I'm guessing he's suggesting: "If it aint broke, don't fix it"I must be missing something. Why is this relevant?
I'm guessing he's suggesting: "If it aint broke, don't fix it"I must be missing something. Why is this relevant?
Shouldn't they in your opinion switch to an English-American flag instead? After all...[...]If you were really that worried about making a pointless change to something that wasn't broken, or incorrect then you could have used the hybrid flag of half-and-half
between the British-American flag.
[...] it's called the English language for a reason [...]
- Added anti-Daniel trigger to USA focus Issue Warbonds. Now available if at war with any sufficiently large nation
In my defence, it's been a long week.Smooth.
What naval combat balance issues are there left, after 1.2 patch?Can we please get actual formulas for naval combat, rather than vague descriptions that are contradicted by the in-game tooltips and the defines.lua comments? I could have fixed most of the naval combat balance issues by now, but I am not going to spend a week deriving equations that a developer can post in five minutes.
What naval combat balance issues are there left, after 1.2 patch?
What naval combat balance issues are there left, after 1.2 patch?
Other than subs being perhaps too visible in the early years, or perhaps early year sub detection is too easy, it is looking like PDS struck a good balance with the changes.
Btw, thanks for all the effort you put in to help them in the beta.
Ok, I'm going to ask for max cheese:CL spam vs DD and CA (50/50 PP breakdown):
As always, the side with DD has all doctrines researched. The side with the CL has no doctrines.
Edit:
When I excluded the DD and just ran the CA vs CL, CL sank 2 CA with no losses.
The CLs should be the better way to spend the PP for things that aren't sub-hunting, so I wouldn't consider that necessarily an issue per se (said sub-hunting and related convoy escorts ensure you'd want to produce some DDs anyway, but not only DDs, which I think is a plus)To start with, light cruisers are still strictly superior to destroyers for each PP invested, and appear to be strictly superior to everything else as well.
To start with, light cruisers are still strictly superior to destroyers for each PP invested, and appear to be strictly superior to everything else as well. Ran a quick test in 1936 start with the new patch, using the 1936 hulls that should be the most common types afloat in most scenarios, AND gave the country with the destroyers all doctrines:
Edit: 40 1936 CL cost 32000PP; 80 1936 DD cost 32500PP.
40 CL vs 80 DD:
40 CL + 3 BB vs 100 DD & 3BB:
80 CL vs 100 DD & 3 BB:
As can be seen, light cruiser spam is still probably the way to go, except possibly regarding submarines.
I did some work on naval balance after the 1.1 patch, but ran into a wall with the torpedo hit chances, since my numbers did not match test results. Since Podcat posted at the time that he was working on a big naval combat rebalance for the 1.2 patch, and since we didn't have the actual to-hit and damage formulas, I decided to do something else in the meanwhile.
Without knowing how chance to hit and damage are calculated, I can guess at what is going on, but can't produce potential new stats without brute-force testing.
Edit:
I'll poke poke carriers and subs later.
CL spam vs DD and CA (50/50 PP breakdown):
As always, the side with DD has all doctrines researched. The side with the CL has no doctrines.
Edit:
When I excluded the DD and just ran the CA vs CL, CL sank 2 CA with no losses.
That's how I read it (and would agree with it, if that's the case) but with a caveat, that the "advantage" can be viewed in broader terms than just "will win combat if we pit all these ships against one another"I am assuming your point is that if two nations both invested 272,000 in Naval production and one nation built only light cruisers and another nation invested in a historically plausible naval program, you would expect the plausible build to have an advantage rather than a gamey spam build?
In a plausible build where a Destroyer is worth 900 ish and a light cruiser is 3400 ish you would get 3-4 destroyers for every light cruiser? In reality wouldn't you expect a light cruiser to account for many destroyers? Aren't there pros and cons to what they are both good at and strategic choices that one would need to make between the two?
In game a destroyer costs 900 ish spanners and a Light cruiser is 3400 ish - this makes a Light cruiser three times more expensive?
That's how I read it (and would agree with it, if that's the case) but with a caveat, that the "advantage" can be viewed in broader terms than just "will win combat if we pit all these ships against one another"
E.g. a nation which invests part of its PP in the DD program will be worse off in that one Decisive Battle that'd bring tear to a Japanese eye, but at the same time that nation will be in much better spot when trying to protecting their trade and supply convoys from enemy subs, if just because large number of small ships will allow them to cover larger number of sea zones, and still do good job detecting/destroying the subs.
Running a few quick tests it'd appear the all-DD screen group is likely to (narrowly) outlast a mix of DDs and CLs of comparable PP value, but at expense of taking heavier losses. At the same time, this matchup doesn't take into account better AA defense provided by the CLs, so things can potentially turn different if there's carrier(s) and/or land-based naval bombers getting into the fight.So CL are no longer the go-to ship for everything, but they now also don't seem to have much of a role since DD are superior at screening.