I suspect this is a bug. The ships were destroyed before they were identified. Has anyone else had this happen, I know I haven't (destroyed a ship before it was identified, that is)?
With the flight time on the shells you should be able to dodge incoming fire at 40km. But the hit percentage is really messed up. They're going to have to fix this.
the counter point is at that range, who in their right mind thinks they're going to be shot at? the AI should have an alertness mechanic, if they don't know you're there, they can't take reactive evasive manuvers
@@overboss9599 Everyone in their right mind would assume to be the target. On sea targets are very rare, so if there is no one else (ship or fleet), you are the target. Even if the enemy is behind the horizon, the gun flash of a battleship gun is still visible
The thing is, while slightly too strong it isn't out of order. Late war Radar and guns were absolutely devastating. For example, during the Battle of Surigao Strait the West Virginia with 16 inch guns tracked the attacking japanese fleet in from 38km. And fired her first salvo at 20km, striking the Yamashiro with her first Salvo. Radar and large guns combined is OP.
NEVER EVER try tp justify op in a game by stating reality. This is a game. It does not mirror reality in the slightest and in fact it shouldn't in the first place. It must be balanced somehow to be PLAYable. This simply deletes any need for anything else but this combo. There is no counter to it and therefore the game is pretty much broken now. One salvo of HE kills everything instantly. No need for any other ship type anymore (and yes, I know you could argue bbs worked this way before, but you could make it work somehow), nor is there any need for tactics. This is just broken.
@@Ascaron1337 My dude. I am a Game Designer. I know how to make a game. And games like this, who are at least based on reality, and offer a degree of simulation should if not fully follow reality, still align with it. I am not disagreeing that currently, it is too strong, but it is too strong because it is unrealistic. And seemingly doesn't take course changes into account. Furthermore smaller ships will have a smaller radar crosssection and as such will be harder to spot, while larger guns will have more dispersion and more barrel wear. If I make a ship with the best(most expensive, and heaviest) radar, the most elite crew and everything, I would expect this ship to be good and highly accurate, at least against battleships and maybe cruisers.
The captain was a spy turning into the shells apparently but your one shot the first salvo before it fired it said 30% when it had its targeting solution then it went to 100% that's why it missed the first time. It wasn't lying to you for the follow up shot.
"this accuracy is lying to me" actually it was at 30% before the first salvo on the second battle, only after the guns fired taht the ship acquired a firing solution and got a 100% accuracy
I feel this is a result of +long range accuracy scaling not being designed with 80km ranges on the guns. The +long range accuracy buff starts low, and then starts to scale up as you get farther away. At ranges the game had previously this scaling worked to help offset the normal loss of accuracy at range. But now that you're shooting of to 80km as opposed to 35km the benefit from +long range accuracy has continued to grow. As this happens the base accuracy can't go below 0. So eventually the negative effect of base accuracy stops getting worse, while the benefit to long range accuracy continue to grow faster and faster. The end result being over 100% accuracy past a certain range because accuracy started growing again after bottoming out at some point.
its only 80-83km from cava d'aliga on sicily to the coast of the northern most island of malta. one of those 20.9" guns could also have reliably been able to fire at and hit dover if the gun was located in calais during ww2 as that distance is only 41km, half the guns max range
@@ortos11 un po' tragico come esempio lo so ma ehi, con questa beta praticamente si è creato uno scenario di missili a media gittata, dove non serve nemmeno staccarsi dal porto per difendere le navi (inoltre non potevo usare la distanza tra Trieste e Pola perché mancavano 3 km)
If this accuracy is what can be expected by tech in the 1940s, what would happen if you did this to a ship from the 1890s era. Those ships couldn't hit the broadside of a very large barn from any distance above a kilometer or two.
Ehhhh would you kindly give a source for that claim? Because I believe it's pretty badly wrong. Battle ranges even in the interwar period had gone up to the point some older guns were unusable due to barrel elevation limits (a few french ships had that particular problem), we're talking 10 - 15 kilometers. Not with perfect accuracy of course, but when you shoot at ships that are anywhere from 100 - 300 meters in length that's not so bad.
Pre-dreadnoughts are larger than very large barns, so you are actually underselling how inaccurate they were until people realized you should probably put rangefinders on ships.
