Improving the Damage Model & Other Game Mechanics

[Amelia]

I will start by saying that while this may seem like a long, angry, rant, it comes from a place of love as I find this game extremely enjoyable. I spend a lot of time singling out bugs and suggesting features to make gameplay more realistic and engaging, but this issue is so vast I feel it necessitates its own post, as its consequences are extremely far reaching and have a tremendous effect on all aspects of ship-based gameplay.

The Issue

Damage is significantly understated, while repair is too powerful. The damaging effects of shells and torpedoes (and to a lesser degree, bombs, though the issue is not as pronounced due to the recent rework) are far less pronounced than was the case historically. Many issues have been fixed since the inception of this thread, but there are still many more things that can be improved on. The most pressing issues will be moved to the top of the thread as seen below.

An Argument for Better Flooding Mechanics

The damage model generally works well for ships coming under continuous fire. The problem is, most damage control cases after a battle ingame are resolved in a matter of minutes if a ship is not sunk outright. There are the extremely rare edge cases where a ship finally sinks after teetering between "heavy" and "critical" flooding due to the buildup of undamaged flooded compartments, or a vessel finally succumbs to the fires it has been fighting for 30 minutes, and it makes the game feel 10x more realistic for doing so. The problem is, it does not happen nearly as often as it should.

Flooding should be a far more prevalent danger than it currently is. Random flooding events seem to only happen right when a ship is crippled from massive amounts of damage borne flooding. In reality however, most cases of lethal flooding outside of combat result due to a buildup over time. The compartmentalization model currently in use has some realistic elements, but it fails to take into account the typically uneven size and distribution of actual shipboard compartments.

While it is likely too ambitious to go and change all of this, a possible solution could involve ships having an ever present danger of compartments nearby destroyed ones filling up with water; regardless of damage level. A battleship ideally being more resistant to flooding than something like a merchant, which likely has very poor compartmentalization. Speed should also have much more of an effect on flooding than it currently does, far too often do vessels shipping unrealistic amounts of water cruise away at speed on "heavy" flooding because whatever massive holes and damage sustained to cause such egregious flooding was magically repaired in 10 minutes.

From the bottom of the post:

A suggestion for an improvement I would make would be to have the ability to "lock down" destroyed compartments to prevent further flooding in adjacent ones, simulating the shoring up of a ship's bulkheads after sustaining damage. This is made more relevant as I made the "uncontrolledFloodThreshold" variable eligible to happen at "moderate" flooding. This would require the affected compartment to complete a repair cycle at twice the rate of a normal one, so locking down a destroyed compartment (according to my values) would take 300 seconds assuming peak efficiency, which is unlikely.

The icon for such a compartment could be a yellow/black pattern much like caution tape, combining the damaged and destroyed compartment icons. Alternatively, it could be a grey/black pattern, combining the partial repair and destroyed compartment icons. Or it could be a different color altogether.

On a similar note, the "uncontrolledFloodThreshold" variable could be done away with entirely, with every destroyed compartment permitting an intrusion of water. This might necessitate the locking down of a compartment to take less time. However, as I can't currently test this, I cannot know for sure.

Improving Sinking Mechanics

Another issue lies in the mechanic of ships being sunk; a ship is only truly sunk when it is completely submerged. Ingame, once a ship is declared sinking, it is completely out of action, even if it spends some time on the surface. In actuality, ships could be quite dangerous or mobile when "sinking", as the machinery, armament, and crew could work independently of flooding provided this did not severely impede their ability to fight. Realistically ingame, unless a ship is completely crippled, it should make more of a fighting effort when going down. Searchlights should be illuminated if it is nighttime, it could be moving if possible, guns and directors could be tracking, propellers could be spinning still if lifted out of the water and boilers are intact, etc... The list goes on. While a vessel would be completely static once it goes underneath the water, it should not do that the moment it is declared "sinking" ingame unless it has taken the appropriate damage on the surface.

This video of HMS Barham exploding does well to serve just how animated a ship going down should look; there is a visible wake and smoke is coming out of the funnel, if the ship was in combat, turrets and directors may be training until the very end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdrISbwy_zI

Torpedo Damage Effects (have been significantly improved!)

