Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
TornadoRich

Destroyer Detectability & Concealment

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

8
[SWCCS]
Members
6 posts
2,253 battles

The concept of DD detectability, when compared to other ships, is unrealistic. The idea that at 12 km, in open water, two ships (BBs) can be trading volleys yet in between them at 6km a DD can be undetected and launch a wall of torpedoes which then appear at ~1.2 km, is unrealistic. . The idea of DD detectability being so low, is hard to comprehend. Then DDs pop smoke and farm for two minutes while a BB is rotating turrets and rudder - this has to be addressed. The concept of concealment in this game is very inconsistent - even for an arcade style approach.

 

Destroyers -

1. Low Detectability

2. Torpedoes (which reload at ALL), smoke concealment

3. DD ship acceleration and deceleration

4. High DPM (HE Spam)

These attributes end up incentivizing BB bow-on camping from distance. Every game cannot be the battle of Samar (where the DDs and DE's actually end up surviving)

 

What is the metrics/factors for ship detectability? Height of the mast? Tonnage, Length, Beam?

Back to detectability, why would Air Detectability EVER be lower than Surface detectability. Getting a better (higher) vantage point somehow reduces your ability to see? (by a wide margin)

 

Ideas:

1. If any rounds hit a DD torpedo tube on deck have it react the same as a BB magazine explosion (A citadel-esque) type of damage.Add sea conditions. Toss the DD's around, make aiming hard when there is a squall.

2. If ships are in combat between each other, and no obstructions/islands in between them - make everything in the sea between them visible.

3. Make any hit on a DD, Even AP, actually do damage. BB's take avg 30 sec to switch shell type, plus rudders shift time, flight time, DD speed. It could take dozens of hits by 406 AP at short range to sink a DD. meanwhile its firing dozens of rounds and concealed again.

4. BBs and CA secondaries (which on a USN BB is a fletcher class DD main battery armament on each side of the ship) fire in the same accurate manner as the DD main armaments themselves WHEN said BB or CA is facing a DD

5. Enable the 40mm Bofors to auto-fire on the DD's. Let them start fires all over the DD Deck. DPM from a BB should far surpass a DD at sub 7.7 km, especially sub 5.0 km

6. Add sea conditions. Toss the DD's around, make aiming hard when there is a squall.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Haha 3
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
502
[KMS]
[KMS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,655 posts
12,120 battles

Battleship Main?   I suggest playing a DD first.  More than 71 games.  These issues are offset with Radar, hydro, and CVs somewhat.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
677
[META_]
Members
1,591 posts
17,096 battles

Its called balance.....its not about realism at that point , are dds dominating the games? The game is a big game of rock paper scissors....as a DD player I can tell you radar,planes,hydro do not make DD life easy...I love it but are they overpowered no.....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[KENT]
Members
258 posts
5,656 battles
1 hour ago, RipNuN2 said:

So if we implement your proposed changes can we have a historic ratio of bbs to dds?

That and the historical "accuracy" of a battleship. Can't wait to see the BB mains complain about how horridly inaccurate their fire is (realistically it was around 2% hit rate). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,476
[A-D-F]
[A-D-F]
Members
2,309 posts

Ahh, yet another armchair Halsey who shelled out bucks before learning how to play and now is upset when he gets deleted for sailing his mighty, invincible e-peen in a straight line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[SWCCS]
Members
6 posts
2,253 battles
1 hour ago, Nachoo31 said:

Battleship Main?   I suggest playing a DD first.  More than 71 games.  These issues are offset with Radar, hydro, and CVs somewhat.

I enjoy DD's. I started heavy BB but lately its 3 to 1 DDs for me.

1 hour ago, RipNuN2 said:

So if we implement your proposed changes can we have a historic ratio of bbs to dds?

Yes. I was close to suggesting that in my original post. I think that would be totally fair.

 

30 minutes ago, mcgibe said:

That and the historical "accuracy" of a battleship. Can't wait to see the BB mains complain about how horridly inaccurate their fire is (realistically it was around 2% hit rate). 

I really am curious how the game would play out if they extended the firing ranges and distances to realistic firing ranges vs the roughly half scale. The same % drop would effect DD's (proportional to their distances lengthening, not DDs shooting 2% too)

 

31 minutes ago, Doombeagle said:

Ahh, yet another armchair Halsey who shelled out bucks before learning how to play and now is upset when he gets deleted for sailing his mighty, invincible e-peen in a straight line. 