In the unlikely event that you see this comment, I just wanted to say that, in this game, projectiles don't work like you seem to be expecting them to. At no point does the game actually simulate (or even just calculate realistic probabilities, according to the 3d geometry involved) the shells that your ships fire, how they move through the air, to finally looking at the impact point and attitude relative to that of the surface it has just contacted, to determine if it was a hit (not to even mention stuff like actually using the simulated impact point to determine things like deck vs. belt hits) or not. Therefore, doing things like sailing all of your ships packed right next to eachother, doesn't actually increase their chances of getting hit from 'missed' shots aimed at the most central ship. Similarly, since the game doesn't actually simulate the shot trajectory, the probability of you hitting a target's deck vs. their belt does not depend on things that would seem to make sense, for example, having a severe list to the side which rounds are arriving from doesn't make deck hits any more or less likely than would having a list in the other direction. Decreasing a ship's beam and/or increasing the draft also doesn't make the proportion of deck vs. belt hits any less likely, nor does it change the angles that the game considers you to have been hit from (in the vertical plane), which means it also doesn't affect the distribution of deck/belt hit probability vs. range and aspect as it should (and you also can't 'shield' even the smallest destroyer by parking it right up against the largest, tallest possible battleship. It doesn't even change your, or the enemy's, 'accuracy' either...). What the dev's have decided on as this game's most basic design philosophy is basically just creating pretty, though sometimes nonsensical, and always causally disconnected, 3d graphics to depict certain events as they occur in the 'real' game loop, which is just a glorified spreadsheet with 2 types of actions: 1) Change the variables' numeric values, or 2) Roll a pseudorandom number and use it to calculate the result of the same equations, but just (perhaps) updated with some different variable values. I believe this is the main reason why even 1-on-1 battles (thus ignoring formation and pathing issues) can feel so 'unfair', unintuitive and just plain 'wrong'. It also explains why even grand fleet engagements seem dead, almost sterile after a while, and it also goes some way to explaining why formations and 2d ship movement conflicts, like collisions, have had so many enduring issues for so long; i.e. the game only needs to know the distance to the target and that target's aspect angle to calculate the appropriate # of hits and then just animates each hit by drawing an invisible parabola connecting your ship to the enemy's ship and moving the visible shell + its effects along that parabola, until it intersects the target. Actual 2d movement and real-time collisions only needed some serious considerations with torpedos, but even then it doesn't really require a full fledged custom physics engine to check if constant-speed objects, that only move in single straight lines, have gone from 'not inside' to 'inside' of one of your ship's outlines in the past 1 or 2 ticks... This is essentially why neither historical facts and Iogical truths, nor the game's own text descriptions, are what you should use to base your decisions off of. Only the actual numerical values matter, and of those, only the ones that are actually used by the game will have any effect, although you have no way of knowing which of the numbers those are or what their actual effects are (except through large-scale trial and error, each time the game gets patched or updated in any way). An interesting example of this in action is the fore/aft weight offset number. In actuality, trading an equal % of increased pitch to reduce the fore/aft weight offset by a similar numerical amount, will leave you with 2 ships with precisely the same accuracy. As for the other stats that are also affected, it seems like (for reasonably well- designed and balanced ships) once you start to gain 1% of pitch to remove 1% of weight offset, it really doesn't make that much difference which you try to minimize.
well this will be your next taskmaster and the objective is to destroy the chōyō BB rules: -ship must not go over $901M (both ships sums up and not go over its total cost) -range must be exceeded the choyo's gun range -any nation except for japan(stealth's ship nation) - it is a 2v1 - choyo must only have HE - must only use BC-BB class lore: the imperial of japan has created a super warship that easily annihilates any ship without warning intel found it have very sophisticated radar and rangefinder that can reach from its mainland to any target it pleases however intel also found that the super warship is the choyo class sniper monitor super warship using the yamato class hull its pricetag is not that cheap but it is the first trial if this warship's trial is successful we been looking at a range disadvantage as it can murder our carriers without warning you need to destroy the choyo before it can be mass produced its been spotted but excessive AA defenses has rendered bombing runs useless we've dispatched 2 of our best BB's to take care of them and we need the best ship designer to make those 2 BB's and stop choyo's plan to turning the pacific to a sniper zone objective: locate and destroy the choyo class monitor ship
Fantastic shot they never saw it comming lol I also think that you need a spotter aircraft to use all that range just like the Yamato lol I think you have found your answer for taskmaster tuesday so you can win pretty much every time
25'' pen with HE!? This is madness. On a side note, i think it would be better if it was not predetermined whether a shell hits. That would allow you to avoid getting hit at those super long ranges by maneuvering.
I was seeing pretty similar results in a 1940s campaign, but with smaller guns. 12.2" with +20% caliber. Sadly, a number of bugs make the campaign nearly unplayable right now. AI nations have their crew pool disappear, preventing them from getting into battles. Your GDP drops when an ally overspends. And the wrong nation might get your VP when you win a battle.
The barrel lenght effects must scale DOWN for larger calibers. When you have such huge guns the limit starts to be the materials and increasing the barrel length would just result in nasty side effects on the barrel itself.
Actually... that depends. There have been experiments with ludicrously long barrels and the biggest issue is this: Your propellant charge only produces a certain amount of gas - if the barrel is so long that the pressure drops too much, friction will slow down the shell before it leaves the barrel. Until that point, you're mostly fine.
@@Kr0noZ so more pressure you say? _Proceeds to make barrels thicker than the armour belt of most CLs to handle ludicrous pressure from super strength propellant_
@@Kr0noZ Project H.A.R.P. (this is the real one by Gerald Bull) used two end to end welded and reinforced 16"/L50 Mark 7 guns to make the one 16.4" smoothbore L100 which fired projectiles as fast as the Sprint ABM could go.
I feel like they need to add a scout plane feature for battleships, battlecruisers and heavy cruisers and put it in the equipment section. It would make this kind of battleship actually work on its own
In this Game? Never. In Reality? Well Depends. If his Spotter in The Pagoda Tower is 150m ASL he could see 48km given perfect Conditions. 100m ASL would still be 39km. In Reality it would be much less since perfect Conditions are sorts of rare ^^
@@AlexMueller1982 I just vaguely recalled that the Yamato Class had spotter planes for this very reason. Could make for an interesting mechanic if those were a thing.
26:10 anyone else notice that Chōyō took an entire chunk of of the first battleships A turret there is literally just a big hole we’re part of the turret was
Now I'd be rather interested in seeing what the maximum HE pen capability is with those monsters and the capped-ballistic HE shells. Or just a build centered around max HE, trying to find what the most ridiculous combination with these guns is.
Sooooo.... There was a fellow who commented on one of Stealth17's videos, a year or more ago, in numerical detail, about this whole thing. I remember most of everything, but his name. He deserves to take a bow on this.
I'm interested to see what sniper secondary armament can do on battleship... If it can surpass max torpedo range, it can defeat the torpedo spam strategies.
Here is what you get for the complains of torps. Face the new sniper meta. Edit: Also, this may be a game mechanic that will improve when finalized. This will be probably balanced later on so don't worry that much. Edit 2: Also, take note that every gun model has its own standard barrel length. Meaning every gun model and I mean EVERY gun model has a different maximum barrel length giving nations thier own unique style of gameplay. Edit 3: 17:51 This is what we would have got if naval artillery improved so much. I think this is a bit more effective than Anti-ship missiles in these ranges.