Take the Type 93 Torpedo for example, this weapon was feared by allied sailors for its ability to critically damage — if not sink — any destroyer it encountered with a single hit. While cruisers typically took two or three before going down; something more accurately reflected ingame, it is virtually impossible to sink a destroyer with a single Type 93, and extremely difficult to achieve a mission kill (damaged to the point of forced scuttling/crippled and unable to fight). While US damage control was definitely superior to that of the Japanese, there is no coming back from having your ship being blown in two by half a ton of explosives.

Example of a US DD after receiving a Type 93 hit ingame, screenshots show damage at the moment of impact, as well as the final result: https://imgur.com/a/AwkB5Om

There is a caveat here, many of the sinkings due to Type 93s took place hours after the original hit. While the ship would still sink; typically due to flooding or fires, the ingame damage model and damage control do not allow this to happen. This is a symptom of the damage model present ingame. Prolonged sinking due to a buildup of damage AFTER the conclusion of an engagement is something that claims a great deal of warships, and WWII is no exception.

Shell Damage Effects (this issue has been improved upon)

For shells, take the engagement between Kirishima and Washington as an example. According to NavWeaps (which has a very detailed analysis of the battle), Kirishima took as few as 13 or as many as 20 16" hits from Washington (the official tally is "at least" 9 16" and 17 5"). This number does not seem very large (especially in the context of the game), but this was enough to mortally wound Kirishima to the point of sinking (Washington only ceased fire as it was determined Kirishima was neutralized to the point of no longer being a threat). I tested this several times ingame, and could not get a Kongo class ship to be sunk by a North Carolina class ship's gunfire with any less than 40 hits.

I also conducted tests to see how much damage would be inflicted after ~20 shots, here are the screenshots from one such test detailing the damage after 22 shots: https://imgur.com/a/3EqPyOW (while the ship only had 1 functioning main battery turret at the time of ceasefire, 15 minutes repair restored the ship to incredible levels of fighting efficiency, with 85% speed restored, and 3 of the 4 main battery turrets functioning)

These tests were in the best conditions possible, both ships stationary with manual fire delivering perfectly accurate salvos achieving 4-6 hits every 30 seconds. In an actual battle scenario (without me cheesing the manual aim to achieve some semblance of realistic damage effects) with each salvo scoring maybe 1 or even 2 hits, the action would drag on for more than half an hour. The total time it took Washington to neutralize Kirishima was SEVEN MINUTES. This alone should give some detail into the extent of what needs to be fixed!

Edit: It should be noted Kirishima sank approximately two hours after her brawl with Washington, but this highlights the amount of damage taken and how the damage control parties were simply overwhelmed, obviously ingame this would not currently be the case, which is something I hope is rectified through the improvements discussed. The order to abandon ship was given about an hour after the battle, as Captain Iwabuchi realized the situation was hopeless, though men were still onboard at the time of sinking as the rigid adherence of strict IJN evacuation protocols caused delays.

NavWeaps Battle Analysis: http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/kirishimaDamageAnalysis.php

For comparison, Bismarck took over 400 hits of varying calibers (including 14" and 16"), but the shelling was largely ineffective in sinking it. Why the disparity? Bismarck's armor was designed for close range fighting, and was able to defeat the British 14" and relatively weak British 16" shells at close range, preventing flooding that would have sunk the ship. Had these hits been at longer range, Bismarck would have vulnerable to the same fate that doomed Hood.

It also seems if Hood was ingame, she would have survived a magazine detonation, as they are so underwhelming in their consequences. A main or even secondary magazine detonation will more than likely completely destroy a ship, causing it to sink in a matter of minutes. Why can't we have these effects? (addressed as of v1.08g5h5)

The US 16" was projectile was unprecedented in it's ability to reliably penetrate and detonate inside a ship's protected area; the 50 caliber variant found on the Iowas having similar penetration qualities to that of Yamato's own 18" shells. Had Bismarck been the target of close range gunfire from these shells, it is more than likely the damage would have proved fatal.

The thing is, fighting Kongo at a historically close range with US 16" guns feels like a fight with Bismarck due to how much of a damage sponge the ships ingame are capable of being. As mentioned earlier, Washington took a mere 7 minutes to disable and cripple Kirishima, firing a total of 75 16" shells and getting maybe 25% hits (which ingame would be like having every other shell hit COMPLETELY DESTROY a compartment). The game fails to take into account just how damaging a single penetrating hit from an explosive filled shell inside a ship is. How I wish the surface engagements were this clean...

