|
Post by director on Jun 13, 2023 3:21:49 GMT -6
My complaint is that underwater tubes are useful very early on, when in fact they were pretty useless as late as WW1.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 13, 2023 7:22:57 GMT -6
My complaint is that underwater tubes are useful very early on, when in fact they were pretty useless as late as WW1. this is due to a cascading chain of effects from how the game works and handles armament, underwater torpedo tubes are usefull because ship gunpower in base unmodded RTW is very low (ROF is low and close range hit rate is low and projectile penetration is low) This results in a lot of pre dreadnought battles resulting in sub 1000 yard brawls which VERY often result in torpedo kills over gun kills, in reality pre dreadnought gun battles had good firepower and if engaged at 1000 yards each side would very quickly damage eachother and sink eachother with gunpower. However battles in rtw can take over an hour despite continued fire at sub 1000 yards. torpedoes also get very strong very fast (1914 you have 4500@37/10000@27 torpedoes) So a torpedo with those parameters is very strong in 1914 where gunpower is absolutely terrible, (no secondary director, low rate of fire, low penetration compared to armor, generally small guns, generally slow speed) However the torpedoes top out at 5000@38/13000@27 in 1926 so despite 12 years of tech development you only gain 500 yards and a knot and 3000 yards on the long range option. with only very slight improvements after (4 extra knots, more damage, and oxygen torpedoes giving 18000 yards at long range) Between 1926 and 1970 torpedo improvements are very irrelevant because the techs post 1926 are so weak. If you mod the game so that guns fire at high rate of fire (especially small guns) have longer range, have more penetration and good firecontrol, destroyers (and torpedoes) become much weaker, TTK is reduced and the game overall feels faster and less "sluggish" in combat, and thus weapons that require large amounts of time to position for, are inherently less usefull. I no longer have 3 hours to force the enemy fleet to reposition if my ships get killed in less than an hour. likewise my destroyers having torpedo reloads is much less relevant, as they most likely wont get to use them.
|
|
|
Post by max2552 on Jun 13, 2023 18:14:20 GMT -6
this is due to a cascading chain of effects from how the game works and handles armament, underwater torpedo tubes are usefull because ship gunpower in base unmodded RTW is very low (ROF is low and close range hit rate is low and projectile penetration is low) This results in a lot of pre dreadnought battles resulting in sub 1000 yard brawls which VERY often result in torpedo kills over gun kills, in reality pre dreadnought gun battles had good firepower and if engaged at 1000 yards each side would very quickly damage eachother and sink eachother with gunpower. However battles in rtw can take over an hour despite continued fire at sub 1000 yards. torpedoes also get very strong very fast (1914 you have 4500@37/10000@27 torpedoes) So a torpedo with those parameters is very strong in 1914 where gunpower is absolutely terrible, (no secondary director, low rate of fire, low penetration compared to armor, generally small guns, generally slow speed) However the torpedoes top out at 5000@38/13000@27 in 1926 so despite 12 years of tech development you only gain 500 yards and a knot and 3000 yards on the long range option. with only very slight improvements after (4 extra knots, more damage, and oxygen torpedoes giving 18000 yards at long range) Between 1926 and 1970 torpedo improvements are very irrelevant because the techs post 1926 are so weak. If you mod the game so that guns fire at high rate of fire (especially small guns) have longer range, have more penetration and good firecontrol, destroyers (and torpedoes) become much weaker, TTK is reduced and the game overall feels faster and less "sluggish" in combat, and thus weapons that require large amounts of time to position for, are inherently less usefull. I no longer have 3 hours to force the enemy fleet to reposition if my ships get killed in less than an hour. likewise my destroyers having torpedo reloads is much less relevant, as they most likely wont get to use them. Could you post your modified files for general use?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 14, 2023 4:47:40 GMT -6
