problem-build-yamato?page=3&scrollTo=46783RTW discord users have also done some calculations from irl armor weight checking there is probably a good idea (i believe jababa did some research on it) 3)it seems ship tonnage from 13700 tons to 18000 tons scales wrongly nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2341/larger-displacement-result-lighter-armor18000 ton CAs save alteast 40% belt armor weight over a sub 15000 ton cruiser this makes the intire AIs cruiser fleet obsolete before it is even built docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AdN_X5YdOrwntv7yBFaP9Q6WKSV2Bk9KR4NEZFW3grY/edit#gid=0calculations from 8000 tons to 20000 tons with 21 and 27 knot bcs credit to EmpororOfFinland#9257 on discord 4)ships with bugged horsepower can still be built i.imgur.com/6tvtlMp.pngcertain weights combined with certain speeds give bugged horsepower ratios which means ships can achieve very high speeds with very little machinery weight the drawbacks of this is their acceleration is poor but this still should not be possible although it is fixed with the use of a mod (linked) nws-online.proboards.com/thread/3349/release-tonnage-speed-based-quadratic5)torpedoes currently cannot be edited in the files as far as im aware this means we are stuck with the torpedo performance put into the game this is quite annoying as it prevents us from modding torpedoes (specifically torpedo research ends before 1935 in game and we cant mod it to make them more powerfull to account for post 1935 as we can edit gun parameters i do not see why torpedoes have been locked down and it would be very appreciated if they could be modded 6)allowing us to give certain guns traits and "fix" some guns as of right now the 2 inch gun is unable to be used as either dual purpose or an autoloader it would be appreciated if modders had the ability to give guns the traits allowing guns to use autoloaders and or have the dual purpose mode 7)inability to see OR modify bomb penetration on either AP or SAP bombs 8)we cant choose bomb types when preparing for a strike (SAP AP or HE) 9)we cant change SAP penetration despite the fact we can change AP penetration in the hpen and vpen files it is possible its a modifier of the penetration and scales with the penetration although we dont know if this is the case as we cant see sap pen values 10) ability to mod aa effectiveness exactly as it says ability to change the parameters of AA mounts whether heavy light or medium (or director) this would allow modders to "fix" medium AA and make the 0 MAA maximum LAA meta less potent 11)ability to change possesion base resource generation each possesion has an amount of base resources it gives the nation occupying it i have been unable to find any way to change this amount of see what the amount is per possesion an ability to see and change it in the files would be nice most of it boils down to the fact most of the info about the game is hard coded and people who want to edit the files for a changed game experience either cant or something is hardcoded which prevents it (rate of fire torpedo performance bomb performance armor weight armor curves and so on all) I understand it would take alot of time to fix alot of these problems and some are very hard to change (4 rof cap is one i would expect to take alot of work to fix) and make more of the game more available (modding wise) to people who wish to mod it but i think it would be a very nice improvement for the people who mod it and also for players who want to change their game experience a bitand i also understand alot of other things are in the works (missiles and so on) so most of the things suggested/bugs should not be an immediate priority but it would still be nice to see in the future (Also yes its technically possible to make a mod which can change the hardcoded things but so far only one person seems to be capable of it and his mod is for RTW-1 only and he seems to only play rtw-1)
|
|
krawa
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by krawa on Apr 16, 2020 7:01:28 GMT -6
On 3)
I guess this comes from the fact that RTW uses only 1 parameter (displacement) to define the size of a ship. If all possible ships for a given size have a roughly similiar shape (length/width/draft) you don't need more, but the range between 14k-18k tons covers ships as different as 17kn 1900 Battleship and a 33kn 1940 Heavy Cruiser...
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 16, 2020 7:53:43 GMT -6
On 3) I guess this comes from the fact that RTW uses only 1 parameter (displacement) to define the size of a ship. If all possible ships for a given size have a roughly similiar shape (length/width/draft) you don't need more, but the range between 14k-18k tons covers ships as different as 17kn 1900 Battleship and a 33kn 1940 Heavy Cruiser... armor weight is dependent on speed and horsepower if a ship is below 21 knots the armor weight is completely different (but still lighter at 18000 than 13700) but yeah i think they are trying to differentiate between the 2 (why not just do it with ship class though i dont understand)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2021 11:47:50 GMT -6
Bump. This needs to be addressed quickly.
