naval [NAVAL] An Overhaul of Naval Damage Mechanics

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Current naval damage model has lot of problems caused by it being just enlarged tank DM. The naval DM should be more influenced by real life. US damage report can clearly ilustrate what were causes of ship losses IRL. i used USN war damage reports to get the idea and inspiration on how naval DM should change my main intention isn´t to make naval DM 100% simulation but to get the feal that player is in warship while making it still understandable and fun. So I will first use the war damage reports to show the real life data and then describe the changes to DM I think are needed:

Quote

 From Destroyer Report  Torpedo and Mine Damage and Loss in Action

Quote

PLEASE NOTE THAT KAMIKAZE LOSSES SHOULDN´T BE COUNTED (AND ARE THEREFOR CROSSED) but their examination can give good representation of large bomb hit effects. 

Governing Elements in Loss of Destroyers Sunk By Gunfire, Bomb or Kamikaze Attack

A. Flooding - 14 Losses
a. Loss of buoyancy aggravated by radical list -
1.	PRESTON (DD379)	1500T	Gunfire	Guadalcanal	11/15/42
2.	MADDOX (DD622)	1630T	Bombs	Sicily	7/10/43
3.	HOEL (DD533)	2050T	Gunfire	Samar	10/25/44
4.	JOHNSTON (DD577)	2050T	Gunfire	Samar	10/25/44
5.	REID (DD369)	1500T	Kamikaze	Leyte	12/11/44
6.	DREXLER (DD741)	2200T	Kamikaze	Okinawa	5/28/45
b. Loss of buoyancy aggravated by radical trim -
1.	SIMS (DD409)	1570T	Bombs	Coral Sea	5/7/42
2.	DUNCAN (DD485)	1630T	Gunfire	Guadalcanal	10/12/42
3.	CALLAGHAN (DD792)	2050T	Kamikaze	Okinawa	7/29/45
4.	LUCE (DD522)	2050T	Kamikaze	Okinawa	5/4/45
5.	MORRISON (DD560)	2050T	Kamikaze	Okinawa	5/4/45
6.	W.[illiam] D. PORTER (DD579)	2050T	Kamikaze	Okinawa	6/10/45
c. Loss of buoyancy on relatively even keel -
1.	DeHAVEN (DD469)	2050T	Bombs	Guadalcanal	2/1/43
2.	AARON WARD (DD483)	1630T	Bombs	Guadalcanal	4/7/43
B. Structural Failure - 6 Losses
a. Jackknifed -
1.	BROWNSON (DD518)	2050T	Bombs	Cape Gloucester	12/26/43
2.	BUSH (DD529)	2050T	Kamikaze	Okinawa	4/6/45
3.	MANNERT L. ABELE (DD733)	2200T	Kamikaze	Okinawa	4/12/45
4.	PRINGLE (DD477)	2050T	Kamikaze	Okinawa	4/16/45
5.	LITTLE (DD803)	2050T	Kamikaze	Okinawa	5/3/45
b. Sagged by the stern
1.	COLHOUN (DD801)	2050T	Kamikaze	Okinawa	4/6/45
C. Magazine Explosion - 5 Losses
a. On direct hit -
1.	LONGSHAW (DD559)	2050T	Gunfire	Okinawa	5/18/45
b. Following fire -
1.	CUSHING (DD376)	1500T	Gunfire	Guadalcanal	11/13/42
2.	MONSSEN (DD436)	1630T	Gunfire	Guadalcanal	11/13/42
3.	ABNER READ (DD526)	2050T	Kamikaze	Leyte	11/1/44
4.	MAHAN (DD364)	1500T	Kamikaze	Ormoc	12/7/44

In many cases ships in which were critically damaged but were able to survive shuld be IMO taken as "destroyed" because they were taken out of action for long time which cannot be simulated in game. Notable examples from damage report:

Spoiler

Direct bomb hit - structural failture

Spoiler

Several near misses - hull rupture extensive flooding 

Spoiler

Extensive damge by shell fire - the edge case scenario which should be surviable IMO

Spoiler

 

 

Quote

From Destroyer Report  Torpedo and Mine Damage and Loss in Action

Quote

Torpedo damage - fatal

Spoiler

Torpedo damage - fatal

Spoiler

 Mine damage - fatal

Spoiler

Stern torpedo damage - IMO should be still surviable in WT (though it should cause extesive reduction in manuverability)

Spoiler

 

 

Quote

From Summary of War Damage to U. S. Battleships, Carriers, Cruisers And Destroyers

Quote

Cause of Damage or Loss

Type of Vessel	Aircraft			Submarine	Surface Craft			Mine	Disappeared	Total
	Bomb	Torp.	Bomb + Torp.		Torp.	Gunfire	Torp. + Gnf.
BB	4	1	4	1		2				12
CV	4		2	4						10
CA	2			1	4	4	4		1	16
CL	3	1	1	1		2	1			9
DD	10	2(a)	1	8	3	14	2		Ma)	43(b)
Total	23	Ma)	8	15	7	22	7	0	5(a)	90(b)

 

Only some more detailed report are included:

CAs:

Quote

U.S.S. Birmingham (CL62) source - ssurviable damage

Spoiler

USS Canberra (CA70) - source - example of surviable torpedo damage but with significant offect on ship handeling

Spoiler

USS New Orleans (CA32) - source - example of fatal structural damage caused by torpedo hit

Spoiler

U.S.S. Northampton (CA26) - source - very interesting case of damage which could be surviable in perfect condition and will be further examined in suggestion section

Spoiler

USS Quincy (CA39), USS Astoria (CA34) & USS Vincennes (CA44) - source - example of fatal damage caused by fire and torpedo damage. This is quite good example of how gun fire damage should look like.

