Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'damage'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • Developers' Section
    • Questions and Answers
  • Historical Section
    • Ships Old and New


  • Community Calendar
  • Deutschsprachige Community
  • Polska Społeczność
  • Communauté francophone
  • Česká a slovenská komunita
  • Comunidad de habla española
  • Türkçe Topluluk

Found 35 results

  1. There is a lot to be said about team damage. War Gaming has made it clear that they would like to make it so that players are careful about what they do so they won't remove team damage altogether, but its persistence means that it's easy for oblivious players to seriously hurt their team's chances of winning by accidentally killing or severely damaging allies that are, statistically, superior to them and a higher benefit to their team alive. It's worse once the team damager incurs a pink status that removed not one but two players from the team roster, potentially with no enemy input. The enemy won't necessary be happy either, being robbed of the damage and kills they potentially could have received. Admittedly, War Gaming has done many things to deal with team damage. It is one of the few things in the game that was ubiquitously well received by the community. The mechanic that hurts the person who has damaged their team and turned pink means that at least the worst offenders can only ruin the situation for their team in the worst way so many times. Even so, having a game ruined at all at no fault to the player whose game is being ruined is not good for the game. I therefore would like to suggest a mechanic that reflects ALL of the damage being caused by the team damager onto their own ship, as a percentage function of the damage that they would have done to the allied ship if they were an enemy ship. This has several benefits over the current system. Firstly, in fully punishes the griefers who hold back the damage they do to allied ships to slip underneath the current system's threshold. Secondly, it means that newer players will be receiving damage to their own unit from an action that is psychologically much simpler to comprehend, causing damage to themselves rather than the more abstract (albeit only slightly so) damaging the team's chances at winning. Thirdly, it means that those who really have done nothing wrong won't be punished for their actions.
  2. I've noticed a few times lately, mostly whilst playing Hood, that I get a shell penetration ribbon but cause no damage at all with that shell. Is this an intended game mechanic? Apologies if this question has been posted before. Will try and get a screen grab next time.
  3. I have noticed over the last couple of days that certain BB's even when getting multiple hits, are doing no damage at all during a battle, therefore I am asking is there a problem with the BB shells USS Missouri - 14 direct hits on Amagi over 2 battles - zero damage Dunkerque - 18 hits on Scharnhorst in a single battle with no damage inflicted Freidrich der Grosse - 10 hits on Amagi with no damage inflicted
  4. Dear fellow captains, As the title already indicated I am looking at alternative ways of determining / displaying captain, class and ship performance. One of the most cited data to compare captains, ships and classes is average damage: "Yada yada ... class Y does more average damage than class Z." "Yada yada ... ship Y does more average damage than ship Z." "Yada yada ... player Y does more average damage than player Z." However if looking closely average damage is a very imperfect figure for measuring performance due to the simple fact that ship HP are not the same in between ships and classes, so average damage is very much dependent on the ships and classes that are fought. For example looking at T10 a DD has approximately 25k HP (rounded up a bit for ease of figures) and a BB approximately 100k HP (also rounded a bit and not including heals). This means that every point of damage done to a DD is worth approximately 4 points of damage done to a BB (and even more if accounting for heals). So two ships/classes/captains with entirely the same average damage - lets say 50k each game on T10 - could have a very different influence on their individual battles. One ship/class/captain could be actively hunting and killing 2 DD each battle. The other ship/class/captain could be burning half a BBs worth of HP each battle. I therefore propose to enable an alternative display of damage done by use of 'sum of ship percentage points destroyed' which can easily be determined out of the data from the end battle screen the same way as XP is already accounted for. One ship is worth 100 ship percentage points (not counting heals, so BBs and high tier CA may be worth more than 100 percentage points). Again looking at above example, if a ship/class/captain manages to achieve 20k damage on a T10 DD and 30k damage on a T10 BB the total damage will add up to 50k and total ship percentage points destroyed will add up to (20/25 + 30/100)*100% = 110%. If same ship/class/captain manages 70k on the T10 BB next game but completely misses to damage the T10 DD the total damage figure will be higher by 20K, but the total ship percentage points destroyed will just be 70%. What do you think? Tl;dr: Average damage is not telling the whole story, so use average damage done *and* average ship percentage points destroyed to better determine if a ship/class/captain is over- or underperforming.
  5. There will always be people who like stats, but did you know you can find your stats for world of warships at: And offcourse you can always find a CC(community Contributor) at; You can always learn a lot from people like; not to forget the Brothers in Arms and if you look for gameplay and laughter (at least i think it is genius) ofcourse if you like to ad a thing just post here...........................
