|
Post by nobody on May 27, 2020 9:39:42 GMT -6
Trying to be a bit constructive about this sunk by single shot thing, how about this one: Granted it is a single big (15") hit. However the ship is still 10000 heavier than that round. Also it is basically a brand new ship and it does have a tps system. I did not expect that. Especially considering how much I need to pound enemy ships and they still only count as lightly or medium damaged. I sunk because it never really controlled the flooding despite the reduced speed (I set it to around 10kn or so). It's just a combination of bad luck and the simplified damage model that does not know about compartmentalisation.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 27, 2020 9:47:30 GMT -6
nobodyI can see this quite reasonable. I do not know in detail how TPS works, however such small ship is not designed to withstand 15" hit to TPS. TPS is not designed for such a hit and flooding could be fatal.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on May 27, 2020 9:51:59 GMT -6
If you are thinking that I'm wasting your time, then why comment? Bored at work, much time to waste. What you are completely ignoring is that the ship was down to 1/3 flotation points and at risk of sinking before it could return to port before the medium and light hits. The additional hits didn't need to create holes for the water to come in, they were obviously already there. All that had to happen for the ship to sink is a reduction in damage control effectiveness, which would already be severely reduced by the flooded compartments. Take out a power run to bilge pumps, a patch, a damage control team... it's all over.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 27, 2020 10:50:01 GMT -6
deadmetal - Personal attacks, and telling others to "not post unless they have/are A or B or C" are against our TOS. You also rather clearly implied that all the other posters here are 'fan boys' who basically lick our boots, that is certainly not acceptable and I will not allow you to so malign the rest of the posters here.
Tone it down, and stop with the veiled insults and insinuations, or find another place to post.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on May 27, 2020 10:52:11 GMT -6
I sunk because it never really controlled the flooding despite the reduced speed (I set it to around 10kn or so). It's just a combination of bad luck and the simplified damage model that does not know about compartmentalisation. The problem you had is that a 15-inch AP shell designed smash through battleship armor, and it exploded at the waterline when it hit the cruiser's TPS. Near misses from such guns can sink light ships like CLs and DDs, and can be more dangerous than actual hits where the shell might have simply passed through without exploding. The other thing to consider is that your cruiser only had 1 1/2 inches of belt armor, which isn't going to do much to stop damage from a 15-inch AP shell that explodes. The Russian BC got lucky by hitting one of the few things that would set off an AP shell of that size.
What evidence is there that the game's damage model doesn't take compartmentalization into consideration?
|
|
|
Post by deadmetal on May 27, 2020 11:04:41 GMT -6
If you are thinking that I'm wasting your time, then why comment? Bored at work, much time to waste. What you are completely ignoring is that the ship was down to 1/3 flotation points and at risk of sinking before it could return to port before the medium and light hits. The additional hits didn't need to create holes for the water to come in, they were obviously already there. All that had to happen for the ship to sink is a reduction in damage control effectiveness, which would already be severely reduced by the flooded compartments. Take out a power run to bilge pumps, a patch, a damage control team... it's all over. You are continuing to try and make excuses for this obvious bug, by assigning a supposedly realistic scenario to the game. It isn't how this game works. And again, even in real life scenario, it would make zero sense, even if this battleship was flooded to one third of its max flotation capacity. It began sinking in 21 minutes from when it had 1760 flooding at 10:27. It's actually weird trying to explain that something like that would be impossible, to someone who supposedly is a warship enthusiast. No, the prior flooding (which was 10, but it doesn't matter) was not putting this ship at risk. Do you know how many flotation points a 90k ton ships has? Enough for such minor flooding to be ignored, even with one third of floatability left. However, it's completely besides the point - it has nothing to do with the bug that I've brought up. Regarding this ships damage crew ability, it wasn't reduced much, if at all. As you can see from the screenshots, it managed to lower the flooding from 1760 to 1221, in just 22 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by deadmetal on May 27, 2020 11:18:10 GMT -6
deadmetal - Personal attacks, and telling others to "not post unless they have/are A or B or C" are against our TOS. You also rather clearly implied that all the other posters here are 'fan boys' who basically lick our boots, that is certainly not acceptable and I will not allow you to so malign the rest of the posters here.
Tone it down, and stop with the veiled insults and insinuations, or find another place to post.