I made sure I had what I believed to be a fair amount of games under my belt before commenting. I admit i started out straight lining and getting deleted, but I never bought a premium ship, hence the large number of BB games I've played, went straight up the USN BB Line. I've done my due diligence on positioning, YT videos, spreadsheeting each ship to compare. Still learning but I believe well rounded enough to make the comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[SWCCS]
Members
6 posts
2,253 battles
1 hour ago, Meta_Man said:

Its called balance.....its not about realism at that point , are dds dominating the games? The game is a big game of rock paper scissors....as a DD player I can tell you radar,planes,hydro do not make DD life easy...I love it but are they overpowered no.....

I disagree the game is rock papers scissors - which leans heavy on outcomes being to chance vs this game. Many people play this game because of the level of historical detail. 

 

What reason is there for a ship to be invisible 5-10 km from you, no smoke? If the answer is, "thats how the game is", then the range (5-10) is up for far more debate than why does the Iowa have 406mm instead of 457mm. 

A better balance is my hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
677
[META_]
Members
1,591 posts
17,096 battles
5 minutes ago, TornadoRich said:

I disagree the game is rock papers scissors - which leans heavy on outcomes being to chance vs this game. Many people play this game because of the level of historical detail. 

 

What reason is there for a ship to be invisible 5-10 km from you, no smoke? If the answer is, "thats how the game is", then the range (5-10) is up for far more debate than why does the Iowa have 406mm instead of 457mm. 

A better balance is my hope.

Because if you can see them they'd be dead....if your playing for realism this isn't the game.....Yamato would crush most ships before they could even see her  for realism....this game is balanced overall...if you think DDS are so easy go play some tier 8-10 DD games....after 500 of them you'll decide maybe they aren't that easy,lol...hope you find what your looking for unless it's sympathy....im.out of that for any class...they are all rough if not played to their strengths...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[WOLF1]
Members
487 posts
1,378 battles

DDs are actually quite hard to run. Yes they got speed, torps, smoke, and no citadel, but they have the lowest hp, tasked with the heavies burdens, and hunted down by CVs

 

a DD now has to spot, fight other DDs, contest caps, and torp capital ships while constantly being detected by radar, CV, and even hydro. Oh yeah, they have to hunt submarines now too....while being spotted and under fire

Edited by Boomer625

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[FUR-A]
[FUR-A]
Beta Testers
24 posts
7,782 battles

personally, as a Battleship player I am sick of having enemy DDs de-cloak at stupidly close range. My last match had a DD only become visible at 3km in open water which, at that point, it is impossible to do anything except take a full spread of torps. Everyone whined about carriers 'destroying the game' but it is the Destroyers and their nigh unlimited torpedo spam that has resulted in Random battles becoming static, boring affairs with everyone either hiding behind islands or hiding at the back of the map to avoid torp spam.

Re-balance the DDs and the game would improve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
677
[META_]
Members
1,591 posts
17,096 battles
5 hours ago, Redtailfox said:

personally, as a Battleship player I am sick of having enemy DDs de-cloak at stupidly close range. My last match had a DD only become visible at 3km in open water which, at that point, it is impossible to do anything except take a full spread of torps. Everyone whined about carriers 'destroying the game' but it is the Destroyers and their nigh unlimited torpedo spam that has resulted in Random battles becoming static, boring affairs with everyone either hiding behind islands or hiding at the back of the map to avoid torp spam.

Re-balance the DDs and the game would improve

Myth, no dd in open water shows up at 3km....either A/ a fishing story...B/ you internet or could was having a bad day.....no dd is 3 km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,785
[WOLFG]
Members
10,498 posts
9,806 battles
15 hours ago, TornadoRich said:

 

 

Ideas:

1. If any rounds hit a DD torpedo tube on deck have it react the same as a BB magazine explosion (A citadel-esque) type of damage.Add sea conditions. Toss the DD's around, make aiming hard when there is a squall.

2. If ships are in combat between each other, and no obstructions/islands in between them - make everything in the sea between them visible.

3. Make any hit on a DD, Even AP, actually do damage. BB's take avg 30 sec to switch shell type, plus rudders shift time, flight time, DD speed. It could take dozens of hits by 406 AP at short range to sink a DD. meanwhile its firing dozens of rounds and concealed again.