this is due to a cascading chain of effects from how the game works and handles armament, underwater torpedo tubes are usefull because ship gunpower in base unmodded RTW is very low (ROF is low and close range hit rate is low and projectile penetration is low) This results in a lot of pre dreadnought battles resulting in sub 1000 yard brawls which VERY often result in torpedo kills over gun kills, in reality pre dreadnought gun battles had good firepower and if engaged at 1000 yards each side would very quickly damage eachother and sink eachother with gunpower. However battles in rtw can take over an hour despite continued fire at sub 1000 yards. torpedoes also get very strong very fast (1914 you have 4500@37/10000@27 torpedoes) So a torpedo with those parameters is very strong in 1914 where gunpower is absolutely terrible, (no secondary director, low rate of fire, low penetration compared to armor, generally small guns, generally slow speed) However the torpedoes top out at 5000@38/13000@27 in 1926 so despite 12 years of tech development you only gain 500 yards and a knot and 3000 yards on the long range option. with only very slight improvements after (4 extra knots, more damage, and oxygen torpedoes giving 18000 yards at long range) Between 1926 and 1970 torpedo improvements are very irrelevant because the techs post 1926 are so weak. If you mod the game so that guns fire at high rate of fire (especially small guns) have longer range, have more penetration and good firecontrol, destroyers (and torpedoes) become much weaker, TTK is reduced and the game overall feels faster and less "sluggish" in combat, and thus weapons that require large amounts of time to position for, are inherently less usefull. I no longer have 3 hours to force the enemy fleet to reposition if my ships get killed in less than an hour. likewise my destroyers having torpedo reloads is much less relevant, as they most likely wont get to use them. Could you post your modified files for general use? VerPen and Horpen are from the Adjusted ballistics mod, Gundata is custom, and generally increases range of smaller guns (IRL there were 5" guns with 18000 yards range in 1900) ROF is significantly increased for almost all guns, the increased range also makes CLs more viable and stronger. I also run the rtw-2 speed mod which gives more accurate HP/Knot calculations, its compatible with rtw-3 I also run a custom mod which puts torpedo protection back to the same time as RTW-2 (it was changed in rtw-3 so that you unlock TPS-4 about 10 years later) so you get TPS-4 the same time as torpedoes reach their peak I also removed the AP bomb tech as it reduces bomb effectiveness only using it when i do testing (sadly i cant have it active for only specific test saves) Keep in mind ammo use here is extremely high, its recommended you have more realistic ammunition amounts, (110-130 rounds for main guns post 1930 and max main gun ammo for 5" and 6" guns) Due to secondary ammo being bugged changing secondary ammo wont change ammo capacity you will always have 150 rounds for a 6" secondary battery, even if you designed it to have 250. This is annoying but i hope devs will fix it soon. Im still adjusting values until im happy with the in game results in ROF and Range across different time periods. Attachments:Gundata.dat (294 B)
HorPen.dat (1.56 KB)
VerPen.dat (2.03 KB)
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 27, 2023 2:27:46 GMT -6
Oh, that's annoying. Just realised the OP has deleted his account when I had just had 3 extremely successful games on Admiral-level of control (RtW2 rather than 3, but never mind). The only time I was successfully torpedoed was by air attack. All my attacks were DD strikes. I'm especially proud of the Chinese one - one DD with 3 tubes sunk 2 CLs (one torpedo got destroyed prior to launch), although the invasion battle against the US was also amusing (point blank range, at night, mass torpedo spam from the DDs scoring 9 hits and killing 4 BBs and a DD - as you can imagine, I fled at that point on the grounds that even if I lost all my TRs I'd still win on VPS ). Importantly: In none of these games did I have extra Torpedo Training my crews.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 27, 2023 9:00:56 GMT -6
My complaint is that underwater tubes are useful very early on, when in fact they were pretty useless as late as WW1. this is due to a cascading chain of effects from how the game works and handles armament, underwater torpedo tubes are usefull because ship gunpower in base unmodded RTW is very low (ROF is low and close range hit rate is low and projectile penetration is low) This results in a lot of pre dreadnought battles resulting in sub 1000 yard brawls which VERY often result in torpedo kills over gun kills, in reality pre dreadnought gun battles had good firepower and if engaged at 1000 yards each side would very quickly damage eachother and sink eachother with gunpower. However battles in rtw can take over an hour despite continued fire at sub 1000 yards. torpedoes also get very strong very fast (1914 you have 4500@37/10000@27 torpedoes) So a torpedo with those parameters is very strong in 1914 where gunpower is absolutely terrible, (no secondary director, low rate of fire, low penetration compared to