Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Soshi_Sone

An added DD module

71 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,406
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
4,511 posts
14,645 battles

I was thinking about an additional module for the DD line.  Maybe as a choice opposite the speed boost.  It would be a radar detector that is always on.  Its primary feature would be to detect radar at TWICE the range of the radar and provide an RPF-like bearing to the radar ship (without the RPF notification to the radar ship).

So, DD captains, would you be willing to give up speed boost to have the above capability?

 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,721
[INTEL]
Members
7,063 posts
28,893 battles

I would.

It would help DDs avoid getting killed early. It will still make radar cruisers powerful, because the DDs will avoid the area, which means radar protecting caps would still work.

Of course, if the radar is off, and it is turned on when the DDs is nearby (or in cap), then this DD skill won't be worth much. I see it as a good trade-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[-BRS-]
Members
2,496 posts
15,729 battles

I don't think I would I usually know where they're at for the most part got to keep a sharp eye on where it all the radar ships are as a destroyer driver but if you made it a chaff module that maybe jammed radar for a short moment I'd be really interested

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
815 posts
7,925 battles
7 minutes ago, silverdahc said:

I don't think I would I usually know where they're at for the most part got to keep a sharp eye on where it all the radar ships are as a destroyer driver but if you made it a chaff module that maybe jammed radar for a short moment I'd be really interested

Chaff = Radar Smoke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[ICOP]
Members
1,067 posts
3,860 battles

New consumable, chaff (Radar jamming - DD only) or a new module that adds the chaff effect to smoke (smoke equiped ships only).

Though some people on the forum would lose their tin foil hats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[EREKT]
Members
48 posts
6,125 battles

Chaff would be awesome. Speed boost is situational at best and getting a counter to radar would really help tier 8-10. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,484
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,852 posts
4,153 battles

Just to provide a bit of historical perspective. 

Almost all Destroyer classes operating in the USN carried Airborn and surface radar Jammers.  They were able to often mask their position from ships and Aircraft squadrons very well. 

The 5 inch mk 38 also carried a chaff round that could be used for different bands in order to jam signals. 

I personally would like to see a sort of radar jamming module that would slot into concealment slot. 

Something like reduces radar effectiveness by 50%  (Range and duration) 

This would make you much more vulnerable to enemy destroyers, due to the lack of full concealment value. But would be much more viable vs radar cuisers. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,484
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,852 posts
4,153 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

Gitgud DD mafia.

Such a high quality post! better give yourself a good pat on the back must of really thought hard to come up with that one.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,576
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts
Just now, Cobraclutch said:

Such a high quality post! better give yourself a good pat on the back must of really thought hard to come up with that one.

I have, every time this topic comes up, spoken at length about why radar is not a problem, why DD's need a valid counter that works 100% of the time, why DD's have totally ceded the right to complain about radar while at the same time moaning, to no end, about how BB's can actually kill them from time to time, and how Cruisers find themselves in the middle of combat in nearly every circumstance, stuck between the wall of torps and the hard place of BB AP, and that a few, less than 12% of any cruiser that can be encountered at a particular tier can actually carry radar, and that radar cruisers with only 2 exceptions, cannot USE that radar without having been spotted themselves. I have spoken at LENGTH on all these ideas. And the DD Mafia just keeps [edited] and moaning about their *counter* being *gasp* able to *COUNTER* them, the end result, and logical conclusion becomes, DD players are just *bad* at this game and they just need to learn how to play better.

Ergo, gitgud.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,576
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts

And your appeal to history is also a tired, [edited] argument: or lest we trot out Torpedo Detonations, flooding caused by overpenning high caliber rounds, the fact *most* Allied BB's carried radar (including down to the Arkansas), BB secondaries (and Cruisers too, lest we forget that most USN Cruisers have ~2 gearings strapped to EACH side) being, not just more NUMEROUS than the main battery of DD guns, but actually better and more accurate due to better fire control systems, torps being duds ~20-25% of the time, the vast majority torps moving at a *fraction* of the speed depicted in game with a FRACTION of the range, and the fact that *real* DD's don't have cloaking devices that renders them invisible at 5km.