Spoiler

U.S.S. San Francisco (CA-38) - source - Example of similar damage as in previous case but with fires quickly under controll resulting in ship survival

Spoiler

 

CLs:

Quote

U.S.S. Boise (CL47) - source - I think this if very interesting case of shell fire damage and subsecvent fire damage causing powder to burn. This I would consider surviable damage if all ocured as IRL - will be touch upon in suggestion section

Spoiler

U.S.S. Helena (CL50) - source - example of torpedo damage causing fatal structural failture and extensive/fatal flooding

Spoiler

U.S.S. Honolulu (CL48) - source - example of "easily" surviable bomb damage

Spoiler

USS Houston (CL81) - source - example of surviable damage but with serious repercussion to subsequent gameplay 

Spoiler

 

 

 

As we can see from reports main causes of ship loss are flooding, structural failure, fire causing ammo detonation or fire preventing from damage repairs. Based on this observation the DM should be changed acordingly and it should folow several key principles:

1. Understandable and concrete rules
2. UI which provide good feedback
3. Good grafical representation of damage to inform other players about situation
4. Allow player as much control of as possible

All these principles should hopefully lead to DM which is easy to understand, have depth and skill ceeling and isn´t too frustrating 

 

SUGGESTION

Based on what I said serious changes to DM should be done:

1. Flooding system should be reworked 
2. Fire system should be reworked
   • Ammorack behaviour
3. Structural damage system should be added and it should replace the hull break system
4. Crew meter and compartments should stay but must reworked 
5. Kill condition (summary)
6. UI
7. General shell/DM physics change (some parts applies to all modes)

 

Flooding

Current system works just as gimick to distract players for second or two. (in most cases). The flooding damage just disapears too quickly to have significant impact in all cases other then extreme scenarios. RN the flooding completly ignores bulkheads, watertight compartments ect.

 

I suggest to completly rework the flooding system:

 This system would use current hull section which are often closed of with bulkheads as separate watertight compartmants. Each "compartment" should have its asigned volume. If the compartment is breached water will eventualy fill whole volume. If the compartment is heavily damaged (structural damage) it will loose the watertight parameter which means that neighbouring compartments can be flooded (if not sealed) too and that holes can´t be patched in it .

To simulate openes of the compartments (as @HK_Reporter pointed out) each compartment would have other two asigned properties (apart from volume):

1. Flooding speed - maximum speed at which the comparment can be flooded. It will often be lower then large breaches from near explosions of bombs and torpedoes. And it could also depend on how much is compartment damaged.
2. Shock volume - % of maximum volume which could be flooded without taking into account the Flooding speed resulting that only size of breach would be in play here. 

This will allow simulation of large openes of machinery compartments and high partition of bow and aft sections

 

This change would do nothing if the hole patching function wouldn´t be changed too:

The hole patching should be slower and holes with certain diameter (torpedo/bomb explosion holes) shouldn´t be patchable

But on other hand the pumps will be always on resulting in situation where some small breaches wont be problem of player.

So what will player do?

Player can still use "flooding" button which will initiate patching of the holes and sealing the watertight compartments which means that only heavily damaged compartments will be flooded. If there is few flooded compartments players doesn´t have to fear capsizing because the ship whould eventualy straighten itself because of fact that compartment is including both ships side and therefor it should eventually straighten. If we ever get ships with side different compartments function to "flooding" key could be added resulting in counter flooding opposite side compartment.

Current pump modification can stay.

 

Ilustation/example:

Spoiler

Example of just slightly damaged watertight compartmants with unpatchable hole - Only breached compartment is flooded.

 

Example of heavily damaged watertight compartmants with unpatchable hole - Meaning that flooding is extended to neighboring compartments:

 

Example of situation where player push "flooding" button and initiate counter flooding actions = sealing neighboring compartments:

 

 

Fires

Current fires seems also as just gimick to distract players which just does damge over time to crew. Where IRL the fires could be really dangerous.

 

I suggest to completly rework the fire system:

Fires should be able to spread across the compartments (at very least DDs and large gun boats require same "crew" compartments as cruisers). If untreated fire should first gain strenght (teperature factor described later) and after specified teperature factor is met it should spread into neighbouring "crew" compartments. Where it would start over.

The fire should damage modules which are present in area determinated by compartment in which fire is present but it should damage them only after certain teperature factor is met which is specific to each module.

After certain temerature factor repairs of modules in that compartment isn´t possible.

What will player do?

He can still use the "fires" button and it will work very simmilary to how it works now but the time it takes to put down the fire should be derminated by the teperature factor and the firefighting strenght.

The firefighting strenght should be determinated by several factors:

• crew %
• state of firefigting system NEW MODULES IN SHIP (scatered across ship simmilary to pumps) importance of this module state can be seen in the reports, the damage done to it in case of USS Quincy (CA39), USS Astoria (CA34) & USS Vincennes (CA44) resulted into inability to contain the fires

The modification should be changed. From alowing fight fires it should just boost the firefighting strenght - it could be called "sprinklers"

 

 Ilustation/example:

Spoiler

 

Here you can see basic ilustration of how would fire spreading work:

1. Fire brokeout in one crew compartment over Engine room
2. The fire gradualy gained strenght (temperature factor) represented by change of color from light-yellow to vivid red.
3. After it reached determinated temperature factor it spread into neighboring compartments where the cycle began again

 

Now ilustrations how would extinguishing process look like:

1. With high firefighting strenght (high crew % + not damaged firefighting systems)

   Quote

   

2. With too low firefighting strenght (low crew % + damaged firefighting systems)

   Quote

   

   As you can see the fires aren´t being extinguished in this case.

 

 I also made this interactive ilustration in graph calculator you can open it HERE. To make my suggested fire behaviour easier to understand.

Describtion:

Quote

I will describe what this all means. As I already stated there would be limit which fire needs to pass to spread to other compartments in this ilustration it is set to 1000. The fire has its power growth described as function where the power growths by 1/100 of previous value each second (green finction in graph). The power at which the fire starts depends on what caused it

• HE and fire in other compartment cause fires with starting power =  200
• Machinery fire is starting at power = 500
• Ammo burning causes fires starting at power = 650

So when not treated (no fire extinguishing) the HE fire spreads after 161s, machinery fire after 69s and ammo fire after 43s. When player pushes extinguishing button the firefighting kicks in the fire wont immediately start gowing down but it would behave as difference of two functions FirePower and FirefightingPower that means that even if you star extinguishing just 4s after fire breaks out in case of ammo fire you wont prevent spreading but eventually you will get it under controll.

 

 Ammoracks behaviour

The ammoracks were reworked in 1.97 while I kinda like the idea of separated behaviour of different types of "magazine" the separation is flawed - secondary ammoracks can definitely sink ships (Hood - good read about its sinking). I will also say that finding detailed explanation of ammo explosions is rare.