Combat gives the sensation that surface warships ingame aren't shooting shells, but rather cannonballs at each other. I personally feel as if the only way I'm able to achieve consistent results is to abuse the heck out of the manual fire option, as single shell hits which WOULD do significant damage just don't cut it for me. While I understand that destroyers plinking each other with 5" shells is going to take dozens if not hundreds of shots to achieve results, I cannot justify that same experience when in a battleship.

The Problem of Damage Saturation (addressed as of v1.08g5h5)

One of the biggest problems I have with the damage model is damage saturation. In real life, there is no such thing as damage saturation, there is only more damage. Take the USS Helena for example; a Brooklyn class cruiser. She was hit by three Type 93s fired by destroyers. The first two hit separate sections of the ship, but the third impacted less than 15 feet from the second and caused the ship to SPLIT IN HALF and promptly sink. Ingame, the extra torpedo would be effectively wasted, maybe causing some flooding or a fire, but how is this acceptable when this is supposed to be an outright sinking? Now I know having ships split in half is probably beyond the scope of the game, but the effects can at least be modeled. Rapid uncontrollable flooding which quickly submerges a ship (with the realism of improved sinking mechanics) comes to mind, surely this can't be too much to ask.

USS Helena damage report: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Torpedo_damage_plan_of_USS_Helena_%28CL-50%29_in_the_Battle_of_Kuly_Gulf%2C_6_July_1943_%28C_l5001%29.jpg

Virtues of the Current Damage Model

Now, there are indeed scenarios where the damage model is realistic. A battleship's broadside will indeed cripple a destroyer or merchant, the volume of small-caliber fire needed to sink ships like destroyers or cruisers is appropriately much higher than that of battleship caliber weapons, high explosive gunfire will set superstructures alight but be largely ineffective to the armored citadel, bombs as a whole are historically accurate, but the degree to which the other mechanics are out of balance makes fighting naval combat ingame extremely removed from reality.

Conclusion

To summarize, the damage model of this game needs a good going over, repair and ship sinking dynamics also need to be made more realistic. This is an issue which so many people have with the game, if it can be improved, the game will be that much more fun and realistic.

Additional Ideas

Edit: I've had a new idea, but it isn't as relevant to the game in its current form. The implementation of an "abandon ship" mechanic. If the player (or AI) thinks their vessel is too heavily damaged/sinking, then they could elect to abandon ship and save the crew. Currently it seems that this is automatically what happens once a ship reaches a certain point, except the crew factor is absent. If there was ever a crew veterancy mechanic (fingers crossed, this adds a lot of potential for realism) added to the game, this would add to the challenge of preserving experienced men for another day.

Alternatively, the player(or AI) could elect to go down fighting if they thought there was a good chance of survival, or if there was none at all. Survivors could be picked up from the water (though this is a stretch) for added realism. Abandoning ship is a process that takes time, and it's possible (as was the case with HMS Barham) that this would not be possible before the ship sank or was destroyed, though it would take more time to evacuate a battleship than something like a destroyer.

Addressing Atlantic Fleet

I have noticed that the similar Killerfish title Atlantic Fleet seems to have a better grasp on the nuances and mechanics of naval warfare than this game. That is not to say that War on the Sea is a bad game — far from it in fact, as it does a great deal better than most ship-based fighting games out there.

The thing is, Atlantic Fleet has such a realistic grasp on damage mechanics that it comes out as being one of the most outstanding naval combat simulators I've ever played, and its quality surpasses WotS in that regard. Sure there are elements where it falls short of this title; graphics, scale, and the dynamicity of gameplay come to mind, but even if it lacks the detail and nuance of this game's damage modeling, the effect comes considerably closer to real life. The campaign also fares better in giving a challenge to the player, as well as being more realistic, though discussions on improving those conditions can be found here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1280780/discussions/2/3189112650406796097/

While there are likely balancing aspects of Atlantic Fleet that had to be adjusted to compensate for the constraints of the game (such as turn-based mechanics, scaled down distances, and simplified engagements), as well as technical nuance behind the scenes that I probably don't fully understand, we must ask ourselves what made the damage modeling of the game so realistic in the end, and if we can bring this success to War on the Sea.

Atlantic Fleet's damage modeling seems a great deal more effective in addressing the concerns I have in the post. Issues such as the power of torpedoes, nuances of damage control ability, effects of debilitating damage such as magazine explosions, as well as the effectiveness of hit-per-hit shellfire overall are all rectified — even Bismarck's famous resilience to short-ranged gunfire holds true. And while not an entirely relevant issue, crew veterancy mechanics are also present.