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,770 posts
11,151 battles

I think something needs to be available for high tier IJN DDs since they have been nerfed to kingdom come

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,576
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts
1 minute ago, STINKWEED_ said:

I think something needs to be available for high tier IJN DDs since they have been nerfed to kingdom come

They do: Torpedo Reload Booster. It lets them put out an unparalleled wall of torpedoes in a fraction of the time. At some point it becomes the *drivers* fault for not being able to make use of the assets at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[-BRS-]
Members
2,496 posts
15,729 battles
10 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I have, every time this topic comes up, spoken at length about why radar is not a problem, why DD's need a valid counter that works 100% of the time, why DD's have totally ceded the right to complain about radar while at the same time moaning, to no end, about how BB's can actually kill them from time to time, and how Cruisers find themselves in the middle of combat in nearly every circumstance, stuck between the wall of torps and the hard place of BB AP, and that a few, less than 12% of any cruiser that can be encountered at a particular tier can actually carry radar, and that radar cruisers with only 2 exceptions, cannot USE that radar without having been spotted themselves. I have spoken at LENGTH on all these ideas. And the DD Mafia just keeps [edited] and moaning about their *counter* being *gasp* able to *COUNTER* them, the end result, and logical conclusion becomes, DD players are just *bad* at this game and they just need to learn how to play better.

Ergo, gitgud.

It's not that all of us play badly it's just I wouldn't mind seeing a small counter maybe like 10 seconds at least it'll give us a chance to get to a better position to survive full Alpha strikes from all of the opposing red team and most Radars are lasting 30 to 50 seconds anyways and this is all just hypothetical if we were to remove the speed boost mod would we be willing to lose it for a small counter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,484
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,852 posts
4,153 battles
18 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I have, every time this topic comes up, spoken at length about why radar is not a problem, why DD's need a valid counter that works 100% of the time, why DD's have totally ceded the right to complain about radar while at the same time moaning, to no end, about how BB's can actually kill them from time to time, and how Cruisers find themselves in the middle of combat in nearly every circumstance, stuck between the wall of torps and the hard place of BB AP, and that a few, less than 12% of any cruiser that can be encountered at a particular tier can actually carry radar, and that radar cruisers with only 2 exceptions, cannot USE that radar without having been spotted themselves. I have spoken at LENGTH on all these ideas. And the DD Mafia just keeps [edited] and moaning about their *counter* being *gasp* able to *COUNTER* them, the end result, and logical conclusion becomes, DD players are just *bad* at this game and they just need to learn how to play better.

Ergo, gitgud.

Continue to go on with your DD mafia rhetoric, really makes your point valid! 

This is merely a suggestion thread about the potential of a Counter to radar. No one here is saying "Omg RADAR is soo OP"  

Its a bloody idea and the OP is just asking for some feedback on how people feel about it. 

So please, do the community a favor and reign back your "Omg DD Mafia is whining"  big deal if i quoted history, i was providing perspective on the OP discussion, just because I do that does not mean I am advocating that Radar cruisers are OP vs DD's and something needs to change, I was just providing some historical context on how Destroyers operated vs radar in reality. 

14 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

And your appeal to history is also a tired, [edited] argument: or lest we trot out Torpedo Detonations, flooding caused by overpenning high caliber rounds, the fact *most* Allied BB's carried radar (including down to the Arkansas), BB secondaries being, not just more NUMEROUS than the main battery of DD guns, but actually better and more accurate due to better fire control systems, torps being duds ~20-25% of the time, the vast majority torps moving at a *fraction* of the speed depicted in game with a FRACTION of the range, and the fact that *real* DD's don't have cloaking devices that renders them invisible at 5km.

Oh yes BB secondaries were soooo accurate.. Please, historically the highest hit ratio weapon was the long lance and the American torpedoes.Secondary Gunnery  and Main battery gunnery across all calibers was so atrocious its laughable. And I have the numbers to prove it.

Your wrong about gunnery being accurate, it was horrible in WW2. 

 

So please do everyone a favor and stop

 

beating_a_dead_horse_by_pjperez.jpg

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
220 posts

The solution is far simpler than this.

Make Radar take up the same slot as Repair Party (DDs are exempt)
Given the effectiveness and downright broken level of power this ability has in its current iteration, it simply is illogical for it to share the same slot as much weaker abilities as it currently does. 

One defining elements that are required for a Skill environment is the prevalence of choices and their consequence.
This is for the very reason Jack of all trades type archetypes always tend to be the hardest to balance, if not impossible in any game.

Therefore, the most logical solution to radar, is to force players to make a choice between being able to restore hit points or use Radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,484
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,852 posts
4,153 battles

Because it was brought up @_RC1138

 

This is to highlight how ineffective main battery / secondary weapons were at hitting stuff. 

"In surface battles From after Pearl Harbor to march 1943, the allies had only sunk 9 major Japanese warships [DD on up] plus the BB Hiei, while they had lost 37 in exchange. Even including other actions [air/sub], the Japanese had sunk 77 Allied warships [546,000 tons], while they had lost 46 major warships in return [305,000 tons]. Looks like 7181 IJN shells registered 234 hits or 31:1. In response the Americans fired 4006 shells getting 59 hits 68:1 hit rate. IJN Long Lance seemed to have been most effective registering 20 hits on 326 torps launched or 16:1 hit rate. USN appeared to have launched about 25 Torps with 3 hits or 8:1 hit rate."

