AI ----STUPID AMOUNTS of TP's

[AP514]

Had a battle where the AI had 6 CL's (10K) and 11 DD's. They all were maxed out on TP's.
The CL's has 2-5 Tube launchers 2-4 tubers and 2-2 tubes and I think a few 1's. The DD's were just as bad. I had a few BB's and a few CLs and 2 DD's. The water was full of TP's. got to hand it to the AI it would run in and SPAM the Ocean then slowly withdraw. Rinse and repeat. It would not be so bad But the AI can not Avoid a TP to save its life.
AVOID Need some Love..because as it is the second ship in a formation always takes it in the BACKSIDE due to the AI turning into the TP's

[hurepoix]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από AP514:

AVOID Need some Love..

DD are pretty agile to avoid torps. It your BB are the target it means your own escort had failed, so the real responsability is yours.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από AP514:

because as it is the second ship in a formation always takes it in the BACKSIDE due to the AI turning into the TP's

If you stay in formation when you are under massive torps attack, you are also responsible.
Stay in formation in such situation is a mark of incomptence, and punishement is deserved.

[AP514]

So, who said I stayed in formation--You-- and your so Wrong. And My(AI) DD's did not avoid the TP's very well-lost 2 from my AI not Avoiding them.

I Can see your A TROLL or a Fanboy that has no Clue

[hurepoix]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από AP514:

So, who said I stayed in formation--You-

No it is you :

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από AP514:

because as it is the second ship in a formation...

I m not etheir a fanboy. Game is really disappointing by its lack of challenge. Except a handfull of destroyer you usually lose nothing, and all battles are players crushing victories. Nothing really exciting.

It dont prevent some players to win about the game, and how hard it can be ...

And of course it is always the others fault, never the player one.

[AP514]

Grow up fanBoy...The PATCHes that just came out did some thing. I went from Advanced playing a Behind AI player to Average vs Average and I have also noted that an enemy Ships Salvo/shots are off - all but two rounds that always hit on each salvo.

Now as far as my OP with 11 DD's carrying 3-3 tubes and 2's. plus tha 6CL's with 15 TP's being launched at a time. I figure the waters are full of Close to 200 TP's - when they do there attack runs. It is a sight to see--- but as stated If you have a division with more that 1 ship in it the second one always seems to get hit(even with AVOID-TP's Selected.

[vanDyck]

In later years with long range torps turning at least 90 degrees from time to time is a must, even if there are no in sight. It's quite fun to see those 200 torps run into nowhere. You need to act before you see them. Going in a straight line too long will be deadly.
Look at their designs before you start the fight and know where the threat is. If you rely on the AI to do your job and only react to threats already visible, it's too late.

9 torps on a DD is not that much, I built a lot of TBs with 8 in ca. 1900.

You ran into a WWII Japanese Torp ambush and it seems to work... fair doctrine, strategy and tactic like it was planned in history.

[RipoffPingu]

this is a more than fair enough strategy employed by the AI and the fault of the player for not bothering to do preemptive evasive measures once the enemy ships with a significant amount of torpedos are spotted

and as van said, 9 torps on a DD is on the lesser side in all honesty :P

[hurepoix]

Well, AP514, I would be happy if I had to growth up.

Now, patch made you have to react/adapt to a new situation, and you would e happy it happens.

If I can try some very basic adivices, it would be. have a good escort if you send capital ships in a fleet. For exemple, for 3 BB send 8 DD. In battle you can for exemple deploy in several parallel lines, with kms between each.

Imagine I m on the south and ennemy on the north. Typically my own formation would be made of 3 or four lines. Each line made of one or two squads.

Southern ones, the farest from ennemy, are the BB squad, then the CL or CA ones, then the DD ones. DDs and CL will prevent ennemy TB/DD to approach my capitals ships and will "scout" torps. It will give time to rear lines to react far before the danger reach them. DD are often enough agile to dodge torps, CL are usually pretty good to kill ennemies DD.
I had about never seen ennemy trying to cross my first defence line to reach my BB. And if it happens (by accident ?) none survived to reach the second one.

In cases of torps treathening clumsy ships like CA or BB lines, you have time to react. If a wave of torps is spotted by DDs, and if it is identified as a real threat, I usually break the formation, an comb the torpedoes. I dont know if comb the torpedo is an expression that exist in english. Roughly it is a manuever where ships move in the same (or parrallel) direction than the torps. In could be going ahead torps or flee in the same direction than torps.

DD lines is the most dangerous duty, it is why the only casualties I suffer in battle are DD/TB. However it is their escort job.

Point I dont know what is your level of tatical knowleg in naval warfare, so dont feel offensed if you alreary know all of that.

However if you are aware about all of that, may be you should considere the game experience you had is quite historically credible, and so there is no real matter to complain.

[Steeltrap]

One of the less known elements of the battle of Jutland was Jellicoe's thinking regarding a likely battle.

Relevant to this topic is the fact that he estimated the time he had from the moment any German ships may have got to torpedo range and when those torpedoes may arrive. It was expected the Germans would use an aggressive torpedo doctrine as they'd done so before and it made sense for the inferior force, especially if it's being pursued.

I think he worked it out as something like 10 minutes? I could check but I'm being lazy, LOL.

THAT was why he did a 'turn away', as it was also known that doing so was the superior means of avoiding torpedoes than turning into them. For all the ill-informed crap he copped in the typically disgusting media (yes, they were ♥♥♥♥♥ back then, too), imagine how much worse it would've been if half a dozen or more dreadnoughts had eaten a torp or two.
Instead, the German torps weren't effective in the slightest in terms of inflicting damage.
They did influence the battle in the sense of forcing a manoeuvre that happened to be rather convenient for the Germans, but otherwise we could say they largely were a failure.