A moment I will never forget playing Atlantic Fleet some 6 odd years ago was fielding a line of Queen Elizabeth class battleships while on the hunt for an enemy battlefleet in the Atlantic. I had barely been playing the game for a week when I happened upon an encounter with a single U-Boat (Type IX), which I thought would result in a quick and easy victory (how wrong I was). While I was able to dispatch it with several rounds of depth charging from my escorting destroyers, it was not before it had the chance to fire a full spread of four torpedoes at my lead vessel. While I was able to dodge two, the others found their mark in my starboard side.

While the ship in question (Malaya) had seemed to have suffered little damage apart from a moderate list immediately afterwards, it was not until three (uneventful) turns later when I noticed that the list had suddenly begun to increase rapidly, steadily increasing until it was apparent she would capsize. Right before however, a catastrophic explosion reminiscent of HMS Barham's demise sealed her fate, at that moment the game declaring: "Malaya Sinking". I was in awe at what I had witnessed, and how powerless I was to stop it, but what shocked me most of all was how real it felt. Gradual flooding increasing over the course of three turns, culminating in the detonation of the magazines seemingly caused by loose rounds or powder bags. Having seen the video of HMS Barham's sinking a while before, I was amazed at how Atlantic Fleet produced a nearly identical situation, albeit at a pace bit slower than what was seen in the video (though the end did look like that), as well as the elimination of the U-Boat.

Though I had moments since which felt exactly like other historical scenarios (including a custom battle involving Barham herself, her taking 3 torpedoes producing a result virtually identical to real life, down to the speed at which she sank), I will always remember this one as the first time the game felt truly real, and what proved to me that Atlantic Fleet was worth its salt. I have since had similar experiences with this game, but I only hope that continuous improvement to War on the Sea will make the immersion that much better, and produce a sense of reality that neither Atlantic Fleet nor this game in its current state can hold a candle to.

Realistic Damage Testing

Here are the results from my first round testing my "realistic damage blend". The values I changed are as follows:

Changed all damage repair times to 150 seconds, and halved max integrity repair:

"extinguishFireTime":{"x":150.0,"y":150.0},
"repairFloodTime":{"x":150.0,"y":150.0},
"repairIntegrityTime":{"x":150.0,"y":150.0},
"repairSubsystemTime":{"x":150.0,"y":150.0},
"repairIntegrityTo":[0.5,0.5]

Strafing is now more likely to do damage to unarmored targets, magazines are five times more likely to explode when critically damaged, flooding is twice as likely to spread, and made random flooding more likely:

"ignoreStrafe":0.5,
"magazineExplosionProbability":0.05,
"floodBaseSpreadProbability":0.1,
"uncontrolledFloodThreshold":0.01

Penetrating Armor Piercing hits do 1.75x as much damage, and destroyers take 1.5x more damage than they did before:

"penetratingHitDamageFactor":3.5,
"destroyerDamageMultiplier":1.5"

I decided not to increase the damage done or spread speed of fires, my reasoning for this being that more ships in wartime sink from flooding than fires (an example being that Kirishima had her fires put out at the time of her sinking), fires also burn for 30 seconds longer under repair. I tried out doubling the base fire spread, and then increasing it by 1.5x, both resulted in the vast majority of sunk ships to be overwhelmed by fire, not by flooding.

I considered adding debuff multipliers to light cruisers, but some US CLs are so similar in size to CAs (with some being larger) that I could not justify such a broad change. The size ranges of both US and IJN CLs require damage modeling on a ship-by-ship basis to be realistic.

Changing the destroyer damage multiplier was a basic proof of concept to demonstrate realistic Type 93 performance. If it was possible, I would add more detailed buffs/debuffs to all ship types in line with these ideas: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1280780/discussions/0/3189112650403988246/#c3189112650406011168

Results of Testing

SoDak vs. Kongo

I conducted ten rounds of testing with the new modifiers, five with a "penetratingHitDamageFactor" of 3, and five with a "penetratingHitDamageFactor" of 3.5. The results for a phDF of 3 were underwhelming, and I subsequently increased it to 3.5.

The two sets of five tests were almost identical to each other (within the five tests), and thus I have sampled one test from each run and compiled the results here: https://imgur.com/a/39OhfM8

Concerns with Realistic Application

Being satisfied with the test results, I tried out the Second Battle of Guadalcanal 2 scenario to try sinking Kirishima in a realistic fashion. However, I found that this was extremely difficult to do for two reasons.