|
|
|
Post by sjpc302 on Jun 13, 2021 9:59:14 GMT -6
I agree with this broadly. Some things I might note on some of the points though:
1) While I haven't done exhaustive testing I have rarely seen ships hit that ROF cap even with autoloaders. Generally ROF at engagement ranges for all calibers tends to fall roughly between 0.5-1.8 rounds per minute, with heavy guns on the lower end and lighter guns on the higher end. People have pointed out before that ROF for guns could be increased across the board; there is much room between their in-game performance and theoretical maximum that should have a point that is more realistic and rewarding. I think this would be a good change along with torpedo changes, since the AI is really good at avoiding them. A better balance would be higher ROF for guns while nerfing the AI's ability to dodge torpedoes. Overall lethality is increased across the board while keeping both weapons relevant.
2)/4) I have also noticed this with engine weight vs horsepower looking up some historical ships, but I am not to well versed on the subject.
5) Torpedo effectiveness seems to be less bound by their actual physical performance but rather the AI and player's ability to have a "sixth sense" for them. The player might be caught out by faster/longer range torpedoes, but I suspect the AI would not. I find torpedoes are plenty effective if you maneuver such that the AI has literally no possible opportunity to evade torpedoes coming from multiple vectors, but this encourages captain's mode heavily.
6) I think that the 2-inch guns included in RTW are more meant to allow for the early anti-torpedo boat guns that were on some ships, and honestly are mostly for RP purposes. Those later guns might be better modeled as late MAA.
7) I agree, once AP bombs are unlocked deck armor is redundant since you need ~7 inches to actually be immune to most bombs.
8) This might not be helpful since AP bombs can still sink destroyers with near misses in this game, and some people already seem overwhelmed with the carrier interface. On a side note, some ability to influence land-based air however could be nice. I find I still employ fleet carriers in cramped seas near my home areas because I can't count on land based air to actually engage the enemy with any consistency.
9) Penetration in general seems a bit odd honestly. I get that angling plays a large part in why lighter armor might not be penetrated. However, the bounds of the RNG seem too high. I regularly see my modern BB's with 18in inclined belt (20in effective) B* penetrated 30% of all B hits at ranges where the enemies guns only have 14in belt penetration. I feel like the maximum variation needs to be reduced.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 13, 2021 16:54:41 GMT -6
Rate of fire is... well, it is complex and somewhat fraught. Guns rarely engaged in maximum rate of fire, and when they did it was for fairly short periods of time. Usually for the main battery there were cycles of ranging shots (whether partial or full-battery) followed by full-battery all-out cycles, followed by more ranging shots. If you calculate the number of rounds fired in a WW1 or WW2 engagement you may come away thinking that it was not many rounds fired given the time the forces were in contact - or that rate of fire was somewhat slow. This is because of the rnage-fire for effect-range cycles, and because there may be guns unable to fire, part of the battery blocked or a need to change the ammunition in use. Anyway, the TLDR is: ships' batteries do not fire at maximum rate for long periods of time, and therefore the actual rate of fire is always somewhat low. What you see in RtW2 is closer to actual firing rate than maximum firing rate and therefore is closer to reality and historicity than to 'spray and pray'. In general, the need to conserve ammunition for another time trumps the desire to blaze away at maximum ROF. You shoot what is effective - because the bullet you save will very likely be needed tomorrow. Or in the next hour... And, yes - DDs were hard to hit with capital ship guns and secondary guns. See also: the action of the DDs and DEs against the Japanese battle line off Samar. expendable - the one guy who codes all this is working on the next update. No doubt he also has to work a day job, eat and sleep. We can be patient or not - but it ain't going to happen any faster than it happens.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 13, 2021 21:25:29 GMT -6
9) Penetration in general seems a bit odd honestly. I get that angling plays a large part in why lighter armor might not be penetrated. However, the bounds of the RNG seem too high. I regularly see my modern BB's with 18in inclined belt (20in effective) B* penetrated 30% of all B hits at ranges where the enemies guns only have 14in belt penetration. I feel like the maximum variation needs to be reduced. Need to check this, I was under the impression that the range for penetration was +/-20%, which means a gun with a nominal penetration of 14 inches can, depending on the roll, penetrate 11.2" - 16.8", suggesting it really shouldn't have penetrated that belt. Even a few more penetration techs shouldn't be enough to skew the results that much.