Those shells probably have solid fuel rockets if they can hit 82km, there is no way you can pack enough TNT into one of those guns to impart enough force to send it that far... Also, if that's four guns, now imagine a single barrel with Autoloading... 20.9-inch Semi-Auto sniper rifle anyone?
@@Chujoi0 Well of course, but that's a 9.37 inch land based artillery cannon... Significantly lighter shell in a significantly longer barrel... Now compare that to a most likely shorter barrel, the 20.9-inch cannon on the battleship that was made... And considering he's using Super-heavy shells, unless they had railguns in 1940 (the electromagnetic railguns being developed today, not artillery cannons on tracks smartasses) there is no way to launch a shell of that caliber to that range without a separate propulsion system inside the shell
Max pen ammo doesn`t really seem worth it with big guns. You just get overpens all day, as we saw here. However, this might be where the semi AP are worth it.
I got in the first time trying this new patch and got pen by a 2 inch gun on a 20inch main gun and then flash fire, I really think this version need a lot of work
I feel like single guns would’ve shown the sniping better, Wonder about how short reload you can get with short barrels and auto loader two now (14inch quads/triples/duals all tested) It’s interesting to think
If you edit the save file, you can get 20.9in guns that reload in, as the game would say “∞.” The guns shoot so fast that only one gun can shoot unless it’s a different caliber. (It’s due to how the game ripple fires the salvos. It can never get passed the first gun.) Though I think it’d be more fun to see what the highest BB RoF is that is also reasonably obtainable in campaign.
The single and dual turrets were the same 79 caliber, but the quad turret was only 76 caliber. So despite being the same bore size of 20.9", the length of the guns on the quads were 20.9"/76 (so 76 calibers long) which was shorter, giving you a lower velocity than the longer guns. The number after the slash is referred to as the caliber. The higher the caliber, the higher the speed. So for example, the 16"/45 guns on the South Dakota's and North Carolina's fired the same shell as the Iowa's 16"/50, but the Iowas had a MUCH higher shell velocity. Why are the quad guns shorter to begin with? That's an interesting question.
Has the stereoscopic / coincidence balance changed lately? I'm still leaning towards base accuracy, because in the past that counted more even at long range. --The "long range" tech was outmatched at long range.
7:05 ... 84 seconds ... except it is even longer. Not only does friction slow down the shell, but a lot of the kinetic energy is converted in potential energy as the shell goes higher and higher, slowing down all the way up, but converting the potential energy back into kinetic energy as it starts falling down. So the flight time is more like 2+ minutes. Look at the Paris Guns of WW1 for a comparison ... a 8.3"/L176, with a muzzle velocity of (up to) 1645m/s. They used nearly 200kg Tube Powder C/12 (stored at constant 15°C near the gun) to get these speeds (and of course this was not healthy for the gun ...). And shooting at an elevation of 55° (you read that right, 45° + 10°) the projectiles rose to 38-40 km, spending most of their flight in the stratosphere, where the air is very close to vacuum with very little friction ... that gave them 130 km range. The longest range of all other guns in WWI was ~40km. It took the A4 / V2 rocket to exceed height and range --- 80-90km height and 320 km range, but reaching no more than 1600m/s best case. Albeit straight up it could reach 176km (vertical test launch MW 18014, 20 June 1944, first object to reach space, first sub-orbital spaceflight) and 189km in a later launch of the same test series. Mind you, bombers were longer ranged and carried a lot more explosive power than the 7kg inside the paris gun or the ~1000kg of the V2. Gun-wise the HARP project comes to mind: 16" (obsolete) navy guns, join 2 barrels for a 36m (evacuated!) barrel, shooting 6.6" projectile (capable of containing a rocket engine) (using a sabot), shooting 1 180 kg projectile with 3600 m/s muzzle velocity to 180 km. And of course the "Hochdruckpumpe", the V3, which never went into action at full size (Tallboy earthquake bombs HURT) and were fixed in elevation and traverse ... but should have reached 1500 m/s and ~165 km.
this single update basically makes destroyers obsolete all u need is a ship with atleast 15" guns with long barrel and its gg and 18.5" guns shoot to 72km ez so basically all u need is a ship with these long barrel cannons and a spotter
One things that needs be changed is to have secondary guns fire at torpedoes as well. This was done in RL too, and current RL CIWS can even hit missiles. Also, stationary ships can deploy torpedo nets to snag them before they hit.
No point in having range beyond 50km, as you noticed flight time becomes too long. Having heavy shells just means you are taking longer to reload. I'd have gone with light or standard ap shells.
Why is it so accurate?? Well maybe the dev add some features to the shell like laser guidance because it can predict where the target move, like what You've said we're shooting cruise missile 😆😆😆😆
Assuming height of this Super BB similar to - for example - Yamato (51m height total, less 11m of draft; my numbers - couldn't find that with cursory internet search), then horizon will be at about 26km from the top. But you need to double that to calculate spotting range of one Yamato by another Yamato - so spotting one BB by another BB at 50km is about right.
OK so they've added IR or radar-guided steerable flechette rounds? It would still require GPS and maybe laser to kill in one shot. Ultimate Admiral: Federation Starfleet (or maybe Ultimate Admiral: Adama).
Lets assume 2000kg of the 2890kg shell is explosive. 3 penetrating hits is detonating 6000kg or 13.2 thousand lbs of explosives inside the ship. A small magazine detonation where there isn't supposed to be a magazine detonation. It gets worse. A tallboy bomb has 2400kg of explosive filler. Imagine 2 extra spicy tallboys exploding inside the ship. No wonder a single salvo ohk that 2nd battleship.