  6. Why is it that in WoWs you can only see your team base XP is it not possible like in WOT you can see the damage your team did? or you yourself? or even detailed stats on your team(mates) to me i would be a great feature
  7. Hallo hab gerade eine Runde mit meiner Fubuki gedreht und wollte eine generische Benson aus ihrem Nebel torpen. Bekomme 3 Torpedo-Treffer angezeigt mit 0 Schaden ! Das Spiel hatte erst gestartet und die Benson war Full HP. Mit der zweiten Salve hab ich sie dann mit einem Treffer versenkt Aber sowas hab ich in 7000 Matches noch nicht erlebt. 0 Hp sektionen im Endgame zu treffen hab ich schon erlebt, aber dies kommt mir wie ein Bug vor. Würde euch gern das Replay hochladen, aber wie ?
  8. After crying yesterday from a bad round of games in the North Carolina, I have finally had the perfect game (in my opinion) and my best game in this ship so far. Oh and the 3x bonus was brilliant. Have a looksee: Thanks for your tips yesterday, they helped in some way..
  9. Hi all, With v0.5.1 and current v0.5.1.1 it became apparent that some strange hidden problem happened with HE from smaller caliber guns - they cause extremely low damage on target! Several examples: #1 "Regarding the AP shell issue with BB's and HE shell issue with certain guns" #2 "0.5.1 is a Disaster for the Gearin" #3 "NURNBERG HE shells, are you kidding me ?" I can also attest that with my Cleveland I get 30-40-50 HE hits and get just 8000-10000 damage in total (plus some fires)! Can someone please confirm that this is recognized as problem and being looked into? Leo "Apollo11"
  10. This has bothered me since the early Closed Beta testing. World of Warships is the latest entry in the Wargaming suite of games. World of Tanks has spotting damage, to include, several missions which require spotting damage to succeed. Many of us notice, and frequently complain, about players who decide to stay on the back line of the map and wait....for those of us who play DDs and CAs, who put our own match at risk of a quick end by spotting and lighting up the enemy fleet so the back line players can get the damage shots....what do we get for it? Do the developers really intend for battles to remain as they are? It should be a relatively easy programming fix to reward players for spotting damage. I'd even go so far as to reward CV players (although on a reduced spotting damage percentage) for spotting enemy ships. Come on now, it's not that hard to do - and you already do it in what are you waiting for? Add a spotting damage game mechanic into WoWS!
  11. Before I begin writting this post, I will formally present myself in order not be mistaken by the common "rubble" of the community that simply desire a change inside the game in very inappropriated ways like I've seen in previous post about the same subject. Hello, my name is Leandro and I've recently started to play this game and felt in love for it for both its visuals and mechanics. I've decided to follow the legendary Japanese Battleship tree line legacy in order to achieve my ultimate goal within the game; Which is unlocking the mighty Yamato rank X Battleship. I am currently using a Japanese rank IV Battleship in all my battles and I'm loving everything so far, not only from what the game offers, but also the community itself in general. Even despite all the qualities this game has for its players, I've noticed something wrong with it that accomplishes in ruining. The fact that torpedos are extremely lethal weapons in both their effective damage and short detectation. To make it easier to understand, I will write my point of view in short sentences: What I expected 'Torpedos vs Battleships' to be like: Even despite torpedos being destructive weaponry with the purpose of destroying even the biggest of ships, I want to feel that it can be avoidable if I have the necessary time to react only in a SITUATION that allows me to do so; I do want to feel that torpedos are lethal yes, but still I don't want to feel that whenever I have a destroyer near me, or a group of biplanes loaded with them flying to me, it will be game over either by instant destruction or sinking damage; I expected to see torpedos when falling from the destroyer or from the biplanes, a big water spalsh. This is the perfect indicator that they are coming, giving the an optimal reaction time to at least dodge most of them; I noticed how hard is to hit a destroyer in full speed, not only because of their speed and length, but mostly because of their height. Making battleships slighty more accurate would fix that. And to finish this, I was shocked how a mighty yamato ship can be destroyed with full health (97.000 HP) by a single torpedo. And that's all. Thanks for reading and for allowing me to share my opinion.
  12. Ahoy fellow Forumites, just something that keeps crossing my mind: What do you all think about the current shell damage system in World of Warships, where every shell does a more or less fixed amount of damage, especially in the case of AP shells where there's precisely three different damage numbers possible (10% overpen, 33% penetration, 100% citadel)? Sure, with HE things can sometimes get a little more varied, and there are a couple of other factors that sometimes play a part like depleted sections. But at least to me personally, those very fixed and repetitive numbers that pop up always felt a little strange, and I feel World of Tanks does that a little better. So, what do you think? Would that extra bit of RNG be good for the game? What kind of percentage range should those rolls fall into? Very small, just to mix up the numbers? Substantial, like WoT's 25% range? Huge, so that you can get those epic lucky shots sometimes? Something in between? Or none at all? I realize it's unlikely that something like this will get implemented into the game anytime soon if ever, but I'm still curious what we the players think about that!