armor, generally small guns, generally slow speed) However the torpedoes top out at 5000@38/13000@27 in 1926 so despite 12 years of tech development you only gain 500 yards and a knot and 3000 yards on the long range option. with only very slight improvements after (4 extra knots, more damage, and oxygen torpedoes giving 18000 yards at long range) Between 1926 and 1970 torpedo improvements are very irrelevant because the techs post 1926 are so weak. If you mod the game so that guns fire at high rate of fire (especially small guns) have longer range, have more penetration and good firecontrol, destroyers (and torpedoes) become much weaker, TTK is reduced and the game overall feels faster and less "sluggish" in combat, and thus weapons that require large amounts of time to position for, are inherently less usefull. I no longer have 3 hours to force the enemy fleet to reposition if my ships get killed in less than an hour. likewise my destroyers having torpedo reloads is much less relevant, as they most likely wont get to use them. Or we could look at the historical record. The first - and only - torpedo hit scored by one capital ship on another was on 27 May of 1941 and that was scored on a motionless wreck. How many torpedo hits from underwater tubes were scored on manuevering targets at: Battle of Manila Bay? Zero. Battle of Santiago? Zero. Battle of the Yellow Sea? Zero. Battle of Tsushima? Zero. Battle of Elli? Zero. The ENTIRE Four Years of WW1, including the Coronels, Falklands, Dardanelles, Dogger Bank and Jutland? Zero. (The hit on HMS Marlborough came from above-water tubes on SMS Wiesbaden). WW2 almost goes without saying, since fixed underwater tubes had been discontinued on surface warships, but we can score ONE: HMS Rodney is credited with one hit on an unmoving target.
So for torpedo hits scored on a moving target using an underwater torpedo tube, the score is: ZERO. And yet in the RtW series the AI can score one or more of these hits per battle.There is something very, very wrong with the AI's sniper-like use of submerged torpedo tubes.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 28, 2023 7:14:52 GMT -6
this is due to a cascading chain of effects from how the game works and handles armament, underwater torpedo tubes are usefull because ship gunpower in base unmodded RTW is very low (ROF is low and close range hit rate is low and projectile penetration is low) This results in a lot of pre dreadnought battles resulting in sub 1000 yard brawls which VERY often result in torpedo kills over gun kills, in reality pre dreadnought gun battles had good firepower and if engaged at 1000 yards each side would very quickly damage eachother and sink eachother with gunpower. However battles in rtw can take over an hour despite continued fire at sub 1000 yards. torpedoes also get very strong very fast (1914 you have 4500@37/10000@27 torpedoes) So a torpedo with those parameters is very strong in 1914 where gunpower is absolutely terrible, (no secondary director, low rate of fire, low penetration compared to armor, generally small guns, generally slow speed) However the torpedoes top out at 5000@38/13000@27 in 1926 so despite 12 years of tech development you only gain 500 yards and a knot and 3000 yards on the long range option. with only very slight improvements after (4 extra knots, more damage, and oxygen torpedoes giving 18000 yards at long range) Between 1926 and 1970 torpedo improvements are very irrelevant because the techs post 1926 are so weak. If you mod the game so that guns fire at high rate of fire (especially small guns) have longer range, have more penetration and good firecontrol, destroyers (and torpedoes) become much weaker, TTK is reduced and the game overall feels faster and less "sluggish" in combat, and thus weapons that require large amounts of time to position for, are inherently less usefull. I no longer have 3 hours to force the enemy fleet to reposition if my ships get killed in less than an hour. likewise my destroyers having torpedo reloads is much less relevant, as they most likely wont get to use them. Or we could look at the historical record. The first - and only - torpedo hit scored by one capital ship on another was on 27 May of 1941 and that was scored on a motionless wreck. How many torpedo hits from underwater tubes were scored on manuevering targets at: Battle of Manila Bay? Zero. Battle of Santiago? Zero. Battle of the Yellow Sea? Zero. Battle of Tsushima? Zero. Battle of Elli? Zero. The ENTIRE Four Years of WW1, including the Coronels, Falklands, Dardanelles, Dogger Bank and Jutland? Zero. (The hit on HMS Marlborough came from above-water tubes on SMS Wiesbaden). WW2 almost goes without saying, since fixed underwater tubes had been discontinued on surface warships, but we can score ONE: HMS Rodney is credited with one hit on an unmoving target.