The first of which was that; playing as Washington, my solution never increased above 52% at ~5,500 yards while using starshells, spotlights (which Washington did not use), ranging fire, correct ship identification, and a steady course at moderate speed (20 knots). Firing loose, full, or narrow spreads did not help as I was not achieving hits with any of the presets. This made it impossible to reliably engage Kirishima at the historical range without reverting to manual fire. Considering the Washington actually achieved around 18 hits in as many salvos, with the first salvo straddling the target, something drastic needs to be done concerning US solution rates.

The second of which was the degree of accuracy the AI had when fighting me. Using the "hard AND normal" combat presets, I was absolutely astounded at the rate of hits the AI was getting on Washington (I had SoDak retreat under smoke). It was as if the historical US and IJN combat performance had been swapped. Five minutes into the battle, I had still yet to score a single hit on Kirishima without manual fire, and I had taken severe damage due to the changes I made to penetrative shell performance. Just to prove that Washington's thinner armor wasn't to blame, I also have included a test where SoDak ends up being the one shot to bits ( https://imgur.com/a/q43XYBn ).

While I would expect such hits from Kirishima to maybe do such damage, I was also being severely damaged by the Takao and Atago, something which would have never been the case at that range, and was not when the battle actually happened. The biggest thing is that during the battle, only ONE 14" shell (which was AP) made its way to SoDak, which failed to penetrate and only did superficial damage. All the other shell hits (8", 6", and 5") only damaged the upperworks, leaving the citadel unharmed.

This result is indicative of how 8" IJN cruiser guns have unrealistic penetrative performance, as well as how unrealistically accurate both the Takao, Atago, and Kirishima are in the battle scenario. US accuracy needs a huge buff, while the IJN (or AI in general) needs a big nerf. This page by the DANFS gives a complete damage report of SoDak following her battering by the IJN.

Site: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-south-dakota-bb57-war-damage-report-no57.html

Image showing detailed hit analysis: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/library/online-reading-room/ships/wardamagereportno57/wdrbb57-39a.jpg

Based on the game's current modeling, I estimate only the upperworks would have had significant damage (anything past yellow), with the main director being destroyed. X turret might have lost several integrity points due to the 14" hit to the barbette, but it was still functional. There was an extremely marginal amount of flooding, which might not even show up on the damage model. This goes to show that while my changes were realistic in testing, other nuances of the game rendered them unrealistic in practice, something I hope is fixed.

US DDs vs the Type 93

These results were much more consistent both in battles and in testing, and destroyers did not suffer disproportionately as a result of their damage nerf. I ran ten tests with two destroyers (Fletcher & Gleaves), and I found that the Type 93 was effective in sinking these ships 90% of the time. What surprised me most was that damage was sustained that I would have expected to be survivable in the context of the unmodified game, but flooding simply got the better of the ships in most cases.

Here are some screenshots with analysis: https://imgur.com/a/53o8cHf

Increasing the flooding rate and likelihood made a huge difference in that affected ships tended to have to deal with much more flooding than previously, and this contributed to many ships being gradually overwhelmed by flooding instead of rapidly by fires, which is a great improvement in realism. Ships now tend to fight lengthy damage control battles and stay damaged for much longer periods of time before "sinking"/abandoning ship, while simultaneously taking far fewer shells to cause the same levels of damage.

I've also noticed that the quickest killer of ships is when a seemingly non-threatening level of fire takes bogs down the repair parties, allowing fatal levels of flooding.

Further Suggestions and Ideas

A suggestion for an improvement I would make would be to have the ability to "lock down" destroyed compartments to prevent further flooding in adjacent ones, simulating the shoring up of a ship's bulkheads after sustaining damage. This is made more relevant as I made the "uncontrolledFloodThreshold" variable eligible to happen at "moderate" flooding. This would require the affected compartment to complete a repair cycle at twice the rate of a normal one, so locking down a destroyed compartment (according to my values) would take 300 seconds assuming peak efficiency, which is unlikely.

The icon for such a compartment could be a yellow/black pattern much like caution tape, combining the damaged and destroyed compartment icons. Alternatively, it could be a grey/black pattern, combining the partial repair and destroyed compartment icons. Or it could be a different color altogether.