But my idea to rework ammoracks is:

1. Link them to Structural damage instead of one code line saying: Ship => dead
2. Remove when destroyed must explode function
3. Rework the ammo burning/explosion system:

Keep the separation of charges and projectiles. But completly rework how the burning down/explosions work. Currently there isn´t difference ammo explodes when ammo has 0 HP it explodes and in 1.97 system it either destroys the ship or turret+create fire (depending on if its projectiles or propelant). I suggest to introduce burning time - during this time the ammorack would countinuously deal damage to ship (and create fires in its vicinity) which would summed up equal to around 10% explosive equvivalent of whole ammorack. After this time the ammorack would explode in one large explosion aqvivalent to cca 90% explosive equvivalent of whole ammorack.

We can observe the burning time (or situation I want to model with it) on USS Boise.

Now the reason for separating charges and projectiles:

1. Each should have very different chance to even start burning (the projectiles should only start burning when they are exposed to strong fire for quite a lot ot time) - the chances can be adjusted according to in game tests
2. Each should have different burning time and projectiles should burn much quicker (there should be chance for player to stop burning of charges IMO)

 

Structural damage

Any presence of structural damage is limited to halfased hull break mechanic. I suggest complete replacement of it with new system:

Any damage dealt to hull part = its structural damage. But the HP pools of the hull sections should be very very high. And not all compartments on ship should have same HP (bow and stern least and center of ship most)

IMO for DD center hull part one direct large bomb/torpedo hit should be maximum, for large CL around 2-3 direct hits and so on. 

Destruction of stern and bow should only lead to deterioration of maneuverability, but destruction of one of other hull parts should lead to fatal structural failures which means ship breaking in parts at destroyed part and counting as destroyed in game.

 

This system will also allow proper implementation of ammorack explosion right now the ammo explosions feel like they just have line in code saying either will kill ship/wont kill ship. With my system ammo rack explosion can be just treated as anyother explosion and hull structure HP state will decide if explosion is fatal or not.

 

Ilustation/example:

Spoiler

Ilustration showing where destruction of hull part leads to fatal structural failture:

 

Crew and compartments+modules

The current % should be left but it should decline a lot slower and it shouldn´t be kill condition. Its only effect should be on repair speed and firefighting strenght. 

Most of "crew" compartments should be left unchanged (current cruiser DM have deck based smaller compartments which acomodate crew instead of system which is present on smaller ships where crew is in hull parts) But there should be a few significant exceptions:

• Turrets - already working as I imagine
• Engine/boiler rooms - now the engine modules are fairly inconsistent because some ships have boilers as separate modules and some as whole boiler rooms (hipper for example). I suggest change: make boilers separate modules but on every ship place engine/boiler room compartment. Damage to engine/boiler room would cause brief loss of ability to change speed.
• Steering room - same case as engine/boiler room compartment but damage to it would cause brief  loss of ability to turn. 
• Bridge - combination of both previous cases (already in game)
• FCS - would result into brief loss of lock (and all FCS bonuses - if Better FCS for naval implemented) but player would still be able to set distance manualy.

Damage to these modules wouldn´t count to crew %

This is inspired by this suggestion: (but I made some changes)

 

Kill conditions

These proposed changes to naval DM must be reflected in kill conditions. With all these changes I think I managed to make kill conditions more consistend and streamlined. There are only 3 ways how to kill ship:

1. Flooded volume reach predeterminated value (% of max. floodable volume)
2. Fires fully expand to all compartments. = spreading limit reached in all compartments
3. Fatal structure failture happen

 

 

UI

With all these changes damage model UI needs also change. As I stated in key principles of DM the UI should provide clear info about state of damage:

Spoiler

I will describe changes and meaning of each sections as numbered:

1. Allowed target just moved
2. Not changed
3. Not changed
4. Added indicatiors for special compartments - steering room-boiler/engine room-FCS (in case of bridge damage both steering and engine are red)
5. Reworked DM view
   Spoiler

   

   1. Compartment flooding display - striped parts display maximal volume of water (relative size corespond with volume). Full part corespond with current water volume and side distribution.
   2. Structural damage dispaly.- it is outside of actual ship "model" because it would be too clutered.
   3. Fires indicator - shows location of fires which pass some minimal temperature factor treshold, and their color also corespond to their temperature factor (lov=light yellow, high=vivid red)
   4. Holes indicator - already present in game

Ilustration of X-ray view: - it would also display the water levels

Spoiler

 

General shell/DM physics change (some parts applies to all modes)
Another problem with DM might not be that noticable but ultimately leads to several problems - torpedoes causing ammo explosions, underwater HE explosions causing ammo detonations ect. 

 

I  am no DATAMINER but from my observation:

The schrapnells have only one damaging parameter = damage which they will inflict when they hit module. 

This causes issues because some modules are much more sensitive to "temerature" damage and other to "kinetic" damage. So I suggest that each "schrapnell" will have two damage values - temperature/kinetic damage.

And each module will have two HPs - - temperature/kinetic HP.

 

So for example torpedo detonating outside the ship will cause mainly kinetic damage because the temperature damage will be largery mitigated by water and distance from detonation + in this case the damage "schrapnells" should be separate because the underwater explosion shock wave have zero temperature damage, but the gases cause low kinetic damage but high temperature damage. + this and hull damage rework should lead to solving ineffectiveness of anti-torpedo bulges. 

Example how the torpedo detonation would look like: 

Spoiler

LEGEND:

• Kinetic damage - grey, darkness of it indicate high of damage (higher=darker)
• Temperature damage - yellow-red, red highest-yellow lowest

 

Example of standart penetration - the schrapnells have both values:

Spoiler

LEGEND:

• Kinetic damage - grey, darkness of it indicate high of damage (higher=darker)
• Temperature damage - yellow-red, red highest-yellow lowest

Example of shell explosion - here you can see combination of shock wave, hot gases and standar schrapnells

Spoiler

LEGEND:

• Kinetic damage - grey, darkness of it indicate high of damage (higher=darker)
• Temperature damage - yellow-red, red highest-yellow lowest

 

This system also allow more realistic damage modeling of fires because the temperature factor would be equal to temperature damage.

