Jump to content


Torpedo Dynamics


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

foehammer273 #1 Posted 25 January 2017 - 10:07 PM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 16
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Has anyone at WOWS development thought about improving the dynamics of torpedo strikes?

 

Now I am gonna go all "IRL", so don't bite my head off for it.  I also captain all ship types, so I am not just some BB captain raging here:


 

1. IRL: Torpedoes that strike a hull at an angle of less than 20 degrees or so, normally bounced off the hull and continue on a new trajectory.  I.E. no detonation


 

2. IRL: Swinging a ship into the back of a torpedo should not cause it to detonate.  Did this recently in my Gearing in-game:  I turned hard and missed the torp, but the inertia of the maneuver swung my stern into the back (propeller) of the torp and it detonated.


 

The torpedoes in-game act as basically self propelled mines, in that they have triggers all over them.  IRL, torpedoes have rounded fronts and a single detonator on the very front.  Hit a torp anywhere else, and it normally won't detonate.  Adding this level of detail would make the game more challenging for anyone using torps.


 

I bring this up because so much work has gone into the ballistics of the shells and strike angles versus shell types, but there is none of that for torps.


 

Just a suggestion or topic to discuss.


 

Thanks



CAPTMUDDXX #2 Posted 25 January 2017 - 10:09 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,486
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Keep it simple no need to stir it up even more

Matt_II #3 Posted 25 January 2017 - 10:18 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 290
  • Member since:
    07-17-2016
Angling and damage saturation is already in the game. If torps didnt detonate at all then they'd be too weak.

My ships: Minotaur, Gearing, Grosser Kurfurst, Missouri, Tashkent, Taiho, Bismark, Mikhail Kutuzov, Z-23, Ognevoi, Gneiseneau, S. Dragon, Shchors, Atlanta, Ranger, Blyskawica, Minsk, Colorado, Myoko, Molotov, Shinonome, Cleveland, Graf Spee, Arizona, Okhotnik,  Ishizuchi, Katori, ARP ships

 

“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” - Gen. James “Mad Dog" Mattis


Zim_Xero #4 Posted 25 January 2017 - 10:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 628
  • Member since:
    04-13-2016
I like the suggestion.  Of course, if implemented, torps would need a small buff to compensate, like +10% reload speed or the ability to cause more instances of flooding simultaneously.

Tier V -   Konig   Kongo   Furutaka   Zuiho   Texas   Marbelhead   Okhotnik   Kamikaze   

Tier VI -  Budyonny   Arizona   Anshan   Leander   Dunkerque   Graf Spee

Tier VII - Gneisenau   Saipan   Leningrad   Scharnhorst   Atlanta   Maass   Shiratsuyu   Belfast   Fiji   Blyskawica 

Tier VIII+ - Atago   Udaloi   Z-46   Shokaku   Khabarovsk   Alabama   Tirpitz


IJN_Cruiser_Jintsuu #5 Posted 25 January 2017 - 10:20 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 264
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
This would be a massive nerf to DDs, without doing something else to give a massive buff such as flooding not being repairable would be the final nail in the coffin for the IJN 
                                                           

 

 

 


KommandantJaeger #6 Posted 25 January 2017 - 11:14 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 255
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012
I would certainly like this, but as others have said, it would need to be accompanied by some form of buff as well. 
There should be a quote here.

SirJingles #7 Posted 26 January 2017 - 12:22 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 7
  • Member since:
    12-30-2015

View PostIJN_Cruiser_Jintsuu, on 25 January 2017 - 10:20 PM, said:

This would be a massive nerf to DDs, without doing something else to give a massive buff such as flooding not being repairable would be the final nail in the coffin for the IJN 

 

You are exactly right, lessen the torps on IJN DD's and you might as well disband the whole line.

Sotaudi #8 Posted 26 January 2017 - 01:39 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 665
  • Member since:
    11-13-2012

The average hit rate on torpedoes already hovers around and even below 10%, and you want the few that do hit to possibly not even detonate?  Most torpedo reloads tend to be over a minute.  While even the slowest battleship guns reload closer to 30 seconds.  Likewise, the current hit rate with main guns is in the 30% range, while historically, Battleship hit rates were more in the 3% range.  It is also a lot easier to dodge incoming torpedoes than incoming shells.