On a similar note, the "uncontrolledFloodThreshold" variable could be done away with entirely, with every destroyed compartment permitting an intrusion of water. This might necessitate the locking down of a compartment to take less time. However, as I can't currently test this, I cannot know for sure.

Conclusion

I am pretty impressed so far with these changes, though much work is still needed, and there are many things I cannot "code" into the game due to my limited knowledge. Ways to further improve damage modeling include:

-Realistic HE penetration (HE shells were very weak, even a US 16" HE round could not get through 3" of armor, and did extremely little damage as a result)
-Modeling a buff to US damage control abilities
-Allowing friendly ships to assist in damage control in some way
-Massively decreasing the damage of unexploded AP projectiles (e.g. passing through a destroyer or merchant and doing very little damage)
-Increasing the damaging effect of a main magazine explosion (fixed)
-Appropriate damage scaling (more info here https://steamcommunity.com/app/1280780/discussions/0/3189112650403988246/#c3189112650406011168 )
-Improving the sinking mechanics (though this is already addressed in the main post)

[Amelia]

The first round of testing is done! I've added the results and their accompanying explanations to the post, feel free to take a look

[Invader ZIM]

This is really looking good. I play on the balanced gameplay level.

For the US side, I put the tmaRadarBonus radar modifier to 0.4 or 40% for a buff of their time to come to a faster firing solution if the ship has radar.

For strafing, I keep the ignore strafingdamage modifier at 0.6 or even 0.7. I found that it allows for planes like B-25's and A-20's with a lot of forward firing machine guns to wreck a destroyers topside if they come in about a dozen planes at a time, while still not being able to be used against Cruisers and anything heavier unless they are using bombs. They also tend to damage surfaced submarines, but only knock out periscopes, directors and other delicate topside items, without causing much if any flooding, which seems more accurate.

I use the TTE and OM mods for reference as well.

And since there can be more aircraft allowed in battles, I set the MaxLightAAArange of the AA to 4000 yards, setting is "400" and the Heavy AA to 10,000 yards, setting is "1000". B-25's going against a CA and some DD's can expect losses, and I've been dissuaded from making multiple passes unless I'm willing to lose most of the flight.

Large enemy task forces that have big warships will require multiple coordinated strikes of aircraft and ships as these can decimate small groups of aircraft.

Just some of my settings for reference.

[Amelia]

Nice, I'll try some of these out!

[MizuYuuki]

General_Douglas původně napsal:

SoDak vs. Kongo

I conducted ten rounds of testing with the new modifiers, five with a "penetratingHitDamageFactor" of 3, and five with a "penetratingHitDamageFactor" of 3.5. The results for a phDF of 3 were underwhelming, and I subsequently increased it to 3.5.

The two sets of five tests were almost identical to each other (within the five tests), and thus I have sampled one test from each run and compiled the results here: https://imgur.com/a/39OhfM8

I ran my test of the South Dakota firing on Kirishima at 12,784 yds two times with the shell penetrating parameter set to 3.0, and it corroborates General_Douglas' results. In both runs, it took 25 hits to sink the Kirishima. The solution was always above 80% using spot fire, and the hit rate was approximately 2%. So, more hits were required than in the historical situation that General_Douglas referenced. However, I don't know how this will scale over different ship types, so for the time being I'll leave the shell penetrating parameter at 3.0.

Regarding torpedoes: While the mark 14 performed well at 1.35 damage parameter, the type 95 seems a bit overpowered. I'm going to set the parameter to 1.25, and run some tests on that.

[Amelia]

Leaving shellpen damage at 3.0 is not a bad idea, perhaps it could scale to shells with better penetration. A shell like the Mark 8 is apt to penetrate further inside the ship before exploding, doing more damage.

[MizuYuuki]

General_Douglas původně napsal:

Leaving shellpen damage at 3.0 is not a bad idea, perhaps it could scale to shells with better penetration. A shell like the Mark 8 is apt to penetrate further inside the ship before exploding, doing more damage.

A couple of other reasons for leaving the shell penetrating parameter at 3.0 is that I've set the repair integrity to 0 so that integrity is not repaired at all making compartments and systems on deck more likely to be destroyed if hit a second or third time. And, I've increased the tactical retreat parameter from its default value of 0.15 to 0.50. This way the AI presses the attack more aggressively which results in more damage to the ships engaged.