@@AlexMueller1982 it says shell weight on the stats card and as the 16" shells for the Iowa class were the weight of a small car a 20.9" would be huge. And then super heavy too. The amount of HE filler on the high capacity shell was pure guess and by assuming 890kg of the shell was casing it made the maths easier.
this has got to be the most amount of times I've heard Stealth say "What the fuck!?" in this one video than every video I've watched of his so far(the ones I've currently seen at least) combined
If you think about it tho, most this tech is going to take alot of time to get in campaign and heres the thing your forgetting. you can have missions where the enemy starts off extremely close to you so without spending an extreme amount of money on your escorts you will probably loose these sniper ships to DDs etc very easily in campaign.
There might also be a real life issue with quad guns. Well, might also pertain to triple turrets as well. As I recall, both Richieliu(sp?) and Jean Bart's main battery weren't all that accurate and I think this was a result of the proximity of the muzzles. The muzzle blast would throw off the aim of the nearby shells and cause some lost accuracy. I think this also affected triple turrets to a degree as well as evidenced by the center gun on Belfast's main battery turrets being set back from the outboard pair. All of this could be reflected in the loss of accuracy of Quads and to a lesser degree triples in the game.
That is true, yes. Mk I Eyeball does not have that Range :). Just to give you some Numbers: If the Pagoda Tower would be 150m ASL you could See 48km. With a 100m ASL Spotting Position it would be 39km. Given a very clear and sunny Day. So yes, WAY more. Edit: Source de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichtweite - i postet the German Page, the English one lacks A LOT of Informations and Examples.
I have encountered these same problems with my ships just exploding for no reason as well as the unkillable enemies. The way you kill the enemy is to flood them when structure reaches 0 and they keep fighting
Gotta love it when you're on the beta version and they release an update when your In the middle of the campaign and then they somehow break the campaign so that many game crashes everytime i start a campaign and now when i tried to reinstall the game steam is coming up with an update error, I'm in pain
I tried it out a bit with similar layout and the results are... mixed. 100% constant accuracy at 45km is attainable with the right conditions but if you want to pack better firepower on your ship, you'll most probably be looking at 35-50% at these ranges. However, no matter how many guns i packed on the hull, 30km and less were always a constant 100% accuracy. With shells that deal upwards of 5k damage. Fair and balanced.
The 20.9 inch shells are so destructive they are scooping out all the battleship and leaving it as an empty hull making them impossible to sink.
Those guns are so deadly, the game probably had to resort to negative values. Causing the effective creation of immortal zombie ships
I suspect this is a bug. The ships were destroyed before they were identified. Has anyone else had this happen, I know I haven't (destroyed a ship before it was identified, that is)?
@@davecook3138 if that is what causes the bug, then it's due to 1.06. In 1.05 i sink unidentified ships all the time, they simply sink as should be
@@derblitzspieler9577 Thanks. That clears that up.
@@davecook3138 I've sunk a lot of ships (mostly torpedo boats) before identification in 1.06, so it's not that.
With the flight time on the shells you should be able to dodge incoming fire at 40km. But the hit percentage is really messed up. They're going to have to fix this.
Nah men, at that range ships could 100% no scope them.
the counter point is at that range, who in their right mind thinks they're going to be shot at? the AI should have an alertness mechanic, if they don't know you're there, they can't take reactive evasive manuvers
@@overboss9599 Everyone in their right mind would assume to be the target. On sea targets are very rare, so if there is no one else (ship or fleet), you are the target.
Even if the enemy is behind the horizon, the gun flash of a battleship gun is still visible
The thing is, while slightly too strong it isn't out of order. Late war Radar and guns were absolutely devastating. For example, during the Battle of Surigao Strait the West Virginia with 16 inch guns tracked the attacking japanese fleet in from 38km. And fired her first salvo at 20km, striking the Yamashiro with her first Salvo.
Radar and large guns combined is OP.
NEVER EVER try tp justify op in a game by stating reality.
This is a game. It does not mirror reality in the slightest and in fact it shouldn't in the first place. It must be balanced somehow to be PLAYable. This simply deletes any need for anything else but this combo. There is no counter to it and therefore the game is pretty much broken now.
One salvo of HE kills everything instantly. No need for any other ship type anymore (and yes, I know you could argue bbs worked this way before, but you could make it work somehow), nor is there any need for tactics. This is just broken.
The West Virginia didn't even have the top of the line fire control
Good point Aquila
@@Ascaron1337 My dude. I am a Game Designer. I know how to make a game. And games like this, who are at least based on reality, and offer a degree of simulation should if not fully follow reality, still align with it.
I am not disagreeing that currently, it is too strong, but it is too strong because it is unrealistic. And seemingly doesn't take course changes into account. Furthermore smaller ships will have a smaller radar crosssection and as such will be harder to spot, while larger guns will have more dispersion and more barrel wear.
If I make a ship with the best(most expensive, and heaviest) radar, the most elite crew and everything, I would expect this ship to be good and highly accurate, at least against battleships and maybe cruisers.
No this is very unrealistic, the enemy ship can just change its direction once to dodge the shot from a +40k range.
The captain was a spy turning into the shells apparently but your one shot the first salvo before it fired it said 30% when it had its targeting solution then it went to 100% that's why it missed the first time. It wasn't lying to you for the follow up shot.
underated comment
"this accuracy is lying to me" actually it was at 30% before the first salvo on the second battle, only after the guns fired taht the ship acquired a firing solution and got a 100% accuracy
I feel this is a result of +long range accuracy scaling not being designed with 80km ranges on the guns. The +long range accuracy buff starts low, and then starts to scale up as you get farther away. At ranges the game had previously this scaling worked to help offset the normal loss of accuracy at range. But now that you're shooting of to 80km as opposed to 35km the benefit from +long range accuracy has continued to grow. As this happens the base accuracy can't go below 0. So eventually the negative effect of base accuracy stops getting worse, while the benefit to long range accuracy continue to grow faster and faster. The end result being over 100% accuracy past a certain range because accuracy started growing again after bottoming out at some point.