 

Yet you are suggesting a weapon that already has an abysmal hit rate that often reload at more than twice the reload time of main guns with the slowest reload guns in the game, travel much, much slower and, thus can be spotted and avoided long before they reach their target should be further nerfed because guns that are hitting at, often, more than 10 times their historical rate sometimes bounce?


 

I don't see the need.



foehammer273 #9 Posted 26 January 2017 - 03:17 AM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 16
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

@ Sotaudi

 

I see your point, but you neglect a glaring differences between shells and torpedoes.  I could spend three minutes pounding away at an enemy ship in a Kongo, so I fire 7 salvos of 14" shells and even if more than 30% hit, If the target angles themselves properly I will normally not do the damage that a single torpedo will do, which, if I was in a Minekaze during the same 3 minutes I could fire three salvos of torps and hope for even one torp to hit, all while remaining invisible to my quarry.  The damage is then compounded if I hit a ship that just used repair and the flooding damage is taken into account.  Fire does no where near the damage flooding does (from my experience).


 

I had all the IJN DDs and currently have the Shimakaze and Akizuki, so I know the trials of using these torp reliant ships.


 

I guess the real problem that WOWS has is that they nerfed IJN DD guns ridiculously, so that the IJN DDs need to rely too heavily on torpedoes.  That and the-hidden-until-5.5 KM-away cloaking, but I can't say I mind that in my Akizuki!  :)


 

Thanks for your feedback, guys.  For what its worth, I think torpedo dynamics need correcting and certain DDs *cough* IJN *cough* need to be tweaked so there isn't this absolute requirement to make torpedoes the primary offensive weapon.


 

Historical fact: IJN DDs only carried a single reload of torpedoes and USN DDs carried no reloads.  Imagine what this game would be like if that was the case: No DD captains at all!!  :)



rapier_ape #10 Posted 27 January 2017 - 10:30 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 64
  • Member since:
    12-15-2015

View PostSotaudi, on 25 January 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

Yet you are suggesting a weapon that already has an abysmal hit rate that often reload at more than twice the reload time of main guns with the slowest reload guns in the game, travel much, much slower and, thus can be spotted and avoided long before they reach their target should be further nerfed because guns that are hitting at, often, more than 10 times their historical rate sometimes bounce?

 

 


What about instead of a "bounce" a compromise akin to AP shells over-penetrating doing only 10% of maximum damage. ​It would greatly reward BB captains smart enough to point their bows toward the likely direction of incoming spreads. The damage reduction when a torpedo hits a blister was a great start, but frankly the idea that a torpedo hitting the anchor chain locker should deal roughly equivalent damage to one striking the rudder obliquely is somewhat wacky even by arcade standards.

Sotaudi #11 Posted 27 January 2017 - 11:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 665
  • Member since:
    11-13-2012

View Postfoehammer273, on 25 January 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:

@ Sotaudi

 

I see your point, but you neglect a glaring differences between shells and torpedoes.  I could spend three minutes pounding away at an enemy ship in a Kongo, so I fire 7 salvos of 14" shells and even if more than 30% hit, If the target angles themselves properly I will normally not do the damage that a single torpedo will do, which, if I was in a Minekaze during the same 3 minutes I could fire three salvos of torps and hope for even one torp to hit, all while remaining invisible to my quarry.  The damage is then compounded if I hit a ship that just used repair and the flooding damage is taken into account.  Fire does no where near the damage flooding does (from my experience).


 

I had all the IJN DDs and currently have the Shimakaze and Akizuki, so I know the trials of using these torp reliant ships.


 

I guess the real problem that WOWS has is that they nerfed IJN DD guns ridiculously, so that the IJN DDs need to rely too heavily on torpedoes.  That and the-hidden-until-5.5 KM-away cloaking, but I can't say I mind that in my Akizuki!  :)


 

Thanks for your feedback, guys.  For what its worth, I think torpedo dynamics need correcting and certain DDs *cough* IJN *cough* need to be tweaked so there isn't this absolute requirement to make torpedoes the primary offensive weapon.