And mainly it will allow realistic ammorack behaviour because with this system the powder charges and shell explosion and their initiation can be modeled more correctly. The powder explosion does quite limited kinetic damage so its explosion wouldn´t be fatal but it would provide high surge in temperature damage which could lead to shell explosion (which is fatal) this would allow players to survive ammo explosions when they would act fast enough.

 

 

 

This is all from me!  Please leave feedback bellow!

I hope that the wall of text isn´t too much for you, I am sorry it is just very complex topic.

 

Edited March 21, 2020 by Shadow__CZ
20.3.2020 - Updated some text - flooding and ammoracks see my post.

[ItssLuBu 1,803]

Approved and open for discussion. 

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

On 02/01/2020 at 10:36, ItssLuBu said:

Approved and open for discussion. 

Thank you 

[Tim4499 58]

I was recently thinking about Hull Break mechanism of naval, and  "Structural damage" section just inspired me.

 

Maybe Hull Break mechanism for Naval should be remained but NOT as a Kill conditions. The DM for ships should be more like those for aircrafts, the bow and stern would be blown from ships if these parts suffered fatal damage, and even if ship was shattered into half. These should not be considered as instant kill, and the ship should be remained until she was totally flooded and sunk.

 

The Mighty Hood was wrecked in half, yet her brave crews still fought at her last moment and fired the last shell from the 'A' turret. But in War Thunder, you just go "boom".

 

Anyway, it's good to see there is new and overhaul suggestion for Naval. Also, your signature is awesome. (may I use it?

[Vianochka 368]

Wow good work it this. 

I have just one problem with UI. It might seem little confusing for new players. Too much information. 

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

On 16/01/2020 at 11:02, Tim4499 said:

I was recently thinking about Hull Break mechanism of naval, and  "Structural damage" section just inspired me.

 

Maybe Hull Break mechanism for Naval should be remained but NOT as a Kill conditions. The DM for ships should be more like those for aircrafts, the bow and stern would be blown from ships if these parts suffered fatal damage, and even if ship was shattered into half. These should not be considered as instant kill, and the ship should be remained until she was totally flooded and sunk.

 

Spoiler

The Mighty Hood was wrecked in half, yet her brave crews still fought at her last moment and fired the last shell from the 'A' turret. But in War Thunder, you just go "boom".

 

Anyway, it's good to see there is new and overhaul suggestion for Naval. Also, your signature is awesome. (may I use it?

That is also posibility but I tried to not greatly increase time to kill which could be really long with this in effect (mainly the bow blowing off) and while there were cases where bow was blown of and ship survived it wasn´t capable of fighting.

 

And of corse you can use that signature and I am sorry for late response.

On 16/01/2020 at 13:46, GunFetish said:

Wow good work it this. 

I have just one problem with UI. It might seem little confusing for new players. Too much information. 

 

I think that flooding display is quite understandable and other parts like structure damage display and special compartments indicators can be easily explainded in tutorial or F1.

After all current crew DM isn´t easy to understand eigther.

[aizenns 3,591]

Perhaps the Flooding section need more changes. Now we can only drain waters but in damage control of larger vessel they often inject waters to control inclination. Also some battleship can transport fuel oils to control it.

Also watertight steel pipe in the hull will affect viability.

[Packal 7,644]

It is frustrating to be killed in the DD by autocannons, because "killed crew in the compartment". This is wroking for small boats, but destroyers with bulkheads and many small compartments 

Nice job man

Edited January 27, 2020 by Packal

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

2 hours ago, aizenns said:

Perhaps the Flooding section need more changes. Now we can only drain waters but in damage control of larger vessel they often inject waters to control inclination. Also some battleship can transport fuel oils to control it.

I mentioned the counterflooding in the suggestion. But I believe that fuel tranfer system would be a bit too much (other system to monitor and controll...)

 

2 hours ago, aizenns said:

Also watertight steel pipe in the hull will affect viability.

What do you mean?

 

 

@Packal Thank you!

[FouManchou 2,463]

This. 

I should add that, with the advent of Naval EC (which is much closer to what Naval forces should have always been, from DD and up), I'd be glad to see "critical" or "irrepairable" damage.

For example, one could imagine a 203mm direct hit to an engine would wreck it way beyond the ability of the crew to repair it in the field. Similarly, AP penetrations to the turrets could render the guns completely inoperable.
 

You would simulate this by counting any module as "inoperable" (i.e. knocked out until repair) when it has taken, let's say, 50% of its total HP in damage. So, whenever a module has lower HP than that threshhold, it cannot be used (no engine power, no firing, no steering, etc.)* ; additionally, each second spent repairing should give back a certain amount of HP, meaning a turret that has taken 75% damage takes longer to come back online than a turret that has taken 60% damage. Once a module has taken 100% damage, it should no longer be possible to repair it in the field**. 

*One could/should add additional threshholds where effectiveness is progressively reduced ; just like on aircraft and tank engines, but for every major modules.

**So in EC, you would have to retreat to a "port" to come back online

Such a system could also be used for your proposed "Hullbreak" rework. A "hullbreak" would then happen either when sufficient damage has been dealt to the overall structure of the ship, or when one central section of the ship reaches absolute 0 HP : as in, the ship literally breaks apart at that section.

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

On 29/01/2020 at 19:29, FouManchou said:

This. 

I should add that, with the advent of Naval EC (which is much closer to what Naval forces should have always been, from DD and up), I'd be glad to see "critical" or "irrepairable" damage.

For example, one could imagine a 203mm direct hit to an engine would wreck it way beyond the ability of the crew to repair it in the field. Similarly, AP penetrations to the turrets could render the guns completely inoperable.
 

You would simulate this by counting any module as "inoperable" (i.e. knocked out until repair) when it has taken, let's say, 50% of its total HP in damage. So, whenever a module has lower HP than that threshhold, it cannot be used (no engine power, no firing, no steering, etc.)* ; additionally, each second spent repairing should give back a certain amount of HP, meaning a turret that has taken 75% damage takes longer to come back online than a turret that has taken 60% damage. Once a module has taken 100% damage, it should no longer be possible to repair it in the field**. 

*One could/should add additional threshholds where effectiveness is progressively reduced ; just like on aircraft and tank engines, but for every major modules.

**So in EC, you would have to retreat to a "port" to come back online

I don´t think this is good idea. I though about this idea before in CBT but from the experience and discussion with other players under that suggestion I came to conclusion that it isn´t good idea. It would be extremly frustrating feature when being on receieving end mainly in situations where you survive. I could only see it as SB thing nothing more.