4. BBs and CA secondaries (which on a USN BB is a fletcher class DD main battery armament on each side of the ship) fire in the same accurate manner as the DD main armaments themselves WHEN said BB or CA is facing a DD

5. Enable the 40mm Bofors to auto-fire on the DD's. Let them start fires all over the DD Deck. DPM from a BB should far surpass a DD at sub 7.7 km, especially sub 5.0 km

6. Add sea conditions. Toss the DD's around, make aiming hard when there is a squall.

 

Because DDs don't die enough now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[KENT]
Members
258 posts
5,656 battles
22 hours ago, TornadoRich said:

I disagree the game is rock papers scissors - which leans heavy on outcomes being to chance vs this game. Many people play this game because of the level of historical detail. 

 

What reason is there for a ship to be invisible 5-10 km from you, no smoke? If the answer is, "thats how the game is", then the range (5-10) is up for far more debate than why does the Iowa have 406mm instead of 457mm. 

A better balance is my hope.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. This game is anything but historically accurate when it comes to ships and gameplay. Case in point, we have ships like the petropavlovsk and the Kremlin that exist in game, which barely even exist. 

There is a rock paper scissors dichotomy, yes. Destroyers counter battleships, battleships counter cruisers, and cruisers counter destroyers. There are definetely variations of these concepts in each class (harugumo and kleber go for guns rather than torps and concealment, smolensk goes for conceal and fast firing small guns rather than versatility, Alaska goes for larger guns and a bigger hull to trade off conceal and agility). Variations in each nation and each ship at each tier add variety and flavour to the game.

To play battleships, it's all about positioning. I know that sounds like a buzzword, but if you can master that concept, you become a much better player. Be aware at almost all times of where any ships, especially ones with torpedoes, could possibly be. Take evasive maneuvers if you know you're being hunted (moving at different speed and changing course). If you're being focused, try you're best to disengage and see if you can go dark by not firing for 20 seconds. If there is a smoke screen in front of you, either turn into it or turn away. That's where the torps are coming from. And most importantly of all, don't just charge in. You're ship is tough yes, but not invincible. Master all these fundamentals to some degree, and you'll go far. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[KENT]
Members
258 posts
5,656 battles
16 hours ago, Redtailfox said:

personally, as a Battleship player I am sick of having enemy DDs de-cloak at stupidly close range. My last match had a DD only become visible at 3km in open water which, at that point, it is impossible to do anything except take a full spread of torps. Everyone whined about carriers 'destroying the game' but it is the Destroyers and their nigh unlimited torpedo spam that has resulted in Random battles becoming static, boring affairs with everyone either hiding behind islands or hiding at the back of the map to avoid torp spam.

Re-balance the DDs and the game would improve

Please show me a single example of a ship that has a surface detection range of around 3km, even with all concealment related upgrades and skills.

Search the wiki, search the forums. Find me a single ship with concealment that low. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.

What probably happened is that a DD either used island cover to get close to you, or used a smoke screen and you charged it. I wasn't there so I can't know for sure, but as a person who plays both destroyers and battleships, I can safely say that neither is overpowered in most cases. CV's are another story, but that's an argument for another day.

Forgive me that I have to do this, But, well....... 

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[SWCCS]
Members
6 posts
2,253 battles

To historical BB hit ratios of 2-3%. Agreed. But what would historical BB hit ratios be at ranges of 15km. 

Historical ratios take into account much further ranges - which arent linear. Example. if WoW uses half firing ranges, simply double hit ratio for proportion (4-6%). Doesnt work like that.

 

Historical ratios (2-3%) account for

Realistic firing ranges.

Human factors of crew

Weather

Sea State

Night action

Sun location

All of which are not accounted for in WoW. nor am i necessarily suggesting they be added. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[KENT]
Members
258 posts
5,656 battles
1 hour ago, TornadoRich said:

To historical BB hit ratios of 2-3%. Agreed. But what would historical BB hit ratios be at ranges of 15km. 

Historical ratios take into account much further ranges - which arent linear. Example. if WoW uses half firing ranges, simply double hit ratio for proportion (4-6%). Doesnt work like that.

 

Historical ratios (2-3%) account for

Realistic firing ranges.

Human factors of crew

Weather

Sea State

Night action

Sun location

All of which are not accounted for in WoW. nor am i necessarily suggesting they be added. 

Yeah I agree that the game shouldn't become hyper realistic. The problem I have with changing the game to become more historical (e.x. Making every ship visible from the start) is that it kills the balance and meta of the game. Look at [edited] naval battles as an example. Those are hyper realistic but have huge balancing issues.