At least someone here understands the mechanics
At that range, 40 km and not missing the shot, it seems like gps guided artillery
Underselling it. The shells have fins on them to steer themselves towards their targets like anti-air missiles.
It's just tomahawks, the cannons are for concealment and deception
6:34 basically with 83 km with this ship you can shoot from Messina to Tropea and still have 22 km left (or used more energy to hit the target)
its only 80-83km from cava d'aliga on sicily to the coast of the northern most island of malta. one of those 20.9" guns could also have reliably been able to fire at and hit dover if the gun was located in calais during ww2 as that distance is only 41km, half the guns max range
@@Deilwynna well, those you said are more accurate target
Non mi aspettavo una distanza misurata così ahahahah
@@ortos11 un po' tragico come esempio lo so ma ehi, con questa beta praticamente si è creato uno scenario di missili a media gittata, dove non serve nemmeno staccarsi dal porto per difendere le navi (inoltre non potevo usare la distanza tra Trieste e Pola perché mancavano 3 km)
I think you could hit Sassari from Bonifacio
If this accuracy is what can be expected by tech in the 1940s, what would happen if you did this to a ship from the 1890s era. Those ships couldn't hit the broadside of a very large barn from any distance above a kilometer or two.
Ehhhh would you kindly give a source for that claim? Because I believe it's pretty badly wrong.
Battle ranges even in the interwar period had gone up to the point some older guns were unusable due to barrel elevation limits (a few french ships had that particular problem), we're talking 10 - 15 kilometers. Not with perfect accuracy of course, but when you shoot at ships that are anywhere from 100 - 300 meters in length that's not so bad.
@@Kr0noZ I wasn't really making my assumption on historical figures. It was purely based on in game matches.
Pre-dreadnoughts are larger than very large barns, so you are actually underselling how inaccurate they were until people realized you should probably put rangefinders on ships.
@@SephirothRyu i think hes talking about in game warship performance
The BB was throwing MOABs with those HE shots
That 50-ship challenge is looking really easy now.
In the unlikely event that you see this comment, I just wanted to say that, in this game, projectiles don't work like you seem to be expecting them to.
At no point does the game actually simulate (or even just calculate realistic probabilities, according to the 3d geometry involved) the shells that your ships fire, how they move through the air, to finally looking at the impact point and attitude relative to that of the surface it has just contacted, to determine if it was a hit (not to even mention stuff like actually using the simulated impact point to determine things like deck vs. belt hits) or not.
Therefore, doing things like sailing all of your ships packed right next to eachother, doesn't actually increase their chances of getting hit from 'missed' shots aimed at the most central ship.
Similarly, since the game doesn't actually simulate the shot trajectory, the probability of you hitting a target's deck vs. their belt does not depend on things that would seem to make sense, for example, having a severe list to the side which rounds are arriving from doesn't make deck hits any more or less likely than would having a list in the other direction.
Decreasing a ship's beam and/or increasing the draft also doesn't make the proportion of deck vs. belt hits any less likely, nor does it change the angles that the game considers you to have been hit from (in the vertical plane), which means it also doesn't affect the distribution of deck/belt hit probability vs. range and aspect as it should (and you also can't 'shield' even the smallest destroyer by parking it right up against the largest, tallest possible battleship. It doesn't even change your, or the enemy's, 'accuracy' either...).
What the dev's have decided on as this game's most basic design philosophy is basically just creating pretty, though sometimes nonsensical, and always causally disconnected, 3d graphics to depict certain events as they occur in the 'real' game loop, which is just a glorified spreadsheet with 2 types of actions: 1) Change the variables' numeric values, or 2) Roll a pseudorandom number and use it to calculate the result of the same equations, but just (perhaps) updated with some different variable values.
I believe this is the main reason why even 1-on-1 battles (thus ignoring formation and pathing issues) can feel so 'unfair', unintuitive and just plain 'wrong'. It also explains why even grand fleet engagements seem dead, almost sterile after a while, and it also goes some way to explaining why formations and 2d ship movement conflicts, like collisions, have had so many enduring issues for so long; i.e. the game only needs to know the distance to the target and that target's aspect angle to calculate the appropriate # of hits and then just animates each hit by drawing an invisible parabola connecting your ship to the enemy's ship and moving the visible shell + its effects along that parabola, until it intersects the target.
Actual 2d movement and real-time collisions only needed some serious considerations with torpedos, but even then it doesn't really require a full fledged custom physics engine to check if constant-speed objects, that only move in single straight lines, have gone from 'not inside' to 'inside' of one of your ship's outlines in the past 1 or 2 ticks...
This is essentially why neither historical facts and Iogical truths, nor the game's own text descriptions, are what you should use to base your decisions off of. Only the actual numerical values matter, and of those, only the ones that are actually used by the game will have any effect, although you have no way of knowing which of the numbers those are or what their actual effects are (except through large-scale trial and error, each time the game gets patched or updated in any way).
An interesting example of this in action is the fore/aft weight offset number. In actuality, trading an equal % of increased pitch to reduce the fore/aft weight offset by a similar numerical amount, will leave you with 2 ships with precisely the same accuracy. As for the other stats that are also affected, it seems like (for reasonably well- designed and balanced ships) once you start to gain 1% of pitch to remove 1% of weight offset, it really doesn't make that much difference which you try to minimize.
So basicly Min/Max your values until you win?
tldr
dude wrote a whole essay
You mind if I borrow this for an essay I gotta write about something completely random as long as it makes sense?
They seems to have changed accuracy to fix the impossibility of hittign ships in low tech but the changes had suepr side effects at high tech.
Sounds like some of those sub-caliber munitions with rocket boosters they were researching for the Iowas. That range is damn insane.