|
|
|
Post by sjpc302 on Jun 14, 2021 10:17:37 GMT -6
director: I didn't mean to advocate that ROF be increased to its theoretical maximum. Also, those values I gave were not for the whole engagement but at a single point where effective sustained fire was achieved. Even without "deliberate fire" or other negative modifiers non point-blank ROF rarely exceeds 2.5 rpm. I would reference this thread to give some maximum in-battle average ROF, which suggests overall ROF could be increased over 5 times for some guns, nevermind ROF at any particular instant. I also have noticed that different caliber guns, in practice, don't have ROF that is too different. In a given engagement with ships at close range with similar modifiers, I might see 16in guns firing 1.6 rpm, 8in guns at 1.9 rpm and 6in autoloaded guns at 2.3 rpm. I haven't made any spreadsheets or anything, but I have taken an interest in checking in-battle ROF in different circumstances for my ships and these are some general observations. My point isn't that the guns should have 5x their current ROF, but I think some adjustments are warranted. The base values could be changed across the board, but I suspect it is the math in the program itself that results in ROF being almost entirely a function of circumstance and not changing that much with caliber. wlbjork: I mashed some of the offending ships together and it seems that the issue is specifically with hull hits. I don't know if it is a quirk with AON or a bug. I collected some data points from all belt penetrations of my BB's in an engagement, and there were no belt penetrations other than hull hits. Shells and armor are maxed out here for both sides. All hits 16inQ1 vs 18in inclined 20in effective 08 13:45 16 in 19021 yds Hull hit B * 19kyd: 12.3in vs 20in 08 13:50 16 in 16696 yds Hull hit B * 17kyd 14.2in vs 20in 08 13:51 16 in 15417 yds Hull hit B * 15kyd 14.7in vs 20in 08 14:59 16 in 18165 yds Hull hit B * 18kyd 12.8in vs 20in 08 15:14 16 in 13370 yds Hull hit B * 13kyd 15.4in vs 20in 08 15:23 16 in 13045 yds Hull hit B * 13kyd 15.4in vs 20in 08 15:30 16 in 13709 yds Hull hit B Noteworthy non penetration because in the same salvo... 08 15:30 16 in 13709 yds Hull hit B * 13kyd 15.4in vs 20in 08 15:33 16 in 15617 yds Hull hit B * 08 15:33 16 in 15617 yds Hull hit B * 15kyd 14.7in vs 20in
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 14, 2021 11:25:49 GMT -6
sjpc302 - I take your point and agree in principle. I'm just saying that, rather than model the ranging-for effect-ranging cycle, the programmer found it simpler to reduce the rates of fire, and concluded it did not adversely affect historic and realistic results. I'm not the programmer and do not know that for sure - but it seems a reasonable assumption.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Jun 14, 2021 20:17:14 GMT -6
A thought I had here about RoF was that maybe it is the way it is because of the 1 minute turns. The game isn't real time, it's a series of 1 minute turns, of course all real time games are kinda like that. But since every turn is one minute it makes it very simple, from a gameplay perspective to cap it so guns fire usually 1 round per turn. That just makes sense to me from a game perspective and not a realistic perspective. Makes it easier for players to understand whats going on and react to things. RTW is a fairly niche game but I'm sure its brought some new people into the genre and into naval history and stuff as a whole. And of course any game company is going to want to bring in as many new players as they can so sacrificing historical RoF for easier to understand gameplay makes sense to me. Not necessary and many understandably dont like it but yeah.
That's also all besides the idea that real combat RoF is lower than max like others have said.
|
|
|
Post by sjpc302 on Jun 14, 2021 20:40:58 GMT -6
jatziAlready though as it is a gun might take more than one turn in between shots due to its ROF, and a gun can and does fire more than once in a turn. Some people, myself included, mistook this for a glitch seeing more hits registered than guns fired in extreme close quarters, but this is because the guns fire more than once. The framework is there for the ROF to be any number really AFAIK.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Jun 14, 2021 21:12:06 GMT -6
[...] rather than model the ranging-for effect-ranging cycle, the programmer found it simpler to reduce the rates of fire Now I haven't checked in-game, but according to the manual's section on autoloaders, there's separate RoF mods for bracketing and continuous rapid fire. The RoF figures being discussed are then presumably one of the two states. It's unlikely that ranging salvoes would be fired faster than 4 RPM, but something such as a WWII-equivalent CA or CL could easily exceed 4 RPM under rapid fire. jatzi, the problem isn't that the RoFs in-game are lower than design or trials RoF, but that RPM is significantly lower than the values consistently achieved in WWII combat, and by the game end in 1955, autoloaders IRL were able to maintain >20 RPM (and would do so if somehow put into the same kind of short-range combat as in-game, since radar fire control was good enough that you could expect first-round hit at short ranges by that point).