So for torpedo hits scored on a moving target using an underwater torpedo tube, the score is: ZERO. And yet in the RtW series the AI can score one or more of these hits per battle.There is something very, very wrong with the AI's sniper-like use of submerged torpedo tubes. American torpedoes by 1898 was 800 yards, with a new model being introduced later that year, but was not equipped on ships, that model still only had a maximum range of 1000 yards, two ships perfectly broadside at 1000 yards would not have a torpedo solution as the torpedo needs to lead the target, and basic trigonometry tells you 1000 yards between the two ships would need to be much shorter for the torpedo lead to be within range at time of expected impact. Manilla bay was in 1898 and the battle happened at a range far beyond effective torpedo range at the time due to the involvement of coastal batteries, shortest i can find was 1500 yards. a fight at 800 yards (optimistic maximum torpedo range at the time) the ships would have been blasted by coastal batteries. Battle of santiago, shortest range i can find a shot was fired at was estimated 950 yards, with 800 yard maximum range torpedoes, they are not gonna hit or even be launched. Battle of the yellow sea, the battle was fought at above 3 miles range, no torpedo present in this battle had more than 2000 yards range. Battle of tsushima, wrong the auxillary cruiser Ural was sunk by a torpedo fire from battleship Shikishima, this was also the only case any japanese ship with submerged torpedo tubes were in torpedo range of russian ships.Battle of Elli, battle happaned outside of torpedo range. All gun battles mentioned by you happened at high ranges, although torpedoes were in some cases launched none hit, (predictably so alot of torpedoes were launched that missed) but in most of these battles the majority if not the entire battle was done beyond effective torpedo range. Notice how in all of those battles the only time torpedo attacks happened was during tsushima at night, the closest ranged action of all of those, and even then the battleship shikishima hit a cruiser with her torpedoes No there is something wrong with how close to the enemy you are getting, and also with your ship positioning enabling them to get torpedo shots on you (you are chasing them making torpedo solutions easier) You are getting within 1000 yards of enemy ships in 1905, just like the russians, and just like the russians at tsushima you will loose several battleships to torpedoes, this is historical, you get to cloose and sail about, you are gonna find out.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 28, 2023 8:42:05 GMT -6
To be absolutely fair you don't actually have to hit with underwater torpedoes for them to have an effect in battle, their presence forces the enemy to perhaps take less than totally favorable positions that would expose them to torpedo attack
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 28, 2023 11:51:58 GMT -6
To be absolutely fair you don't actually have to hit with underwater torpedoes for them to have an effect in battle, their presence forces the enemy to perhaps take less than totally favorable positions that would expose them to torpedo attack And this is one reason why historically hits by/with underwater torpedo tubes were so rare. The other is the gunfire threat. Historical naval combat ranges were influenced by the commander's knowledge (and respect for) contemporary weapon system capabilities. A lot of the desired effect was "tactical deterrrence", i.e. hedge in the enemy's alternatives of action. In RTW the player often acts extremely risky without being conscious of it. This results in at least an order of magnitude more "torpedo risk" and therefore hit expectancy.