When your damage is so OP that the AI needs a godmode to even have a try at you
well this will be your next taskmaster and the objective is to destroy the chōyō BB
rules:
-ship must not go over $901M (both ships sums up and not go over its total cost)
-range must be exceeded the choyo's gun range
-any nation except for japan(stealth's ship nation)
- it is a 2v1
- choyo must only have HE
- must only use BC-BB class
lore: the imperial of japan has created a super warship that easily annihilates any ship without warning intel found it have very sophisticated radar and rangefinder that can reach from its mainland to any target it pleases however intel also found that the super warship is the choyo class sniper monitor super warship using the yamato class hull its pricetag is not that cheap but it is the first trial if this warship's trial is successful we been looking at a range disadvantage as it can murder our carriers without warning you need to destroy the choyo before it can be mass produced its been spotted but excessive AA defenses has rendered bombing runs useless we've dispatched 2 of our best BB's to take care of them and we need the best ship designer to make those 2 BB's and stop choyo's plan to turning the pacific to a sniper zone
objective: locate and destroy the choyo class monitor ship
When you accidentally bring a modern fire control system back in time.
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today."
Ah yes the Yamato class intercontinental class artillery "destroyer"
Fantastic shot they never saw it comming lol I also think that you need a spotter aircraft to use all that range just like the Yamato lol I think you have found your answer for taskmaster tuesday so you can win pretty much every time
Or you could o it like the Americans and use radar, and also straddle or hit the enemy with the first salvo.
25'' pen with HE!? This is madness.
On a side note, i think it would be better if it was not predetermined whether a shell hits. That would allow you to avoid getting hit at those super long ranges by maneuvering.
Not at all cause it's an 2,8 tonnes heavy bomb.
looks like that shell is a gps guided shell that us navy have been research for a quite a while
1:49 Lol I see what you did there.
Too late, we're already on the way. ;)
I was seeing pretty similar results in a 1940s campaign, but with smaller guns. 12.2" with +20% caliber. Sadly, a number of bugs make the campaign nearly unplayable right now. AI nations have their crew pool disappear, preventing them from getting into battles. Your GDP drops when an ally overspends. And the wrong nation might get your VP when you win a battle.
The barrel lenght effects must scale DOWN for larger calibers. When you have such huge guns the limit starts to be the materials and increasing the barrel length would just result in nasty side effects on the barrel itself.
Actually... that depends. There have been experiments with ludicrously long barrels and the biggest issue is this: Your propellant charge only produces a certain amount of gas - if the barrel is so long that the pressure drops too much, friction will slow down the shell before it leaves the barrel. Until that point, you're mostly fine.
@@Kr0noZ so more pressure you say? _Proceeds to make barrels thicker than the armour belt of most CLs to handle ludicrous pressure from super strength propellant_
@@Kr0noZ
Project H.A.R.P. (this is the real one by Gerald Bull) used two end to end welded and reinforced 16"/L50 Mark 7 guns to make the one 16.4" smoothbore L100 which fired projectiles as fast as the Sprint ABM could go.
I feel like they need to add a scout plane feature for battleships, battlecruisers and heavy cruisers and put it in the equipment section. It would make this kind of battleship actually work on its own
OMG - I have NEVER seen a 1 shot on a 1940's battleship of any nation before!!!!
Cause you are too young son.
“Local battleship too angry to miss shots halfway across the ocean”
Probably sent the enemy so far into negative HP the game was reading it as positive again
You didn't just hit him at 45KM... you hit him with 2 of those shells!
This begs the question of when does the curvature of the earth come into play at these ranges?
In this Game? Never. In Reality? Well Depends. If his Spotter in The Pagoda Tower is 150m ASL he could see 48km given perfect Conditions. 100m ASL would still be 39km. In Reality it would be much less since perfect Conditions are sorts of rare ^^
@@AlexMueller1982 I just vaguely recalled that the Yamato Class had spotter planes for this very reason. Could make for an interesting mechanic if those were a thing.
Now the game just needs 90km torpedoes
If they acted the same way shots are calculated ,They would be homing torpedoes
Hahahaha yeah, you launch torpedoes... 3 hours later, 11 out 12 hit, having perfectly predicted every enemy maneuver.
19:32 wow 4ton AP and 2.9ton HE. It literally cruise missile. And a heavy one also.
26:10 anyone else notice that Chōyō took an entire chunk of of the first battleships A turret there is literally just a big hole we’re part of the turret was
Apparently, you hit those battleships so hard that you compressed the holes in the ships.
Those shells are probably laser guided with that accuracy.
I believe the RNG roll of the hit and damage is calculated and final at the time of firing so any maneuvering is irrelevant against guns.
Now I'd be rather interested in seeing what the maximum HE pen capability is with those monsters and the capped-ballistic HE shells. Or just a build centered around max HE, trying to find what the most ridiculous combination with these guns is.
Sooooo.... There was a fellow who commented on one of Stealth17's videos, a year or more ago, in numerical detail, about this whole thing. I remember most of everything, but his name. He deserves to take a bow on this.
minute 21 - it appears that 1940's batttleships have GPS guided shells unlocked
I'm interested to see what sniper secondary armament can do on battleship... If it can surpass max torpedo range, it can defeat the torpedo spam strategies.
that 100% accuracy is what gen 3 radar does, not sure why it does that but it's completely overpowered
Here is what you get for the complains of torps. Face the new sniper meta.
Edit: Also, this may be a game mechanic that will improve when finalized. This will be probably balanced later on so don't worry that much.
Edit 2: Also, take note that every gun model has its own standard barrel length. Meaning every gun model and I mean EVERY gun model has a different maximum barrel length giving nations thier own unique style of gameplay.
Edit 3: 17:51 This is what we would have got if naval artillery improved so much. I think this is a bit more effective than Anti-ship missiles in these ranges.
Those shells probably have solid fuel rockets if they can hit 82km, there is no way you can pack enough TNT into one of those guns to impart enough force to send it that far...