"From the summer 1943 on the USN fired 11835 shells getting roughly 36 hits for a rate of 328:1 hit rate. There do not appear to be much reliable info on hits rates for IJN. The bulk of the American shells were launched using radar, suggesting its hit rate is an order of magnitude lower than direct sight. Looks like IJN best response was launched 169 Long Lance getting about 14 hits for a 12:1 hit rate. Americans in response launched 191 torps getting 24 hits for about 8:1 hit rate."

It looks like torpedoes were much better at getting hits on targets compared to shells. 

 

Now how that translates into ships sinking or not? That is another story, but Torpedoes at least in the Pacific campaign were quite more effective at achieving hits compared to shells. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
178
[WAG]
Members
573 posts
9,351 battles
8 minutes ago, silverdahc said:

It's not that all of us play badly it's just I wouldn't mind seeing a small counter maybe like 10 seconds at least it'll give us a chance to get to a better position to survive full Alpha strikes from all of the opposing red team and most Radars are lasting 30 to 50 seconds anyways and this is all just hypothetical if we were to remove the speed boost mod would we be willing to lose it for a small counter

Don't forget in reality, most WWII destroyers shouldn't have the opportunity to reload even once within the time period of the game, while some maybe once, but that is all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,576
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts
Just now, silverdahc said:

It's not that all of us play badly it's just I wouldn't mind seeing a small counter maybe like 10 seconds at least it'll give us a chance to get to a better position to survive full Alpha strikes from all of the opposing red team and most Radars are lasting 30 to 50 seconds anyways and this is all just hypothetical if we were to remove the speed boost mod would we be willing to lose it for a small counter

There is no logical explanation towards DD's getting the ability to counter *their* counter (which they already CAN do since torps don't discriminate baring *1* DD that cannot hit CA/CL's) that does not amount to DD players NOT liking being killed. It is NOT needed for game balance: cruisers *hardly* are what run rough-shot of matches. It's not for player numbers, no one complains there are too many cruisers in game. It ALWAYS will come back to DD's NOT knowing how to properly play and/or comport themselves.

Ergo, gitgud.

Additionally: the DD class, from a gameplay perspective, is the 'ninja' high mobility class right? The Scout from TF2. Tracer from Overwatch. Okay, they are supposed to be high-risk, high-reward classes, that if they *get* focused by a high DPS class with decent health, they should lose 100% of the time if they cannot properly maintain maneuverability: well the DD version of that is being map conscious and aware of where enemy radar ships are. You don't get to get a free counter because *YOU* screwed up. I don't get a counter to BB AP fire. I don't get a 2 second shield that blocks my citadel from being hit because I came from behind an island to find a BB with all batteries aimed RIGHT at my juicy citadel. And unlike a DD facing radar, a CA *can* be deleted in a single salvo.

There is *no* version of an argument against Radar that does not come down to DD just being pissed that *something* can counter them. And yes, it is *usually* the IJN DD crowd. I am 100% convinced if they removed radar and cruisers themselves from the game, the IJN DD mafia would then start asking for USN DD nerfs and KM DD nerfs to reduce their ability to kill them too. This *reeks* of sectionalism and the only response to that is 'gitgud.'

5 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

Oh yes BB secondaries were soooo accurate.

They were identical in quality to those found on a DD. Or better, if their range-keepers were mounted higher above sea level which, in most cases, they were. Oh and BB's are MUCH more stable at sea than a DD is, thus having a MUCH tighter dispersion at long range due to lack of roll. Or do you know literally NOTHING about how gunfire control works? The 5"/38 doesn't magically become more or less accurate based on the fact it's on a DD or BB. Oh

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
220 posts
1 minute ago, Cobraclutch said:

Because it was brought up @_RC1138

 

This is to highlight how ineffective main battery / secondary weapons were at hitting stuff. 

"In surface battles From after Pearl Harbor to march 1943, the allies had only sunk 9 major Japanese warships [DD on up] plus the BB Hiei, while they had lost 37 in exchange. Even including other actions [air/sub], the Japanese had sunk 77 Allied warships [546,000 tons], while they had lost 46 major warships in return [305,000 tons]. Looks like 7181 IJN shells registered 234 hits or 31:1. In response the Americans fired 4006 shells getting 59 hits 68:1 hit rate. IJN Long Lance seemed to have been most effective registering 20 hits on 326 torps launched or 16:1 hit rate. USN appeared to have launched about 25 Torps with 3 hits or 8:1 hit rate."