 

On 29/01/2020 at 19:29, FouManchou said:

Such a system could also be used for your proposed "Hullbreak" rework. A "hullbreak" would then happen either when sufficient damage has been dealt to the overall structure of the ship, or when one central section of the ship reaches absolute 0 HP : as in, the ship literally breaks apart at that section.

That is basically what I desribed in part talking about structural DM.

[HK Reporter 1,213]

+1 Very extensive and thorough suggestion 

 

I just have some additional ideas about the flooding part. I think it's necessary to simulate the bulkhead layout in the flooding system. Note I said "simulate" not "recreate", as we know modelling the entire bulkhead layout of all ships in this game is not quite practical. But there might be some ways to simulate the flooding behaviour which is influenced by bulkhead layout.

 

In real life, bulkheads are destributed in a ship as many as possible, however, in machinery spaces, due to the colossal size of boilers and turbine engine, it's impossible to seperate machinery spaces into number of small bulkheads. Therefore, engine rooms and boiler rooms are inevitably huge bulkheads, normally NOT seperated by longitudinal bulkhead into port & starboard.

 

For example, the bulkhead layout of HMS Birmingham:

Spoiler

 

Apparently, this lead to an inevitable problem: if machinery spaces are penetrated, massive flooding will occur and it won't stop until you repair the breach.

 

 

I think this can be simulated by giving different flooding parameters across the ship.

 

There should be two flooding control system: one is the breach-repairing system we already have in game, and we need a bulkhead-control system. This system should works automatically, that is, once breach appears, affected bulkhead would automatically close to localise the flooding. So even if the player do not order breach repair, the flooding will automatically stop after the damaged bulkhead is completely flooded.

 

To simulate this without modelling every actual bulkheads present in real life, we need to give a "bulkhead divisions" parameter to flooding model of the ship. For example:

Spoiler

 

By this method, we don't need to model so many hitboxes to properly calculate the situation of EVERY bulkheads which is pratically impossible. Now we generally only need three hitboxes for every flooding section: Port, Stb, and amidships. Each hitboxes would have its number of bulkheads so with more hits received, more bulkheads in this area will be classified as "damaged". If the hit is located near or below the waterline, flooding will occur. Flooding rate should be determined by the position of breach (how close it is to the waterline, or even below the waterline) and apparently, the size of the shell. (P.S. frankly, the current flooding rate punishment from ship speed is WAY too high imo). 

 

Each flooding section will provide a certain buoyancy percentage. Inside the flooding section, each "numeric" bulkheads will have their weight coefficient. Normally they're roughly equivalent but machinery spaces (the "amidships bulkheads" in the second image above) should occupy the great majority of the buoyancy in its section since they have colossal size.

 

As you can see, by this method if machinery space is penetrated, the ship will lose considerable percentage of buoyancy, while for other non-vital compartments, the flooding will be easier to control if the damage extent is not extensive.

 

Importantly, the breach repairing speed should be greatly reduced from the current state. IRL breach-repair is not a easy job which can be done within seconds. Firstly DC team needs to locate the breach which already takes some time (imagine you enter a room with electricity gone, everything is in a mess and was ruined, incoming seawater flow through your feet and you need to find the place where the water comes in somewhere in the debris) and then they have to use anything at hand to patch the hole. This is certainly not something can be completed in a few seconds.

 

In addition, if a bulkhead is completely flooded, it should NOT be able to recovered any more since the DC team no longer have access to the bulkhead so it's impossible to repair breaches, let alone pumping out water.

 

 

In conclusion, we need to simlutate the difference of flooding behaviour of machinery spaces from other non-vital compartments. For non-vital compartments, even if they're heavily damaged that you have to give up some bulkheads, the buoyancy loss normally won't be that harsh, while if machinery spaces is penetrated, all you can count on is to repair the breach (which should be very slow not within seconds) otherwise the flooding will NOT stop until the entire engine room is flooded (apparently that will be a disaster).

 

That's the point of citadel!

Edited February 2, 2020 by HK_Reporter

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

@HK_Reporter it took me some time because I really trying to figure out way how implement the function which you suggest in a way that would be easy to understand and/or would easily provide info to the player.

Because I think the system you suggested is hard to implement in way to make it non-RNG looking (the number of breached bulkheads would be determanated by damage done to hull parrt?) and to show the situation during battle. I fugured 2 ways:

1. Keep my system and just make the flooding compartments small/large according to their general proportions. Basically make front aft sections even smaller. This is possible workaround but it is IMO something halfassed implementations.
2. Use fact that current system already use system where the flooding is determined by breach diameter. And also use the bulkheads which are supposedly modeled for all ships (I am really not sure that they are momodeled on german cruisers because it is hard to look at them in asset viewer and I couldn´t find them). With these two it could be possible to model flooding properly. So each anclosed area would form its own watertight compartment (I think it isn´t necessary to create new geometry but only changes to game logic would be needed). After breach only the breached compartment would be flooded and as the projectile would travell through ship it would create more breaches. This system would create very realistic flooding system. For the UI the UI could stay same just without division made between compartments and water level being more seamless (I will make illustrations later) and in X-ray it would actually display real position and size of flooded compartments. But this system would be quite complex to implement.

I will work on the 2nd option more.

 

[HK Reporter 1,213]

@Shadow__CZ

Yes I also noticed that image from latest Q&A.

 

The obvious problem in the DM they posted is that most of the bulkheads are of similar size:

 

Also I'm not sure what kind of "DM" it is in the image, if it's related to flooding system then it's hard to imagine why the current flooding mechanics appears to be so primitive as if it's only made up with a few boxy compartments.

Edited February 10, 2020 by HK_Reporter

[CaptnBerner 312]

I was just thinking about posting something like this, but I am glad you did first. With all the amazingly well done and very visual diagrams and illustrations you did you went above and beyond here.

 

Seeing all this and the amazing ideas it brings to the table is making me jittery like a kid at the candy store. It's really got my hopes up it this gets passed on and Gaijin takes it seriously and reworks Naval in the ways you so darn well show here.

 

You have my full support and backing on this one because as a naval player who suffered for so long with the current mechanics Gaijin rushed into the mode, it's been nothing but a slog and grind fest to play with how unintuitive the way the mode handles things.