I've actually expected this at some point. I'll admit that my take was aggressive and disruptive, but I do believe that everything I said here and in other posts has a potential to nudge you and this community into a better realization of some important things about game quality, playability, modability, about what should be acceptable and how things should be looked at. But fine, I can just stop caring about this games problems. It doesn't concern me after all.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 27, 2020 13:08:17 GMT -6
I'll post a short message here about the "a single 4-inch shell sunk my BB!" meme:
We have an internal testing tool wherein we can setup a ship to be hit by whatever we want (4" shells, 16" shells, torps, bombs, etc) over thousands of iterations and see how many hits it takes to cripple it, sink it, etc. The tool uses the same exact code as the game does.
For 4" shells against a selected typical BB target it took an average of just over 811 hits to actually bring it to a condition where it might sink in my test today. In 10,000 iterations the least number of shells it took to do so was 134. In the case reported in this thread, the ship has already taken significant damage from torps and other hits, so it is not clear that a single 4" hit was the primary cause of the flooding that sunk it.
Also, bear in kind that given that there are literally thousands of times the number of ships being sunk in RTW2 than ever was in both WW1 and WW2, so you are going see what would be more 'extreme' events given the massive number of such events.
Having said the above - I will still ask Fredrik to check through the code to make sure there is no issue that can cause this to occur in an untoward fashion.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by deadmetal on May 27, 2020 13:36:42 GMT -6
You have asked me in discord to check how many flotation units that ship has. I'll bring it here. That ship has 65250 flotation units. Given that there are 27 bars in the floatability meter, means that there are 2416.6(6) flotation units per bar. Three bars have 7250 flotation units. First recorded flooding reduction in the log is 1760 at 10:27. Initial flooding was of course heavier than 1760, and later reduced to 1721, but for the sake of this analysis, lets assume that it was 1760. So it takes 4 minutes and 7 seconds for three bars to flood at the rate of 1760 per minute. Therefore, the flooding either started at 10:26, or at 10:25. Like I said, I couldn't have skipped it by more than 5 minutes. Looking at this log, it seems very likely that it was one of the few fore/aft hull hits by either a 4 inch or a 6 inch shell received in this time period, or that it was this BE pen by a 4 inch shell. I will repeat and stress that after the flooding started, this battleship sat there dead in the water, with jammed rudder and at a very close distance from the coastal batteries. As can be seen from the screenshots I've provided, it received a lot of hits until it started sinking. Yet none of those hits has contributed to even a slight increase in flooding. It further reinforces an already overwhelmingly likely scenario that this flooding was caused by a single shell hit. There absolutely can be no excuses for something like this happening in a game that tries to be very realistic. It's quite a sad case that with such an explicit and important bug report I've received so much doubt, denial and excuses, with excuses coming even from the devs. It's even more so, considering the fact that as I've been told that something like this has been posted in forums before, and people know about it. I haven't even been asked to provide this battleship design for testing. Williammiller, you are welcome for the free analysis, and I don't think you should be considering this post a meme.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 27, 2020 13:45:56 GMT -6
If you look at your log there is a lot of hits with asterix that can affect flooding (hull hits etc.) even in the same minute as flooding was decreased by DC and the one highlighted have probably no effect on flooding.
With a lot of hits it is impossible to tell what each hit has effect on flooding.