 

Historical fact: IJN DDs only carried a single reload of torpedoes and USN DDs carried no reloads.  Imagine what this game would be like if that was the case: No DD captains at all!!  :)

 

The problem with anecdotal evidence is it relies on one person's experience, and as they say, "Your mileage may vary."  For instance, if you go to na.Warships.today, and check the statistics for ships, and sort them on average damage, guess what you find.  The highest average damage in PvP (with over 1000 battles) at the moment for DDs is the tier X Khabarovsk at 58,626.   That puts it at 8th place on the battleship list behind the tier VIII Amagi.  The second highest average damage DD is the tier X Z-52 at 47,961.  That puts it at 17th place on the BB list behind the tier VI Dunkerque.  And the 3rd place DD, the tier X Shimakazi, at 46,224 places at 18th on the BB list behind the 17th place Imperitor Nicholai I, a tier IV BB!


 

Thus, the top three DDs by average damage, all of which are tier X DDs, are placing respectively behind a Tier VIII, a Tier VI, and a Tier IV BB.  It is kind of hard to argue that DDs firing stealth torpedoes are ROFLStomping BBs because of Torpedoes.


 

As far as high damage goes, a cruiser can be citadeled through the bow by a battleship even when dodging and weaving like a boss.  One can also be instantly erased by a detonation or with a multi-citadel hit.  For instance, in my Arizona, I have started salivating when I see a Graf Spee on the enemy side ever since I deleted a full health one with a single volley to its broadside that did four citadel hits, and that shot was well beyond the range of most torpedoes.


 

The truth is, yes, torpedoes are dangerous, but I find that the biggest threat is not from the torpedoes themselves if you are paying attention, but, rather the fact that turning to avoid them, as often as not, forces you to expose your broadside to his allies.  There are few things more frustrating  in this game to me than to perfectly anticipate and dodge the torps from a stealthed DD only to be citadeled and possibly sunk because, to miss them, you had to give your broadside to a BB.


 

If you are concerned about torpedoes, spec for better torpedo spotting (e.g., Vigilance) and don't always sail in a straight line and/or at a constant speed.  Not only will torpedoes aimed at you miss more often because of the unpredictability of your maneuvers, but you will generally see them in time to be able to steer to cause them to miss or to only take one.


 

They are annoying but they are far from unbalanced.



Sotaudi #12 Posted 27 January 2017 - 11:35 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 665
  • Member since:
    11-13-2012

View Postrapier_ape, on 27 January 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

 


What about instead of a "bounce" a compromise akin to AP shells over-penetrating doing only 10% of maximum damage. ​It would greatly reward BB captains smart enough to point their bows toward the likely direction of incoming spreads. The damage reduction when a torpedo hits a blister was a great start, but frankly the idea that a torpedo hitting the anchor chain locker should deal roughly equivalent damage to one striking the rudder obliquely is somewhat wacky even by arcade standards.

 

Torpedo belts already reduce damage.  Damage saturation to a section of the ship can greatly reduce torpedo damage even further, up to and including completely negating it because the section it hit has already been reduced to zero hit points. Torpedo hit rates are already abysmal, so there really is no need to further nerf their damage.  Especially given the devastating hitting power of BB guns.


 

 

If you want to bring real life into it, torpedoes already do significantly less damage than they did in real life.  Single torpedo hits have blown off bows and even split ships in half.  They have caused enough damage to force a ship to withdraw from battle.  Heck, for that matter, a single spread of torpedoes from a US DD during the Battle off Samar forced the mighty Yamato to withdraw from battle without her even taking a single hit from them.   You mention hitting a rudder at an oblique angle.  The Bismarck was scuttled because a single hit from an air dropped torpedo launched from a WWI era biplane hit and jammed her rudder.


 

These kinds of actions cannot be reasonably represented within the game mechanics, so they are homogenized into a pool of hit points that, once depleted sinks the ship, accounting for the ship being knocked out of action whether it is due to sufficient damage to make it non-battle-worthy or actually sunk.