 

I've seen a good amount of historical documentation about how Torpedo's didn't one shot ships like they do in WT and how aerial bombs didn't instantly sink ships that it's confounds me how Naval in WT (which claims to pride itself on being historically accurate) doesn't actually follow the same example set by history. I mean when the IJN Yamato gets added into the game and the current system is still in place, the entire mode would probably die overnight because the entire Naval community would give up when a single torpedo or aerial bomb one shots a ship that took 35 torpedoes and 19 aerial bombs just to take her down.

 

If I may ask, how would you go about improving deck armor and how it's currently handled in the game? As aerial bombs are almost entirely unaffected by deck armor and due to the lack of internal compartments that historically could save a ship from a bomb being detonated from within, it means that deck armor would need some sort of rework as well. What sort of suggestions would you have for this?

 

Same goes for large bombs (500LB) and up that even if they are dropped in the water next to a ship, they still cause a unrealistic and historically inaccurate amount of damage to the entire vessel. What would be your thoughts and input on this as well?

 

I love how much critical thought and time you put into this, thank you for such a amazing suggestion and I have my fingers crossed that not only does this get passed onto the developers but they listen and use what you have here in it's entirety to make Naval the best mode it can be.

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

On 10/02/2020 at 00:05, HK_Reporter said:

@Shadow__CZ

Yes I also noticed that image from latest Q&A.

The obvious problem in the DM they posted is that most of the bulkheads are of similar size:

 

-snip-

The DM isn´t made from similar sized bulheads while all bulkheads aren´t modeled (aspecially the really really small ones and partition of superstructure) 

Spoiler

 

 

Quote

Also I'm not sure what kind of "DM" it is in the image, if it's related to flooding system then it's hard to imagine why the current flooding mechanics appears to be so primitive as if it's only made up with a few boxy compartments.

As far as I know it is only conected to shell penetration. But who knows how current flooding actually works - it would be good if Gaijin gave us some insight 

 

18 hours ago, CaptDaragoth said:

If I may ask, how would you go about improving deck armor and how it's currently handled in the game? As aerial bombs are almost entirely unaffected by deck armor and due to the lack of internal compartments that historically could save a ship from a bomb being detonated from within, it means that deck armor would need some sort of rework as well. What sort of suggestions would you have for this?

 

Same goes for large bombs (500LB) and up that even if they are dropped in the water next to a ship, they still cause a unrealistic and historically inaccurate amount of damage to the entire vessel. What would be your thoughts and input on this as well?

Armor is modeled correctly but bombs aren´t from my experience. The bombs just pass through all armor as long as their delay is set for enough time. And the HE schrapnells are also performing in wierd way. It would be very helpful to get armor analysis work with bombs and torpedoes.

 

How to solve bomb behaviour? - it is simple rework them to work as all other projectiles their KE is easy to calculate with current gaijin formula they need to just add new modifiers to work with bombs. And as far as near misses are in play that is issue of water not being modeled properly.

 

 

And now just 2 updates to suggestion:

 I updated the flooding part of suggestion:

Quote

To simulate openes of the compartments (as @HK_Reporter pointed out) each compartment would have other two asigned properties (apart from volume):

1. Flooding speed - maximum speed at which the comparment can be flooded will often be lower then large braches from near explosions of bombs and torpedoes. And it could also depend how much is compartment damaged.
2. Shock volume - % of maximum volume which could be flooded without taking into account the Flooding speed only size of breach would be in play here. 

This will allow simulation of large openes of machinery compartments and high partition of bow and aft sections

I think this is very easy to model and understand solution to the compartment size issue and it should create good results.

 

I added the ammorack behaviour explanation/rework suggestion under "fire system":

Quote

 Ammoracks behaviour

The ammoracks were reworked in 1.97 while I kinda like the idea of separated behaviour of different types of "magazine" the separation is flawed - secondary ammoracks can definitely sink ships (Hood - good read about its sinking). I will also say that finding detailed explanation of ammo explosions is rare.

But my idea to rework ammoracks is:

1. Link them to Structural damage instead of one code line saying: Ship => dead
2. Remove when destroyed must explode function
3. Rework the ammo burning/explosion system:

Keep the separation of charges and projectiles. But completly rework how the burning down/explosions work. Currently there isn´t difference ammo explodes when ammo has 0 HP it explodes and in 1.97 system it either destroys the ship or turret+create fire (depending on if its projectiles or propelant). I suggest to introduce burning time - during this time the ammorack would countinuously deal damage to ship (and create fires in its vicinity) which would summed up equal to around 10% explosive equvivalent of whole ammorack. After this time the ammorack would explode in one large explosion aqvivalent to cca 90% explosive equvivalent of whole ammorack.

We can observe the burning time (or situation I want to model with it) on USS Boise.

Now the reason for separating charges and projectiles:

1. Each should have very different chance to even start burning (the projectiles should only start burning when they are exposed to strong fire for quite a lot ot time) - the chances can be adjusted according to test
2. Each should have different burning time and projectiles should burn much quicker (there should be chance for player to stop burning of charges IMO)

I kinda forgot to talk about it in suggestion and it returned to me in discussions on NF forum (again thank you @HK_Reporter for pointing me to look into this more - and BTW what do you think)

Edited March 20, 2020 by Shadow__CZ

[Jareel_Skaj 298]

Absolutely outstanding suggestion.

Thank you for your service! I bet it took enormous amount of time to think it through and visualize. I really, really hope Gaijin implements it. It would bring a whole different level into the game, and heck: I'd argue it'd make it far better than WoWS (though there's more to the differences than just the damage model).

 

A few questions, of I may:

- [Fires] You suggest a new module: firefighting system, but also a new behaviour to the HE shells. Wouldn't it lead to a situation where ships are unable to fight fires after just a 2 or 3 HE hits? It would make ships like BBs essentially unable to survive on the battlefield, yet alone something like a frigate. Also: How do you imagine firefighting on the boats? It seems illogical to have a destroyable subsystem, when stuff like blankets or sand were used.
- [Flooding] Ships already have different side compartments. Just boats don't. It really feels like counterflooding is a must-have.
- [Ammoracks] 10% of the ammo rack explosive power would kill pretty much any ship below Cruiser. Eg. Ayanami stores 40 HE shells, 10% of it would be an equivalent of 4 direct HE shells exploding right over a storage of additional 300 shells with no armor to deflect explosion... we're dead mate.
- How would you deal with the current situation for boats? They're on fire in nearly every match, multiple times, and store ammunition often in more than one compartment. Wouldn't it lead to a situation where fire = your boat is dead? This would be damn frustrating.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Jareel_Skaj

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

1 hour ago, Jareel_Skaj said:

Absolutely outstanding suggestion.