Also, if that's four guns, now imagine a single barrel with Autoloading... 20.9-inch Semi-Auto sniper rifle anyone?
the Paris Gun hit at 130 kilometers of range
@@Chujoi0
Well of course, but that's a 9.37 inch land based artillery cannon... Significantly lighter shell in a significantly longer barrel... Now compare that to a most likely shorter barrel, the 20.9-inch cannon on the battleship that was made... And considering he's using Super-heavy shells, unless they had railguns in 1940 (the electromagnetic railguns being developed today, not artillery cannons on tracks smartasses) there is no way to launch a shell of that caliber to that range without a separate propulsion system inside the shell
@@Chujoi0 not accurately
Everything perfectly balanced. I wonder how the stuff turns out in the live version.
“Is that Venus?”
-Unknown British Captain, 1940
The dual barrel at 79 calibers is roughly 137.6 feet/41.94 meters long. That’s quiet the lengthy protrusion.
The maths-
(20.9x79)/12= 137.59’
Next time Geneva has a convention, "Why is this paper all wet?!"
Max pen ammo doesn`t really seem worth it with big guns. You just get overpens all day, as we saw here. However, this might be where the semi AP are worth it.
those AP rounds should cause flooding with those over-pens
semi ballistic is better with what ive been experimenting with
ran the gun through the 'BIG BALLISTICS' calc, 80km seems doable with a 4000kg shell at 983m/s from a 45° gun angle
Just casually launching tactical nuclear warheads from 45 km
Well, and mass of shells. You are firing a truck to an enemy.
24:12 i kind of wish you'd gotten a screenshot of that moment, it looked spectacular from a distance! also, _WHAT. THE. HECK_
This video is Stealth finding out this game is just a dice roll RNG and not actually physics.
Say goodbye to torpedo boat spam.
21:05 I died laughing at that. One-shots a battleship with the first salvo with HE by instantly causing it to suffer from extensive fire. Incredible.
Hello Stealth17 Gaming! 25:45 new torpedo feature or now even underwater cliffs are a thing too? (4th torp from the left)
premature detonation, it's a new chance-based feature. The other thing is duds, meaning torpedos that hit but do not go boom.
how long range should it b-
YES.
16:45 You were hit to the front but the damage panel showed damage to the rear
😂 I had to double check that. Wow
In new beta AI doing this to my fleet surprised on how they hit ship at second salvo with plunging fire.
They use 488mm tho
80 km range means you can anchor up in Vlissingen harbour and hit Antwerpen, Gent, Oostende, and Spijkernisse.
And stll there is a dum dum named Aquila here who think this is realistic.
This Whole Video was a Certified Iowa-Class Moment.
I got in the first time trying this new patch and got pen by a 2 inch gun on a 20inch main gun and then flash fire, I really think this version need a lot of work
It seems the British ships got smacked so hard they forgot to die
I feel like single guns would’ve shown the sniping better,
Wonder about how short reload you can get with short barrels and auto loader two now (14inch quads/triples/duals all tested)
It’s interesting to think
short barrels would worsen the ac and the traget size is also very relevant.
@@corranhuss I meant for shortest reload type ship
If you edit the save file, you can get 20.9in guns that reload in, as the game would say “∞.”
The guns shoot so fast that only one gun can shoot unless it’s a different caliber. (It’s due to how the game ripple fires the salvos. It can never get passed the first gun.)
Though I think it’d be more fun to see what the highest BB RoF is that is also reasonably obtainable in campaign.
The single and dual turrets were the same 79 caliber, but the quad turret was only 76 caliber. So despite being the same bore size of 20.9", the length of the guns on the quads were 20.9"/76 (so 76 calibers long) which was shorter, giving you a lower velocity than the longer guns. The number after the slash is referred to as the caliber. The higher the caliber, the higher the speed. So for example, the 16"/45 guns on the South Dakota's and North Carolina's fired the same shell as the Iowa's 16"/50, but the Iowas had a MUCH higher shell velocity.
Why are the quad guns shorter to begin with? That's an interesting question.
The gun length varies by nation.
@@davecook3138 I'm not sure your point. The quad gun was the same nation (Japan), yet was a different caliber, 20.9"/76.
Ahh. Ok sorry, Ben.
Railguns,
Railguns
Damn these he shells hit harder then the hot sauce from taco bell lol
I think your battleship is just a carrier in very heavy disguise with that accuracy and range
As hilariously overpowered this is. Id like to see you retry it with the various hot fixes that have already been released.
Has the stereoscopic / coincidence balance changed lately? I'm still leaning towards base accuracy, because in the past that counted more even at long range. --The "long range" tech was outmatched at long range.
7:05 ... 84 seconds ... except it is even longer. Not only does friction slow down the shell, but a lot of the kinetic energy is converted in potential energy as the shell goes higher and higher, slowing down all the way up, but converting the potential energy back into kinetic energy as it starts falling down. So the flight time is more like 2+ minutes.
Look at the Paris Guns of WW1 for a comparison ... a 8.3"/L176, with a muzzle velocity of (up to) 1645m/s. They used nearly 200kg Tube Powder C/12 (stored at constant 15°C near the gun) to get these speeds (and of course this was not healthy for the gun ...). And shooting at an elevation of 55° (you read that right, 45° + 10°) the projectiles rose to 38-40 km, spending most of their flight in the stratosphere, where the air is very close to vacuum with very little friction ... that gave them 130 km range.
The longest range of all other guns in WWI was ~40km.
It took the A4 / V2 rocket to exceed height and range --- 80-90km height and 320 km range, but reaching no more than 1600m/s best case.
Albeit straight up it could reach 176km (vertical test launch MW 18014, 20 June 1944, first object to reach space, first sub-orbital spaceflight) and 189km in a later launch of the same test series.