Above water torpedo tubes were historically used as "salvo" weapons, i.e. individual torpedoes were not aimed at individual ships but entire flotillas coordinated their torpedo launch to "sweep" an enemy formation's course so that individual ship evasion was not as much a factor. In this case the effect on enemy alternatives of action (keep course and steady firing solutions on enemy BB disivions and accept probability of torpedo hits or evade) was often more important than hitting (and sinking) an enemy vessel. Torpedo hit rates in the low single digit percentages were acepted. This is one aspect of torpedo engagement I miss in RTW3 since such salvoes can only be approximated by using the captains setting and choosng targets and firing positions carefully. I would really like to see a "salvo planner" with a graphical UI. The underwater torpedo tube however, especially on capital ships, was a weapon for aiming at and hiting individual targets, so the probability to get to a situation in combat to actually use it was significantly lower than for above water tubes on non-capitals. Small unit engagement was also far more prevalent historically so there were lots (relatively speaking, see below) of opportunities to use above water torpedo tubes.
Another factor is the the effect of scale on statistics. Historically true maximum effort naval combat was very rare, even counting relatively risk averse engagements like Jutland/Skagerrak. Within the RTW3 timeframe we are barely into the triple digits. The typical RTW3 game will see more than an order of magnitude more engagements and probably two orders of magnitude more ships engaged in combat.
All in all an RTW3 game should see between 100 to 1000 times (or even more with superextralarge fleet settings) the incidences of various historically rare events, e.g. torpedo hits from underwater torpedo tubes, but also ships sunk in combat, magazine explosions etc.
|
|
|
Post by expendable on Jun 29, 2023 4:29:47 GMT -6
This is very plain.
Vanilla RTW combat model has always had delusional statistics and this isn't fixable with mods because many of the absurdities are hard coded.
The AI is extremely passive since, instead of improving AI, its ship templates, simulation parameters, etc, the developers simply made AI avoid battle. Fleeing in the presence of a 5-1 advantage is not only common, but documented behavior. [Broken sim parameters, ie; mechanic of sinking ships still being considered targets essentially eliminates the ability of the AI to pursue a vanquished force. Since it attacks the sinking ship until it despawns]
In RTW2 the developers, to counteract this, nerfed torpedoes repeatedly, motivated by early episodes of player on AI abuse.
The tactical situations created by this combination of poor decision making and stubborn ignorance is that player must sail into torpedo intercepts. Because the AI almost always runs, and combination of infinite smoke screen destroyer group, abysmal gunnery, and various other broken mechanics, makes it (generally) tactically infeasible to ever catch them. The pursuit often motivated by the AI blockade. Nowadays the player almost always wins gun battles when they occur, since the AI defeats itself through pure cowardice.
While QGM demonstrably boosts the AI, the AI is still functionally incapable of victory. [unless you hand it to them on a silver platter]
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 29, 2023 12:45:55 GMT -6
And yet, if any of those battles was fought in RtW3, the human player would likely take at least one hit from underwater, fixed torpedo tubes. Try engaging an enemy in RtW at 1500 yards in the same time period as one of those battles. You will collect a torpedo... the AI will never be hit unless motionless.