Thank you for your service! I bet it took enormous amount of time to think it through and visualize. I really, really hope Gaijin implements it. It would bring a whole different level into the game, and heck: I'd argue it'd make it far better than WoWS (though there's more to the differences than just the damage model).

Thank you 

 

1 hour ago, Jareel_Skaj said:

A few questions, of I may:

- [Fires] You suggest a new module: firefighting system, but also a new behaviour to the HE shells. Wouldn't it lead to a situation where ships are unable to fight fires after just a 2 or 3 HE hits? It would make ships like BBs essentially unable to survive on the battlefield, yet alone something like a frigate. Also: How do you imagine firefighting on the boats? It seems illogical to have a destroyable subsystem, when stuff like blankets or sand were used.

The destroyable subsystem wouldn´t be essential for firefighting it would only boost the speed and effectiveness of the crew. (not like current flooding where pumps are esential).

 

Quote

 

Also I will give example -also made interactive ilustration in graph calculator you can open it HERE

Describtion:

Quote

I will describe what this all means. As I already stated (in suggestion) there would be limit which fire needs to pass to spread to other compartments in this ilustration it is set to 1000. The fire has its power growth described as function where the power growths by 1/100 of previous value each second (green finction in graph). The power at which the fire starts depends on what caused it

• HE and fire in other compartment cause fires with starting power =  200
• Machinery fire is starting at power = 500
• Ammo burning causes fires starting at power = 650

So when not treated (no fire extinguishing) the HE fire spreads after 161s, machinery fire after 69s and ammo fire after 43s. When player pushes extinguishing button the firefighting kicks in the fire wont immediately start gowing down but it would behave as difference of two functions FirePower and FirefightingPower that means that even if you star extinguishing just 4s after fire breaks out in case of ammo fire you wont prevent spreading but eventually you will get it under controll.

 

I updated suggestion with this explanation to make everything clearer.

 

1 hour ago, Jareel_Skaj said:

- [Flooding] Ships already have different side compartments. Just boats don't. It really feels like counterflooding is a must-have.

No current DM have only hull sections which do as far as I know nothing on CLs and CAs and crew compartments which are only present on CL/CA and are there for crew DM nothing more. How is current flooding who the hell knows. 

The flooding right now feels to random in consistent and how it precisely works is completly incomprehensible to players. That is why I try to make system which has clear rules put in place.

 

1 hour ago, Jareel_Skaj said:

- [Ammoracks] 10% of the ammo rack explosive power would kill pretty much any ship below Cruiser. Eg. Ayanami stores 40 HE shells, 10% of it would be an equivalent of 4 direct HE shells exploding right over a storage of additional 300 shells with no armor to deflect explosion... we're dead mate.

The power equivalent is just guesstimate. But I have 2 things to point out here:

1. There are 2 decks between the stores - which already have collisions (DM) they aren´t just shown on X-ray or armor viewer and while yes their armor effectiveness wont be great it will decrese strenght of explosion reaching main magazine.
2. As I suggest there have to be certain conditions met to initiate even ammo burning phase. And I don´t think this condition would be met (at least in the first moment after rest of ammo exploding and subsequent fires it would be possible but not at start)

Also it isn´t that the 10% would be in one moment the 10% equivalent would be dealt out over time (again guesstimate) of 15 seconds or something like it.

 

1 hour ago, Jareel_Skaj said:

- How would you deal with the current situation for boats? They're on fire in nearly every match, multiple times, and store ammunition often in more than one compartment. Wouldn't it lead to a situation where fire = your boat is dead? This would be damn frustrating.

I think decresing fire chance when no module is hit would help significantly. Also I ment that kill condition is met only when fires reach max value in all comparments (preventing random deaths) - added to suggestion. As I said I think that with my system the "explosion" chance would decrese overall and even fire would need qute a strenght to do something to ammo so I don´t think that would be case. 

[_Pixy 196]

Damn good suggestion+1, my only concern is ships that have more durability, and can be still seaworthy after extensive damage.

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

54 minutes ago, _Pixy said:

Damn good suggestion+1, my only concern is ships that have more durability, and can be still seaworthy after extensive damage.

This situation is on very edge. It is modern DDG so it isn´t as light as WW2 DDs but it still isn´t CL. And from wikipedia (I know, I know) but still:

Quote

Around 400 to 700 pounds (180 to 320 kg) of explosive were used.^[6] Much of the blast entered a mechanical space below the ship's galley, violently pushing up the deck, thereby killing crew members who were lining up for lunch.^[7] The crew fought flooding in the engineering spaces and had the damage under control after three days. Divers inspected the hull and determined that the keel had not been damaged.

 

So it wasn´t like USS Cole was combat copable after this hit. But IDK I am inclined that this should not trigger the Fatal structure failture but I think that this kind of damage should severly hamper ship handeling because it is "unpatchable" hole and effected 1st engine room compartment (I think) resulting cca 50% power loss. And I think that next bomb/torpedo or several BB HEs to this section should trigger the Fatal structure failture

[HK Reporter 1,213]

@Shadow__CZ

 

Updated flooding system is great! I love it 

 

The firefighting part is just awesome, the graphic illustrator makes it very intuitive to understand. The only thing I'm concerning about is GJ's habit: they rarely bother to make efforts to create any new complicated mechanics but instead they tend to use existing ones (cough first-stage ammorack copied from GF cough)

 

As for ammunition behaviour, I love the idea of burning time before massive explosion and explosion energy calculation but again same concern that GJ is unwilling to develop new mechanics like this.

 

BTW the loss of Hood is still a controversial topic... It's not entirely certain that she was lost due to secondary magazine's fire especially considering that the position of hit which caused the detonation is still in question.