"From the summer 1943 on the USN fired 11835 shells getting roughly 36 hits for a rate of 328:1 hit rate. There do not appear to be much reliable info on hits rates for IJN. The bulk of the American shells were launched using radar, suggesting its hit rate is an order of magnitude lower than direct sight. Looks like IJN best response was launched 169 Long Lance getting about 14 hits for a 12:1 hit rate. Americans in response launched 191 torps getting 24 hits for about 8:1 hit rate."

It looks like torpedoes were much better at getting hits on targets compared to shells. 

 

Now how that translates into ships sinking or not? That is another story, but Torpedoes at least in the Pacific campaign were quite more effective at achieving hits compared to shells. 

 

RC is a troll it would prove wise to just put him on ignore so you don't waste your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,576
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts
1 minute ago, Cobraclutch said:

It looks like torpedoes were much better at getting hits on targets compared to shells. 

There has only ever been. In the entire history of BB's and surface warfare, *1* and it isn't even confirmed, case of a DD torpedo sinking a BB, and that's a Fletcher killing a Fuso. So yes, while torps are effective, NOT from DD's. You wana add Torpedo boats and have them attack BB's in swarms? Very different story. You want to add Subs to torture and chase BB's? Very different story. Make CV's more viable? Different stories. But DD's *are NOT* for killing BB's historically and ANY appeal to history makes you look like a right-[edited]of a moron.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,770 posts
11,151 battles
8 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

They do: Torpedo Reload Booster. It lets them put out an unparalleled wall of torpedoes in a fraction of the time. At some point it becomes the *drivers* fault for not being able to make use of the assets at hand.

I don't use the booster simply because once I'm spotted I'm sunk is under 10 seconds. In high tier battles IJN DDs have little chance of staying stealth because of all  the radar, planes, hydro, and vast amount of gunboats ( 4-5 per team these days). An extra load of torps is of no use if you can't use them and I found that out the hard way. The smoke was too important to give up.

To make things worse, they nerfed IJN torps so that you have to get real close otherwise they are easily detectable and avoided. If you shoot back at a gunboat you stay detected for about 20 seconds, enough time to targeted by everyone on the enemy team.

IJN Dds have only one thing going for them; concealment. Without it they are target practice.  I'd gladly replace Reload Booster with radar jamming or similar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[-BRS-]
Members
2,496 posts
15,729 battles

I find it humorous that people are trying to find historical data to backup their argument when this game is a game not a simulation I mean we could all find historical data to back up any argument we really want to post,,, mine would be how everybody has precise accurate information real time from one person spotting a ship yet everybody gets that information instantly and accurately to be able to Target all their weapons on a moving ship that is Miles Away yet they can't see them but they can land accurately which never happened on a moving Target with any consistency in World War II it would take a few seconds for somebody to radio their location to the surrounding Fleet and a few more seconds for them to plot it and few more seconds actually engage and by then small moving Target moving 30 + knots would be way different then they're true plot that would be old by at least 30 seconds way different than their true plot 

It's not that I find this game not enjoyable to play but I do enjoy talking about different mods that might make this game better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,955
[ARGSY]
Members
10,207 posts
6,674 battles
58 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

I was thinking about an additional module for the DD line.  Maybe as a choice opposite the speed boost.  It would be a radar detector that is always on.  Its primary feature would be to detect radar at TWICE the range of the radar and provide an RPF-like bearing to the radar ship (without the RPF notification to the radar ship).

It's a fascinating idea; however, it risks turning a battle between ships and their armament/armour into (even more of) a battle of the black boxes.

And while this was a definite and increasing trend towards the end of the second world war IRL, in the game it has the potential to induce information overload (because we do not have multiple people underneath us to interpret, filter and collate all of this for us). We already have radar, hydro and RDF and their interactions with the mini-map; we do not need to add yet ANOTHER source of data which will only complicate gameplay further. I fear it risks (further?) dividing the game along the lines of haves vs. have-nots when it comes to inborn situational awareness and the ability to multitask. And while these skills can be learned, beyond a certain point they are innate - see Mike Spick's "The Ace Factor" for a good discussion of situational awareness and the separation between those who "just get it" and those who don't.

In a simulation where things are happening a lot more slowly, or in one where multiple people are in charge of functions on one ship, I think it would be a great idea. However, with all due respect and for the reasons given above, I do not think it would be a wise thing to add to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
220 posts
2 minutes ago, DustRhino said:

Don't forget in reality, most WWII destroyers shouldn't have the opportunity to reload even once within the time period of the game, while some maybe once, but that is all. 

That would be fine, especially considering there are multiple reports from WWII where a single torpedo even took a Heavy cruiser completely out of action. There were also tons of reports where ships would lose main batteries completely from shells/bombs/etc. These would be completely unrepairable at sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×