[Killerfish Games]

Couple of parameters we've been thinking about:

1) Reducing the effective armor of a compartment based on integrity
So 100 integrity = 100% armor
50 integrity = 50% armor (or 75%, or 87%?) depending on the reduction factor

This would emulate the loss of protection over multiple hits as the compartment eventually fails. So a few hits about the place should leave a ship mostly intact, but multiple hits (from large calibre) would much more quickly overcome the armor than the current model does.

It would also allow for a "lucky double" hit to a compartment to mix up the damage model as the current model is very "linear" in damage accumulation. This combined with a more moderate shellpen damage multiplier (say 2.2 - 2.5?) could be a really nice balance.


2) Torpedo striking a destroyed compartment has its damage increased and applied to the keel compartment and neighbours (rather than the impact location).


3) Torpedo striking a small ship has its damage applied to the keel and neighbours.

[super-blooper]

Just an observer, but I'm excited about this discussion and I'm looking forward to where it leads.

[boris.glevrk]

I think the best thing they can do is to make the damage spread to go from 3x3 to 5x5.

Right now the reason why ships are so reluctant to sink are:
1. the listing, although originally planned, never actually worked.

2. the wrong idea of "damage saturation". Damage just DON'T saturate. You can't say "oh this block is destroyed so this hit is ineffective. It just doesn't work that way. The thing is, a compartment may be destroyed in the damage model computation, but on the graphic model it's still there. and therefore it could still be hit. (IRL that compartment will be collapsed, detached or allow projectiles to hit something else instead. This is not simulated)

3. lacking of critical damage such as hull break/broken keel, loss of bridge and catastrophic magazine/boiler explosion. Those would have made ships sink a lot easier but are not present in the game. (Or, not present in a way that actually sinks a ship as they should)

Now how do 5x5 spread help?
well it doesn't help with listing, but it definitely helps a lot with the false damage saturation.
with so many compartments required to be destroyed in order to sink a ship, it is not before long that the damage model will be littered with destroyed compartments that no longer have adjacent compartments to spread damage to. That's why with all these updates it's quite easy to "heavy" damage a ship but it just refuses to sink despite spending extended times under "critical" damage. The more destroyed compartments, the easier it is to have a successful hit nullified do to the false damage saturation. If we can make the ship deteriorate as fast from Heavy to sunk as it is from no damage to heavy, this problem would've been solved already.

There's another reason to have 5x5: future-proofness.
Remember WotS plans to have UK vs Germany.
So remember there's 4000lb HC. Remember there's 12000lb tallboy. Remember there's Fritz X (1400 kg).
Right now just a 2000lb bomb easily saturates the 3x3 spread zone(*1), what are we gonna do with the Tallboy if we don't allow it to damage more compartments?

*1 481*0.5+907*0.2+40 is 461.9. If you hit a non-center block you will only have 6 compartments (600 hit points in total) to spread, and if they are already damaged before the hit, you can easily saturate.

[JazzObserver127]

Over-penetration's a thing in WotS, right? Need to be sure.

[boris.glevrk]

AWtruo127 původně napsal:

Over-penetration's a thing in WotS, right? Need to be sure.

I don't think so... There's damage saturation but no over-penetration. You can AP a destroyer and it will still deal full AP damage. (which is obviously lower than HE)

[Amelia]

Killerfish Games původně napsal:

Couple of parameters we've been thinking about:

1) Reducing the effective armor of a compartment based on integrity
So 100 integrity = 100% armor
50 integrity = 50% armor (or 75%, or 87%?) depending on the reduction factor

This would emulate the loss of protection over multiple hits as the compartment eventually fails. So a few hits about the place should leave a ship mostly intact, but multiple hits (from large calibre) would much more quickly overcome the armor than the current model does.

It would also allow for a "lucky double" hit to a compartment to mix up the damage model as the current model is very "linear" in damage accumulation. This combined with a more moderate shellpen damage multiplier (say 2.2 - 2.5?) could be a really nice balance.


2) Torpedo striking a destroyed compartment has its damage increased and applied to the keel compartment and neighbours (rather than the impact location).


3) Torpedo striking a small ship has its damage applied to the keel and neighbours.

These are pretty good ideas, I am strongly for de-linearization of the damage model, and improvements to torpedo damage modeling (especially in small ships) is something I've wanted since I first got the game. I know the 3.0-3.5 shellpen damage modifier seems like a lot, but again I don't have the tools that you guys have at your disposal (e.g. making new variables or parameters), so it's essentially our crude method of generating realistic results.