Meanwhile, yes, the computer control is largely useless at anything IMPORTANT, such as avoiding torpedoes, so never use it (which it appears you're not, so clearly you've learned that lesson).
I don't use any division larger than 2 ships because the computer can't even keep station effectively, and that has real consequences when the second or third ships slow to a crawl because of their idiotic behaviour.

The more I play the more I wonder why I'm playing, because the campaign is a barely functioning placeholder IMO and battles typically unrewarding massacres.

[vanDyck]

Just to add a bit of historic information...
@AP515 ever heared of the 1941 refit of the japanes kitakami class, with 10x4 Type 93 torps? Why should the AI not be allowed to build something similar, as torps are in the end mostly its only effective weapon.

[Silence Suzuka]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από hurepoix:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από AP514:

AVOID Need some Love..

DD are pretty agile to avoid torps. It your BB are the target it means your own escort had failed, so the real responsability is yours.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από AP514:

because as it is the second ship in a formation always takes it in the BACKSIDE due to the AI turning into the TP's

If you stay in formation when you are under massive torps attack, you are also responsible.
Stay in formation in such situation is a mark of incomptence, and punishement is deserved.

I have seen many times the AI doing a suicide attack, and for some magic reason their DD can take 3 or 4 shots from 6/8 inch capped HE without getting slow down.

[StoneofTriumph]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από vanDyck:

Just to add a bit of historic information...
@AP515 ever heared of the 1941 refit of the japanes kitakami class, with 10x4 Type 93 torps? Why should the AI not be allowed to build something similar, as torps are in the end mostly its only effective weapon.

Kitakami was in that configuration for less than a year. She was designed with far fewer torpedoes and later she had many of her torpedoes stripped because she was being used for other duties and needed to be rearmed to better face the actual threat the USN presented. She was never actually used as a heavy torpedo cruiser in any surface engagement, even on ones that, on paper, she would be well-suited for like the night battles at Guadalcanal.

Her short-lived torpedo configuration was more of a doctrinal exercise than anything else. She was an outlier even by the torpedo-happy standards of the IJN.

[hurepoix]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από StoneofTriumph:

Her short-lived torpedo configuration was more of a mental exercise meant to appeal to Japanese doctrine rather than battlefield realities.

On an other hand many of my BB or CA have 6 triple or quadruple turrets so 18 to 24 main guns, where historically they had less than half of that. It is usual thing at this game, ships have more armour speed and guns than equivalent historical counterpart I presume it worth for torps launchers too.

[Nitemares]

I actually going to take AP514's side a bit here.

ALL the AI controls need love.

This game is a game of HEAVY learning. Between poor to lack of documentation and good ol' "Expectation VS reality" things can be frustrating for a player that hasn't sunk hundreds of hours in.

We all have "learned" not to trust the AI as the AI will make the worst decision every time....
But if you're new, you have to learn this the hard way.

Just as AP514 has now.

[Steeltrap]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Nitemares:

I actually going to take AP514's side a bit here.

ALL the AI controls need love.

This game is a game of HEAVY learning. Between poor to lack of documentation and good ol' "Expectation VS reality" things can be frustrating for a player that hasn't sunk hundreds of hours in.

We all have "learned" not to trust the AI as the AI will make the worst decision every time....
But if you're new, you have to learn this the hard way.

Just as AP514 has now.

It's unfortunate this thread has some unhelpful language in some of the exchanges.

If you strip that away, however, there are, as you have pointed to, some perfectly reasonable commentary on BOTH 'sides' so to speak.

I have taken the liberty of using bold format to emphasise what is certainly a root cause of much of the frustration as I see it.
The italics I used to show just ONE of the consequences.

The problem with complexity is it's prone to instability and "cascade failures", where one component falls over or at least doesn't operate fully as intended and has potentially serious consequences for other elements that are 'downstream' of it.
Anything built based on an expectation that the component will produce results within certain parameters will itself NOT function as intended if it doesn't receive inputs that in fact ARE within those parameters.
Systems/elements downstream of that will experience the same sorts of consequences.

At its worst you get a 'fanning domino' effect, where a single element producing something outside its specifications can cause all sorts of issues across a whole load of other parts of the systems, all of which add up to a player looking at the game and wondering WTF is going on.

It's one of several reasons I've always favoured a 'modular' system approach. Any system process needs to define its inputs first, and have direct tags to anything producing its required inputs. That way you avoid changing one thing without being fully aware of how those changes may then ripple through other elements.

To apply that thinking here, we could argue if the computer could (a) maintain formation correctly and (b) avoid torpedoes effectively then the number of torpedoes being fired would become much less of an issue UNLESS a proper 'cross pattern' torpedo threat eventuates.
Thus we have things that fail to meet an expectation a player might reasonably form producing significant player aggravation. Sure, many of us have learned this, but again the root cause lies in poor performance of various very significant elements and effectively a total lack of any management OF those expectations.

There are, IMO, FAR too many 'hidden/obscure' elements in this game, not helped by what I consider wholly inadequate if not arguably zero engagement from the devs on these things.

In some respects I think those last points are highly significant in this game not reaching the potential it otherwise could have by this time along its development.

Having said all that, and well done to anyone who's read it all LOL, in fairness to Dartis and co there is a LOT going on in the game, and perhaps more than a small team can properly address.
I just wish there were a little more willingness to acknowledge various well known player pain points along with stated commitment to address them. My experience is that pretty much everything I have ever raised is ignored if not attempted to be dismissed regardless of evidence and how constructively I may raise a matter, and that ultimately potentially leads to customer dissatisfaction and disengagement. It's certainly why I quit playing from the closed testing after a few years when the game shifted to Steam, for example.

Cheers

[Hidden Gunman]

Range, speed, manuevrability and micro are your friends.