 

10 hours ago, Jareel_Skaj said:

- [Ammoracks] 10% of the ammo rack explosive power would kill pretty much any ship below Cruiser. Eg. Ayanami stores 40 HE shells, 10% of it would be an equivalent of 4 direct HE shells exploding right over a storage of additional 300 shells with no armor to deflect explosion... we're dead mate.

For the behaviour of separated shell storage, there's a few points I would like to point out:

 

Shell storage of large vessels is much safer than many people think. This is because:

• Large vessels (cruisers, battleships etc.) carry mainly AP and SAP types of shells. HE shells occupy a very small proportion in their shell storage. Take RN cruisers as example, County-class CAs carried about 20 HE rounds out of 150 rounds per gun storage.
• Large calibre shells have much thicker case than small calibres. For example, US 5" AAC (HE) had 0.7in case thickness while 8in HC's was 1.6in thick.
• Navies tend to use highly insensitive explosive fillers, such as ammonium picrate, TNT and picric acid, to fill armour-piercing shells to prevent premature detonation when dealing with thick armour.

 

According to RN and USN's experiments on safety of ammo, thick-walled large-calibre shells are practically immune to any explosion and fragment damage. Even if one or a few shells in the storage are detonated, a catastrophic sympathetic detonation of the entire storage is unlikely to happen because it requires chain action while experiments had demonstrated that the detonation probability is not enough to sustain the chain action.

 

However, it should be pointed out that destroyers and AA cruisers are more susceptible to shell storage detonation because they carried high proportion of HE shells and small calibre HE shells with thin-walled case are easier to be detonated so sympathetic detonation becomes more dangerous on these ships. For example, Dido-class AA cruisers were given uniformed protection over their shell room and propellant magazine in consideration of this matter during the designing phase, while on many other British treaty cruiser designs you can see the protection of shell room is sacrificed in favour of providing satisfying protection over magazine. USN wartime experiences also demonstrates that destroyers are subject to shell room detonation.

 

Actually I've already filed a bug report with my suggestion of fixing the damage model of shell room:

Quote

Suggestion of fix

 

To sum these up, I would suggest to fix the shell room damage model while using existing game mechanics as much as possible.

 

• The results of destroyed (blackened) "shells room" should be distinguished:
  1. Ammo damage. Partial or completely loss of shells in this storage. No explosion.
  2. Partial ammo explosion. Similar result to the current ready-use-ammo explosion, which inflicts damage to surrounding compartments and causes fire.
  3. Massive sympathetic explosion. Causing destruction of the ship. (Current damage model)
• The results should be determined by shell storage type, damage type and RNG probability.
  • When 5in and smaller calibre shell room is destroyed by KE (direct strike from shell), explosion and fragments, the result should be determined by RNG as below:
    1. Partial ammo explosion - high probability
    2. Massive sympathetic explosion - medium probability
    3. Ammo damage - low probability
  • When 6in and larger calibre shell room is destroyed by KE, explosion and fragments, the result should be determined by RNG as below:
    1. Ammo damage - high probability
    2. Partial ammo explosion - low probability
    3. Massive sympathetic explosion - extremely low probability (perhaps less than 5%?)
  • *Not sure if this is viable with existing game mechanics* When any shell room is destroyed by fire, the result would be:
    1. Massive sympathetic explosion - extremely high probability
    2. Partial ammo explosion - medium probability

 

                        

 

 

Edited March 21, 2020 by HK_Reporter

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

1 hour ago, HK_Reporter said:

@Shadow__CZ

 

Updated flooding system is great! I love it 

 

The firefighting part is just awesome, the graphic illustrator makes it very intuitive to understand. The only thing I'm concerning about is GJ's habit: they rarely bother to make efforts to create any new complicated mechanics but instead they tend to use existing ones (cough first-stage ammorack copied from GF cough)

 

As for ammunition behaviour, I love the idea of burning time before massive explosion and explosion energy calculation but again same concern that GJ is unwilling to develop new mechanics like this.

Sadly I know I don´t have high hopes that it wont be simplified if they even get to consider it but on other hand more detail decrease chance that someone will misunderstand what is suggested. And I hope that it will at least do something. + The graphs were very simple and nice rehearsal for math tests for high school graduation 

 

Quote

BTW the loss of Hood is still a controversial topic... It's not entirely certain that she was lost due to secondary magazine's fire especially considering that the position of hit which caused the detonation is still in question.

I am aware of this fact but even that it is considered as option shows that there is merit to it. And that it can´t be dismised as it is now.

 

 

BTW: what does sympathetic in this context mean? I get the meaning of the "sentence" but I just can´t figure why the sympathetic is there and translator is just throwing at me the obvious meaning. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by Shadow__CZ

[HK Reporter 1,213]

1 hour ago, Shadow__CZ said:

BTW: what does sympathetic in this context mean? I get the meaning of the "sentence" but I just can´t figure why the sympathetic is there and translator is just throwing at me the obvious meaning. 

Sympathetic Detonation is a term:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_detonation

 

Although we normally use "ammo detonation/explosion" or "ammoracked" to describe this phenomenon, "sympathetic detonation" is the most accurate term for it.

 

For instance, USN report of the tests on safety of 16in HC projectile was titled as "Sympathetic Detonation of 16"/50 HC Projectiles"

Edited March 21, 2020 by HK_Reporter

[Shadow__CZ 2,198]

17 hours ago, HK_Reporter said:

Sympathetic Detonation is a term:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_detonation

 

Although we normally use "ammo detonation/explosion" or "ammoracked" to describe this phenomenon, "sympathetic detonation" is the most accurate term for it.

 

For instance, USN report of the tests on safety of 16in HC projectile was titled as "Sympathetic Detonation of 16"/50 HC Projectiles"

-snip-

 

Thanks  I always learn something new! 

[M4D_MARK_XTr3Me@psn 75]

That new crew mechanic just rendered many vehicles utterly useless.

Hull mechanics not working properly either.

Why would ANY ship not start with 100% crew?

That's like having a 5 man tank and only starting with 3.

I absolutely hate that new crew mechanism.

You can literally spray the top of a boat and end bigger boats because they don't start with 100% crews and you wipe out any chance of repairs.

Unfortunately naval hasnt been any better since the update, only worse because of this stupid crew mechanic.

Everything else other than glitches freezing bugs etc has been fine.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by *M4D_MARK_XTr3Me