The point is that torpedo hits routinely happen in the game which never happened in naval history. There is something very, very wrong with the AI's sniper-like use of submerged torpedo tubes.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 29, 2023 22:20:35 GMT -6
And yet, if any of those battles was fought in RtW3, the human player would likely take at least one hit from underwater, fixed torpedo tubes. Try engaging an enemy in RtW at 1500 yards in the same time period as one of those battles. You will collect a torpedo... the AI will never be hit unless motionless. The point is that torpedo hits routinely happen in the game which never happened in naval history. There is something very, very wrong with the AI's sniper-like use of submerged torpedo tubes. This is so wrong, it's hilarious. I can't think of the last time I took any hits from ship-launched torpedoes, except for when visibility is extremely poor due to heavy fog or a night action - and I play exclusively on 'Admiral' because I hate micro-managing my forces. Torpedo range circle. Use it, and don't maintain a straight course whilst your enemies are just outside it. Oh, and above are 3 instances of the AI getting torpedoed whilst in motion...so that means you are at best dramatically overexaggerating. Edit: and if you specifically mean capital-ship mounted submerged tubes, the big British-American conflict saw HMS Collingwood successfully score a hit.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 1, 2023 0:21:02 GMT -6
And yet, if any of those battles was fought in RtW3, the human player would likely take at least one hit from underwater, fixed torpedo tubes. Try engaging an enemy in RtW at 1500 yards in the same time period as one of those battles. You will collect a torpedo... the AI will never be hit unless motionless. The point is that torpedo hits routinely happen in the game which never happened in naval history. There is something very, very wrong with the AI's sniper-like use of submerged torpedo tubes. This is so wrong, it's hilarious. I can't think of the last time I took any hits from ship-launched torpedoes, except for when visibility is extremely poor due to heavy fog or a night action - and I play exclusively on 'Admiral' because I hate micro-managing my forces. Torpedo range circle. Use it, and don't maintain a straight course whilst your enemies are just outside it. Oh, and above are 3 instances of the AI getting torpedoed whilst in motion...so that means you are at best dramatically overexaggerating. Edit: and if you specifically mean capital-ship mounted submerged tubes, the big British-American conflict saw HMS Collingwood successfully score a hit. I cannot think what you mean by 'the big British-American conflict', not do I have any information on HMS Collingwood scoring a torpedo hit. If you have evidence of a ship scoring a hit on a moving target with a submerged torpedo tube, show it. Otherwise, it's not 'hilarious' it is just a broken piece of game mechanics. And as far as 'use the torpedo circle and don't maintain a straight course' goes, that advice is unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Jul 1, 2023 4:56:21 GMT -6
This is so wrong, it's hilarious. I can't think of the last time I took any hits from ship-launched torpedoes, except for when visibility is extremely poor due to heavy fog or a night action - and I play exclusively on 'Admiral' because I hate micro-managing my forces. Torpedo range circle. Use it, and don't maintain a straight course whilst your enemies are just outside it. Oh, and above are 3 instances of the AI getting torpedoed whilst in motion...so that means you are at best dramatically overexaggerating. Edit: and if you specifically mean capital-ship mounted submerged tubes, the big British-American conflict saw HMS Collingwood successfully score a hit. I cannot think what you mean by 'the big British-American conflict', not do I have any information on HMS Collingwood scoring a torpedo hit. If you have evidence of a ship scoring a hit on a moving target with a submerged torpedo tube, show it. Otherwise, it's not 'hilarious' it is just a broken piece of game mechanics. And as far as 'use the torpedo circle and don't maintain a straight course' goes, that advice is unnecessary. It is however a very good advice. There is a lot of hyperbole in this thread, AI uses the same rules as player in regards to torps. If you are finding that you are getting hit more often than the contrary, it is honestly in regards to how you play. Also real life evidence in this case is not a good point. Theorically there is no reason an underwater torpedo tube would be unable to score hits , and the smaple size is too small to conclude that it should never be a thing.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jul 1, 2023 11:29:54 GMT -6
If you have evidence of a ship scoring a hit on a moving target with a submerged torpedo tube, show it. Otherwise, it's not 'hilarious' it is just a broken piece of game mechanics. Translation: "I'm allowed to make claims without any evidence to back it up but no-one else can".
|
|