My biggest question is with #1. From what I've seen and read, armor destruction itself does not factor much into naval engagements outside of the context of penetrative effectiveness, as the damage sustained is much more severe after a ship's armor belt has been penetrated. A shell striking an armor belt for instance would not degrade the ability of the armor to resist shells unless hit in almost the exact same spot, we already know that high explosive shells with dozens of kg of explosive impacting the surface of armor does extremely little damage. This is because homogeneous metal armor is extremely effective at resisting multiple impacts, though that means nothing if the compartment being protected is destroyed.

Now the compartment itself would be much more severely damaged by following shells, e.g. if a hit takes a given compartment down to 73 integrity, the second one might reduce it to 15-20, or even destroy it outright. The compartment's integrity "resistance" would certainly go down, but the armor's abilities would stay the same. I would even go so far as to say that a shell or bomb impacting a destroyed compartment would have to defeat its armor before being able to do penetrative damage to the rest of the ship.

Ideally, a "loss of protection" variable applies to a compartment's ability to resist damage, as opposed to the armor's ability to defeat projectiles, though this could be what you have been saying all along. Even a big 16" shell only makes an entry "wound" slightly larger than its own width, the armor would stand up all the same to a hit 10 feet to the left (likely being in the same compartment).

The SoDak damage analysis ( https://imgur.com/a/ecLeth4 ) proves this in showing that that the lone 14" hit is a pinprick compared to the rest of the ship. Yes, there were hits spreading damage over wider areas, but these hits were not nearly as "deep" as the 14" or other shells which penetrated cleanly but were defeated by the armor.

[Amelia]

MizuYuuki původně napsal:

A couple of other reasons for leaving the shell penetrating parameter at 3.0 is that I've set the repair integrity to 0 so that integrity is not repaired at all making compartments and systems on deck more likely to be destroyed if hit a second or third time. And, I've increased the tactical retreat parameter from its default value of 0.15 to 0.50. This way the AI presses the attack more aggressively which results in more damage to the ships engaged.

That is a good balancing factor, multiple approaches will show us what works and what doesn't in terms of solutions!

On a side note, I feel like there is a lot of potential in having a dynamic tactical retreat parameter to represent the aggressiveness or hesitancy of a given mission. A radical example being; if operation Ten-Go was implemented ingame, the tactical retreat value would likely be 1.0 as Yamato was on a literal suicide mission (though its surviving escorts turned back to Japan once Yamato was sunk). Another instance could be carrier task forces lacking heavy escort having a tactical retreat value of 0.0 if under direct attack by capital ships (though Taffy 3 might have something to say about this).

[BuckDashing]

Best post I've seen about this game so far. The game/damage model has so much potential, but it is simply not implemented effectively, especially in ship-to-ship combat, and ESPECIALLY in capital ship combat.

In addition to your findings about the damage models, I've found that another issue is what I would call the "incapacitation potential". This is reflected in Atlantic Fleet, which did not really have this issue, where after a target's fire control systems and/or turrets were damaged, it quickly became a one-sided engagement for the ship with these systems intact. Saving being able to withdraw or receive support from friendly ships, these vessels would only be able to provide token resistance. This is the expected and realistic outcome of such engagements.

However, in WotS, this doesn't seem to be the case. In most tests I've run, even if a ship scores many effective hits, even destroying the fire-control systems and causing massive internal damage, it is still very much in danger of receiving hits itself at medium ranges. It seems to be the result of the discrepancy between the ships' hit probabilities not being high enough: either the probability for the winning ship to hit is too low, or the probability for the heavily damaged ship is too high. I think, in general, the maximum (realistically) possible hit probability at medium to long range is too low in WotS.

This is only exacerbated by the quick repairs while under fire that are possible, making it even less likely to disable an enemy ship long enough to have some sort of clear and effective advantage. Obviously there should be some engagements where both ships will close range and end up slugging it out until both are nearly sunk. But in reality, most mismatched BB or CA engagements should end up with the more capable ship kiting for range until a significant amount of damage is scored, before closing in for the kill. This is simply not possible in the current game model, as the likelyhood of scoring such hits without similar return damage is slim to none.

[Herr Flick]

Secondary guns need more representing in the ship model some only have 1-2 box per side even though they have 6-9 guns, I think there quit important especially for dealing with DDs or Merchants when you want to save large caliber ammo for larger ships… also make a fuel dump for carriers and if hit and destroyed it causes raging fires 3x3,