 

The hit rates of torpedoes vs. main battery hits clearly indicate that torpedoes don't need to be nerfed.  Don't count on damage reduction after being hit.  Count on not getting hit.  Simply not sailing in a predictable manner by altering course periodically and by sailing at different speeds do more than enough to reduce the damage of torpedoes.



SquareCanine #13 Posted 31 January 2017 - 05:48 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Alpha Tester

  • 111
  • Member since:
    12-08-2013

I could go for moving the detonator the the front of the torpedo, and maybe having them deflect at less than 3 degrees, or even just less than 1.

 

If you also model torpedo deflection, then keeping the angles tight shouldn't affect hits on BB's, with DD's and the more nimble cruisers being the only ones that really stand to gain much. Scattered torpedoes could be interesting in their own right. Not that it will happen. They aren't going to put work into new mechanics that take up computation space while being designed to change the state of game play as little as possible. It wont stop for wishing for it since, even if nothing really changes, it could feel a little less frustrating when you know you had a chance, that things were modeled a little closer to reality.



jimpat2 #14 Posted 31 January 2017 - 09:09 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 123
  • Member since:
    09-16-2016
is there a way to adjust torpedo spread on torp planes?  i know on ships u just hit the 3 key again and it adjusts, would b nice on planes too

Piratesque #15 Posted 01 February 2017 - 10:24 PM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 34
  • Member since:
    05-01-2015
If torpedoes ingame would behave like their real ww2 counterpart then give DDs mine laying ability as compensation. A "nerf" I could live with.

Mercury49 #16 Posted 02 February 2017 - 12:55 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 37
  • Member since:
    10-14-2015

View PostPiratesque, on 01 February 2017 - 04:24 PM, said:

If torpedoes ingame would behave like their real ww2 counterpart then give DDs mine laying ability as compensation. A "nerf" I could live with.

 

And how exactly would you have this implemented into the game? DDs have to push way ahead of allies and then turn around while they lay their mines? Ya, doesn't exactly something I want to be doing when I already have to watch for planes, other DDs, enemy radar/hydro.

jimpat2 #17 Posted 02 February 2017 - 11:42 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 123
  • Member since:
    09-16-2016

sounds like another way for DD's to sink allies with friendly fire

 



jimpat2 #18 Posted 06 February 2017 - 07:44 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 123
  • Member since:
    09-16-2016
ok, tonight while playing with me cv, my top plane sent 3 torps at another cv, one went in front and one went in back and one actually hit.  c'mon guys i can change the spread on a dd why not torp planes

Sotaudi #19 Posted 14 February 2017 - 06:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 665
  • Member since:
    11-13-2012

View Postjimpat2, on 31 January 2017 - 01:09 PM, said:

is there a way to adjust torpedo spread on torp planes?  i know on ships u just hit the 3 key again and it adjusts, would b nice on planes too

 

View Postjimpat2, on 05 February 2017 - 11:44 PM, said:

ok, tonight while playing with me cv, my top plane sent 3 torps at another cv, one went in front and one went in back and one actually hit.  c'mon guys i can change the spread on a dd why not torp planes

 

Are your attacks being made while under attack from fighters or within range of a cruiser/DD with Defensive Fire running?  When being attacked by fighters (including float fighters) or in range of a Cruiser or DD running Defensive Fire will cause your torpedo and bomber drops to widen significantly.  Try to avoid fighters and if you get within range of a cruiser, bait him into using Defensive Fire, withdraw and wait about 40 seconds for it to expire, then do the attack.


 

Are you doing manual or automatic drops.  Automatic drops drop at a specific range and have a default spread that is fairly wide.  Doing a manual drop allows you to set the distance and it has a narrower spread.  If you are doing automatic drops, switch to manual drops.  Look up iChase's or other instructional videos on YouTube for doing a manual drop.  (Hint: Get your planes in range and hold ALT to be able to set the distance and path of the drop.)



jimpat2 #20 Posted 14 February 2017 - 10:07 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 123
  • Member since:
    09-16-2016
Sotaudi,  ur advice was invaluable.  TY




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users