|
|
toastaroony
New Member
"Win with ability, not with numbers." - Alexander Suvorov
Posts: 6
|
Post by toastaroony on May 27, 2020 13:55:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 27, 2020 14:17:02 GMT -6
You have asked me in discord to check how many flotation units that ship has. I'll bring it here. That ship has 65250 flotation units. Given that there are 27 bars in the floatability meter, means that there are 2416.6(6) flotation units per bar. Three bars have 7250 flotation units. First recorded flooding reduction in the log is 1760 at 10:27. Initial flooding was of course heavier than 1760, and later reduced to 1721, but for the sake of this analysis, lets assume that it was 1760. So it takes 4 minutes and 7 seconds for three bars to flood at the rate of 1760 per minute. Therefore, the flooding either started at 10:26, or at 10:25. Like I said, I couldn't have skipped it by more than 5 minutes. Looking at this log, it seems very likely that it was one of the few fore/aft hull hits by either a 4 inch or a 6 inch shell received in this time period, or that it was this BE pen by a 4 inch shell. I will repeat and stress that after the flooding started, this battleship sat there dead in the water, with jammed rudder and at a very close distance from the coastal batteries. As can be seen from the screenshots I've provided, it received a lot of hits until it started sinking. Yet none of those hits has contributed to even a slight increase in flooding. It further reinforces an already overwhelmingly likely scenario that this flooding was caused by a single shell hit. There absolutely can be no excuses for something like this happening in a game that tries to be very realistic. It's quite a sad case that with such an explicit and important bug report I've received so much doubt, denial and excuses, with excuses coming even from the devs. It's even more so, considering the fact that as I've been told that something like this has been posted in forums before, and people know about it. I haven't even been asked to provide this battleship design for testing. Williammiller, you are welcome for the free analysis, and I don't think you should be considering this post a meme. One serious problem with your claim of that single highlighted 4" hit sinking the ship, is that flooding is not checked every second/few seconds, and flooding reports are thus not put up every second either. The flooding at the end would be from up to the previous 60 seconds, which included far more than just a single 4" hit. Also, new hits *can* reopen old hits (or even torpedo hits) that were previously controlled by DC...in game terms this means that the more flotation loss you have already sustained the greater the chance is for this to happen...and that ship had taken 2/3 flotation loss already...so it def is possible that multiple new hits kills off DC parties and/or opens up old hits to flooding, in addition to any new flooding the hits themselves cause. Also, with 2/3 loss already your bulkheads are prob already mostly breached and are much more likely to completely fail if any significant flooding starts up.
|
|
|
Post by deadmetal on May 27, 2020 14:33:30 GMT -6
You have asked me in discord to check how many flotation units that ship has. I'll bring it here. That ship has 65250 flotation units. Given that there are 27 bars in the floatability meter, means that there are 2416.6(6) flotation units per bar. Three bars have 7250 flotation units. First recorded flooding reduction in the log is 1760 at 10:27. Initial flooding was of course heavier than 1760, and later reduced to 1721, but for the sake of this analysis, lets assume that it was 1760. So it takes 4 minutes and 7 seconds for three bars to flood at the rate of 1760 per minute. Therefore, the flooding either started at 10:26, or at 10:25. Like I said, I couldn't have skipped it by more than 5 minutes. Looking at this log, it seems very likely that it was one of the few fore/aft hull hits by either a 4 inch or a 6 inch shell received in this time period, or that it was this BE pen by a 4 inch shell. I will repeat and stress that after the flooding started, this battleship sat there dead in the water, with jammed rudder and at a very close distance from the coastal batteries. As can be seen from the screenshots I've provided, it received a lot of hits until it started sinking. Yet none of those hits has contributed to even a slight increase in flooding. It further reinforces an already overwhelmingly likely scenario that this flooding was caused by a single shell hit. There absolutely can be no excuses for something like this happening in a game that tries to be very realistic. It's quite a sad case that with such an explicit and important bug report I've received so much doubt, denial and excuses, with excuses coming even from the devs. It's even more so, considering the fact that as I've been told that something like this has been posted in forums before, and people know about it. I haven't even been asked to provide this battleship design for testing. Williammiller, you are welcome for the free analysis, and I don't think you should be considering this post a meme. One problem with your claim of that single 4" hit highlighted sinking the ship is that flooding is not checked every second/few seconds, and flooding reports are thus not put up every second either. The flooding at the end would be from up to the previous 60 seconds, which includes more than just a single 4" hit. Also, new hits *can* reopen old flooding hits (or even torpedo hits) that were previously controlled by DC...IIRC , the more flotation loss you have taken the greater the chance for this to happen...and that ship had taken 2/3 flotation loss already... Even if all the previous flooding hits have been reopened, I don't think it would have amounted to 1760 units of flooding per minute. This one torp hit for instance, caused barely any flooding - I don't remember how much but it was inconsiderable, if it flooded at all. I'm not sure I understood your point of flooding message not appearing every second and many hits being scored in 60 seconds. I mean, I have narrowed down a time to when the flooding spiked from 10 to 1760. it was either 10:25, or 10:26. The flooding couldn't have been mounting up to this value in a longer time, because I would definitely have noticed it. I was running the game at normal speed, pausing each few turns (each few minutes). In a time window between 10:25 and 10:26, there were just a few 4 inch and 6 inch caliber hits that could have done it - if of course, hits to superstructure and batteries can't cause flooding.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 27, 2020 14:43:33 GMT -6