There's already a clearly established meta for wows, and most people would say that interactions between BB's and DD's I'd fine, so I don't see the issue here. 

Also I believe you were trying to ask the question of why Iowa doesn't have 457s, that mainly boils down to the fact that she wasn't built with them, it doesn't fit the Usn BB line she's in, and technically there is a premium version that does who's name is Georgia

Edited by mcgibe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[SWCCS]
Members
6 posts
2,253 battles
4 hours ago, mcgibe said:

Yeah I agree that the game shouldn't become hyper realistic. The problem I have with changing the game to become more historical (e.x. Making every ship visible from the start) is that it kills the balance and meta of the game. Look at [edited] naval battles as an example. Those are hyper realistic but have huge balancing issues.

There's already a clearly established meta for wows, and most people would say that interactions between BB's and DD's I'd fine, so I don't see the issue here. 

Also I believe you were trying to ask the question of why Iowa doesn't have 457s, that mainly boils down to the fact that she wasn't built with them, it doesn't fit the Usn BB line she's in, and technically there is a premium version that does who's name is Georgia

 

To the point about the Iowa and 457 - My point was the reason Iowa doesn't have 457mm, and the reason why she has the 406/50 mk7's that she does have, is due to historical reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
893
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,906 posts
12,305 battles
On 10/21/2020 at 8:54 PM, Meta_Man said:

Yamato would crush most ships before they could even see her  for realism

Yamato didn't crush anything other than fish when she showed up at Layte Gulf. Se was a spear to fish in a Barrel and was still repelled out by trapped fish.

The OP does have a point. Nevertheless, that point should apply to all ships, not just one. IMO it would stabilize, diversify and advance class balance as apposed to undermining it.

On 10/21/2020 at 6:00 PM, RipNuN2 said:

So if we implement your proposed changes can we have a historic ratio of bbs to dds?

You confuse the definition of reenactment with simulation. Neither are synonymous with the other; and I'd relatively out of context here. Even the Battle of Savo Island wasn't a Jutland reenactment.

Edited by Crokodone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
677
[META_]
Members
1,591 posts
17,096 battles
16 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Yamato didn't crush anything other than fish when she showed up at Layte Gulf. Se was a spear to fish in a Barrel and was still repelled out by trapped fish.

The OP does have a point. Nevertheless, that point should apply to all ships, not just one. IMO it would stabilize, diversify and advance class balance as apposed to undermining it.

You confuse the definition of reenactment with simulation. Neither are synonymous with the other; and I'd relatively out of context here. Even the Battle of Savo Island wasn't a Jutland reenactment.

Yammy died to planes...no ship could stand toe to toe with her in that era....she could hit them.way before they could fire...your conclusion is against another class...this games maps aren't big enough for yammy to have her real range vs other ships..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,927
[HINON]
Members
13,704 posts
2 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Yamato didn't crush anything other than fish when she showed up at Layte Gulf.

If only USS Gambier Bay shared this sentiment.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
893
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,906 posts
12,305 battles

 

5 hours ago, Meta_Man said:

Yammy died to planes...no ship could stand toe to toe with her in that era....she could hit them.way before they could fire...your conclusion is against another class...this games maps aren't big enough for yammy to have her real range vs other ships..

Yeah, she was sunk by torpedo bombers but Yamato leas the IJN surface force at the battle of Samar; where she was chased away by destroyer escorts and maybe a destroyer. Cant look up exact composition right now.

4 hours ago, RipNuN2 said:

If only USS Gambier Bay shared this sentiment.

Gambier Bay was a jeep carrier. I'm talking about surface combatants: :cap_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,927
[HINON]
Members
13,704 posts
9 hours ago, Crokodone said:

Gambier Bay was a jeep carrier. I'm talking about surface combatants: :cap_book:

But they were surface combatants in this engagement. Some even got hits on Japanese ships with their 5 inch gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
893
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,906 posts
12,305 battles
2 hours ago, RipNuN2 said:

But they were surface combatants in this engagement. Some even got hits on Japanese ships with their 5 inch gun.

Surface Combatant doesn't mean capable to fight, it means designed to fight surface engagements. Gambier Bay was as suitable to fight Yamato as an LST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,927
[HINON]
Members
13,704 posts
4 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Surface Combatant doesn't mean capable to fight, it means designed to fight surface engagements. Gambier Bay was as suitable to fight Yamato as an LST.

Well we wouldn't really consider a DE suitable for fighting the Yamato either but it is what happened.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×