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 15, 2021 6:47:21 GMT -6
wlbjork : I mashed some of the offending ships together and it seems that the issue is specifically with hull hits. I don't know if it is a quirk with AON or a bug. I collected some data points from all belt penetrations of my BB's in an engagement, and there were no belt penetrations other than hull hits. Shells and armor are maxed out here for both sides. All hits 16inQ1 vs 18in inclined 20in effective 08 13:45 16 in 19021 yds Hull hit B * 19kyd: 12.3in vs 20in 08 13:50 16 in 16696 yds Hull hit B * 17kyd 14.2in vs 20in 08 13:51 16 in 15417 yds Hull hit B * 15kyd 14.7in vs 20in 08 14:59 16 in 18165 yds Hull hit B * 18kyd 12.8in vs 20in 08 15:14 16 in 13370 yds Hull hit B * 13kyd 15.4in vs 20in 08 15:23 16 in 13045 yds Hull hit B * 13kyd 15.4in vs 20in 08 15:30 16 in 13709 yds Hull hit B Noteworthy non penetration because in the same salvo... 08 15:30 16 in 13709 yds Hull hit B * 13kyd 15.4in vs 20in 08 15:33 16 in 15617 yds Hull hit B * 08 15:33 16 in 15617 yds Hull hit B * 15kyd 14.7in vs 20in That does look bad. By the way, those last 3 - were they B * or did you add the star? Thing is, a * indicated a penetrating hit, so if they were listed as B * then there was a penetrating hit (note that a penetrating hit doesn't always appear to do additional damage). The other thing that's bugging me is that these hits are at 15-20k yards (except two at 13k), which seems very high for B hits. I'm going to hazard a guess that for some reason the game is displaying B hits but the calculations are for D hits.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Jun 15, 2021 10:31:15 GMT -6
[...] rather than model the ranging-for effect-ranging cycle, the programmer found it simpler to reduce the rates of fire Now I haven't checked in-game, but according to the manual's section on autoloaders, there's separate RoF mods for bracketing and continuous rapid fire. The RoF figures being discussed are then presumably one of the two states. It's unlikely that ranging salvoes would be fired faster than 4 RPM, but something such as a WWII-equivalent CA or CL could easily exceed 4 RPM under rapid fire. jatzi, the problem isn't that the RoFs in-game are lower than design or trials RoF, but that RPM is significantly lower than the values consistently achieved in WWII combat, and by the game end in 1955, autoloaders IRL were able to maintain >20 RPM (and would do so if somehow put into the same kind of short-range combat as in-game, since radar fire control was good enough that you could expect first-round hit at short ranges by that point). Yes Im aware what the problem is. My point was that perhaps it was done intentionally for gameplay. I know sometimes, quite rarely, you'll get more hits than there are guns signifying that they fired more than once per turn. But its rare, it can happen and certainly there's an argument to be made that it should happen more often for realism. But notice how the guy thought it was a bug at first. I never really assumed it was a bug but I did at first think it was like shells overpenetrating or something like that. It usually happens in close quarters so that's why I thought that. Having 1 minute turns and having ships roughly fire once per minute, or less, just simplifies things. This ship fired all its guns this turn, that one fired its guns as well. It's just simpler than this ship fired each of its guns 3 times during the last turn and that one fired 2 times, that one fired once every turn. It's not crazy complicated to me, it's not to anyone on here most likely. But they're a small team, the game is limited in many ways, and it makes sense to me for them to limit RoF intentionally
|
|
|
Post by sjpc302 on Jun 15, 2021 11:04:42 GMT -6
wlbjorkI only added the one non-penetrating hit to show that in that salvo one penetrated and the other didn't, the last three were penetrations. For most of those salvos, I received other belt hits at or around the same time to the engine room etc that did not penetrate, but not too many deck hits. I tend to notice only the occasional deck hit in this game unless at extreme range with radar fire control, i.e. >26kyd. Those ships had a 5.5in deck, and the 16in guns from 15-20kyd have deck penetration ranging from 2.3in to 3.3in, so even if they were deck hits they shouldn't penetrate. jatzi I get what you're saying, but I think that that approach degrades the usefulness of taking less than the highest caliber guns for a given role, such as 8in, 11in, 14in guns vs their 10in, 12in and 16in counterparts. It also makes autoloaders not very useful.
|
|