One problem with your claim of that single 4" hit highlighted sinking the ship is that flooding is not checked every second/few seconds, and flooding reports are thus not put up every second either. The flooding at the end would be from up to the previous 60 seconds, which includes more than just a single 4" hit. Also, new hits *can* reopen old flooding hits (or even torpedo hits) that were previously controlled by DC...IIRC , the more flotation loss you have taken the greater the chance for this to happen...and that ship had taken 2/3 flotation loss already... Even if all the previous flooding hits have been reopened, I don't think it would have amounted to 1760 units of flooding per minute. This one torp hit for instance, caused barely any flooding - I don't remember how much but it was inconsiderable, if it flooded at all. I'm not sure I understood your point of flooding message not appearing every second and many hits being scored in 60 seconds. I mean, I have narrowed down a time to when the flooding spiked from 10 to 1760. it was either 10:25, or 10:26. The flooding couldn't have been mounting up to this value in a longer time, because I would definitely have noticed it. I was running the game at normal speed, pausing each few turns (each few minutes). In a time window between 10:25 and 10:26, there were just a few 4 inch and 6 inch caliber hits that could have done it - if of course, hits to superstructure and batteries can't cause flooding. You misunderstand I think...there are two ways to lose flotation in the game: one is the 'initial' loss of flotation by a hit, and the other is through 'progressive flooding' from a hit. While these two systems have different names they are certainly related, and can affect each other. Given that the ship in question had already lost 2/3 of its flotation, a new series of hits can cause new and much greater flooding due to the existing holes/damage/breached bulkheads, etc. This flooding can and often will be much worse than if the ship had taken no flotation loss already...in less likely cases it can cause a cascade effect where multiple bulkheads & damaged sections fail and the flooding swells out of control very quickly. This is modeled in the game by dynamic probabilities for odds of and severity of flooding based on a number of factors, such as hit location, shell size, current flotation loss, previous torpedo hits, etc...
|
|
|
Post by deadmetal on May 27, 2020 15:44:03 GMT -6
Even if all the previous flooding hits have been reopened, I don't think it would have amounted to 1760 units of flooding per minute. This one torp hit for instance, caused barely any flooding - I don't remember how much but it was inconsiderable, if it flooded at all. I'm not sure I understood your point of flooding message not appearing every second and many hits being scored in 60 seconds. I mean, I have narrowed down a time to when the flooding spiked from 10 to 1760. it was either 10:25, or 10:26. The flooding couldn't have been mounting up to this value in a longer time, because I would definitely have noticed it. I was running the game at normal speed, pausing each few turns (each few minutes). In a time window between 10:25 and 10:26, there were just a few 4 inch and 6 inch caliber hits that could have done it - if of course, hits to superstructure and batteries can't cause flooding. You misunderstand I think...there are two ways to lose flotation in the game: one is the 'initial' loss of flotation by a hit, and the other is through 'progressive flooding' from a hit. While these two systems have different names they are certainly related, and can affect each other. Given that the ship in question had already lost 2/3 of its flotation, a new series of hits can cause new and much greater flooding due to the existing holes/damage/breached bulkheads, etc. This flooding can and often will be much worse than if the ship had taken no flotation loss already...in less likely cases it can cause a cascade effect where multiple bulkheads & damaged sections fail and the flooding swells out of control very quickly. This is modeled in the game by dynamic probabilities for odds of and severity of flooding based on a number of factors, such as hit location, shell size, current flotation loss, previous torpedo hits, etc... Well, it's good to know that flooding mechanics are modeled in such detail. However, my time analysis still applies. It happened between 10:25 and 10:26, and there are just a few 4 inch and 6 inch hits that could have caused this catastrophic, cascading flooding event. If it would have been building up, I would have noticed it. The ship in question is a 90k ton AoN BB with torpedo protection of 4. It has received only 1 torp hit and only few (perhaps 3 at most) citadel penetrations from 20 inch shells. Having 2/3 of flotation available in a 90k ton BB means that it can still take proably tens of thousands tons of water before it would sink. I still can't imagine something like this happening in real life. edit: What would make it even less likely is the fact that this ship is AoN.
|
|