Mind you, bombers were longer ranged and carried a lot more explosive power than the 7kg inside the paris gun or the ~1000kg of the V2.
Gun-wise the HARP project comes to mind:
16" (obsolete) navy guns, join 2 barrels for a 36m (evacuated!) barrel, shooting 6.6" projectile (capable of containing a rocket engine) (using a sabot), shooting 1 180 kg projectile with 3600 m/s muzzle velocity to 180 km.
And of course the "Hochdruckpumpe", the V3, which never went into action at full size (Tallboy earthquake bombs HURT) and were fixed in elevation and traverse ... but should have reached 1500 m/s and ~165 km.
a sniper BB huh i bet it is a suitable role for a monitor ship if you want Firepower with less turrets while keeping at a safe distance
this single update basically makes destroyers obsolete
all u need is a ship with atleast 15" guns with long barrel and its gg and 18.5" guns shoot to 72km ez
so basically
all u need is a ship with these long barrel cannons and a spotter
imagine using that in the campaign
This video felt so unreal and funny
One things that needs be changed is to have secondary guns fire at torpedoes as well. This was done in RL too, and current RL CIWS can even hit missiles.
Also, stationary ships can deploy torpedo nets to snag them before they hit.
I did love your reactions. :) Good stuff!
No point in having range beyond 50km, as you noticed flight time becomes too long. Having heavy shells just means you are taking longer to reload. I'd have gone with light or standard ap shells.
Standards are more accurate as well
at 25:46 did that torpedo just randomly explode? or was it hit by a stray shell?
Why is it so accurate?? Well maybe the dev add some features to the shell like laser guidance because it can predict where the target move, like what You've said we're shooting cruise missile 😆😆😆😆
Assuming height of this Super BB similar to - for example - Yamato (51m height total, less 11m of draft; my numbers - couldn't find that with cursory internet search), then horizon will be at about 26km from the top. But you need to double that to calculate spotting range of one Yamato by another Yamato - so spotting one BB by another BB at 50km is about right.
OK so they've added IR or radar-guided steerable flechette rounds? It would still require GPS and maybe laser to kill in one shot. Ultimate Admiral: Federation Starfleet (or maybe Ultimate Admiral: Adama).
UAD 1.06 Beta in two words: ONE PUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNCH
19:00 dear god, the bendy bullet is real. if manouvering meant anything this could be ok, but since its "dice say hit" this is completely broken.
The American large Cage mast should have really good long range stats
TFW you go back in time and explain the concept of GPS to Einstein in 1920. Yeah it's very bugged but that was glorious.
Lets assume 2000kg of the 2890kg shell is explosive.
3 penetrating hits is detonating 6000kg or 13.2 thousand lbs of explosives inside the ship.
A small magazine detonation where there isn't supposed to be a magazine detonation.
It gets worse. A tallboy bomb has 2400kg of explosive filler. Imagine 2 extra spicy tallboys exploding inside the ship.
No wonder a single salvo ohk that 2nd battleship.
Are you sure about the Shell weights? Not critizising, just a lack of knowledge on my side.
@@AlexMueller1982 it says shell weight on the stats card and as the 16" shells for the Iowa class were the weight of a small car a 20.9" would be huge. And then super heavy too.
The amount of HE filler on the high capacity shell was pure guess and by assuming 890kg of the shell was casing it made the maths easier.
@@Tuck-Shop Thx
So... how long till you start playing with save edits to mess with the new gun values?
Just started the video and already enjoying the vibes
Boss man if you look at that torp out of the dd a torp looked like it popped right before you looked back. Is that new?
this has got to be the most amount of times I've heard Stealth say "What the fuck!?" in this one video than every video I've watched of his so far(the ones I've currently seen at least) combined
when you hit a ship so hard its structural integrity values stack overflow and it turns into a zombie ship
If you think about it tho, most this tech is going to take alot of time to get in campaign and heres the thing your forgetting. you can have missions where the enemy starts off extremely close to you so without spending an extreme amount of money on your escorts you will probably loose these sniper ships to DDs etc very easily in campaign.
That's why you build 2 classes, 1 brawler type, 1 sniper type, and keep them paired that way
Just noticed that the damage indicator shows the turret pop.
Cute little additional animation.
There might also be a real life issue with quad guns. Well, might also pertain to triple turrets as well. As I recall, both Richieliu(sp?) and Jean Bart's main battery weren't all that accurate and I think this was a result of the proximity of the muzzles. The muzzle blast would throw off the aim of the nearby shells and cause some lost accuracy. I think this also affected triple turrets to a degree as well as evidenced by the center gun on Belfast's main battery turrets being set back from the outboard pair. All of this could be reflected in the loss of accuracy of Quads and to a lesser degree triples in the game.
I believe 83km is way more than eye observation range?
That is true, yes. Mk I Eyeball does not have that Range :). Just to give you some Numbers: If the Pagoda Tower would be 150m ASL you could See 48km. With a 100m ASL Spotting Position it would be 39km. Given a very clear and sunny Day. So yes, WAY more. Edit: Source de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichtweite - i postet the German Page, the English one lacks A LOT of Informations and Examples.
I have encountered these same problems with my ships just exploding for no reason as well as the unkillable enemies. The way you kill the enemy is to flood them when structure reaches 0 and they keep fighting
Gotta love it when you're on the beta version and they release an update when your In the middle of the campaign and then they somehow break the campaign so that many game crashes everytime i start a campaign and now when i tried to reinstall the game steam is coming up with an update error, I'm in pain
I tried it out a bit with similar layout and the results are... mixed. 100% constant accuracy at 45km is attainable with the right conditions but if you want to pack better firepower on your ship, you'll most probably be looking at 35-50% at these ranges. However, no matter how many guns i packed on the hull, 30km and less were always a constant 100% accuracy. With shells that deal upwards of 5k damage. Fair and balanced.