  13. [] alt_header ( Contador de daño en batalla ) Autor: WO3LOBED Fuente original ( Foro Ruso ) ; Descarga ;
  14. I was surprised to see a "pink" ship exploding right after a team kill. Some message like "player x has received a punishment for Team Killing" appeared on Battle chat. This is good news so is there any more changes in TK apart from this one? Does dmg repair and compensation work the same way? Thanks
  15. Hey. I've been playing a lot of USSR destroyers and so far I've reached t4. I think they are fun to play but a serious pain in the [edited]because of low detectability range and unusable torpedoes. My main problem though is that the stats say that the maximum damage I can do on HE is 1500 and on AP is 1800 and, if i'm lucky i only get about 400-500 on both of them. And I aim of the center of the ship too, and my hits mostly land there, so am I doing something wrong? Please help! Maybe I just suck and in that case, how can I improve. Also so far, I've found that there is literally NO advantage to playing with USSR destroyers as opposed to other destroyers. Is that true?
  16. What the hell is wrong with damage compensation? Fix this... once and for all. Just put a freaking "Punish Team Killer/Forgive Team Killer" option. In case of punish he pays full DMG+EXTRA compensation, I can't find a better, more logical explanation for this. It's so unfair. Not even one minute into the battle i get hit by 4 friendly torps (at like 500 meters...), almost at the same moment i get shot by an enemy Atago that took 1.7K from me and that was enough to sink my ship. So first thing, there's no way i can find out who launched those torpedoes unless i see the prevaricator launching them, so the TKiller just shuts up and gets away with it without even a "plays poorly" report. Then he pays a fine of 51K and, not only i get a "You haven't prove yourself in battle" prize, as i even have to pay more than the TKiller! I get -55K repair costs! How can this happen? Facts: I was TK (not tk but same thing) I sink with 1.7K dmg He has full HP I loose any possibility of earning XP or credits He continues to play and earn XP and credits Battle ends Maybe he sinks 1 ship. He pays 51K dmg compensation He has a profit any way. I receive 51K compensation for dmg I pay 135K dmg repair. I finish with minus 55K credits. He finishes with a profit and goes to his next TK laughing hard at me.
  17. Tag zusammen, hatte neulich eine recht gute Runde in der Kongo. Zeitnah hab ich einen kleinen neuen Youtube Kanal entdeckt - Maggi's Zockerbude. Der Kanal steckt noch in den Kinderschuhen, verdient aber definitiv mehr Views und Abos. Am besten macht ihr euch selbst ein Bild. Würde mich freuen und jemand der viel Zeit und Mühe in einen neuen Kanal steckt verdient Unterstützung! Cheers
  18. So i used to play a *very* old game (release date June 21, 2000 see if you can guess which game in the comments) where as you take damage parts off your ship would become visably deformed or explode. this was simplified in the game and tied to the overall Hp bar of your ship. what are the chances in the future we will have visable damage on our ships because right now all we have is some fancy shell holes, turrets getting blown up visually, which is nice and a silly paint effect that looks like some 4 year old made it in paint.... I am sure 80%+ off the player base would enjoy watching funnels get blown to bits and collapse or your cruiser superstructure get shredded by a battleship volley or watching a destroyer get visably mangled after an atlanta lands 10 HE shells. The way i advise this to be implimented would be each of the 4 current hp pools on ships *bow, stern, center, super structer*would have there own damage states on each ship going from as new to *oh heck this things falling apart* as there Hp pools get closer to 0. if needed have an option that disables the visable damage states so people on lower end pcs dont suffer from any fps drop or lag ps loving the current way ships snap into 2 when torpedoed at low Hp
  19. Greetings, Since I was under the impression that battleship merely had to hit the citadel area in order to deal full damage, I decided to do some not overly scientific tests when it was mentioned that this no longer was the case. First off, an Iwaki Alpha was put against a North Carolina (fair fight, indeed). Since the Iwaki has an extremely large citadel area (see image), it was fairly easy to avoid hitting the citadel roof. Initially only armour piercing rounds were tested. The observed behaviour was that every single shot overpenetrated the citadel area, resulting in a low damage output. Images can be found below. The natural course of action was to see what happened if HE shells were used in stead. I think the next image speaks for itself: The following attachments will be used in the next post, so no need to waste your time opening them here :3.
  20. I am in my Zao and there is this annoying Fletcher sitting in his smoke 6km from me spamming me with his guns. So i turn my ship and launch a spread of 10 torps towards him. When the torp hit ribbon pops up i start to smile... but then i notice that it's a x2 Torp hit... and then to my utter amazement i also notice that there is no red Ship Sunk Ribbon along with them... After the smoke clears a 2.5k hp Fletcher emerges. Now i know that torps never do their full damage, that at best it's 0.9 i think of the max damage. But seriously can someone explain to me how a 17k hp ship eat 2 x 21366 damage torpedoes and survive?
  21. We all experienced this, a fellow captain of our team was unaware of his surrounding and rammed our ship, in the middle of the battle, at an unpropitious moment. Happend to me to, although I try to be most wary of my surrounding and evade incomming team rammers, often resulting in presenting the enemy broadside and taking more damage or even getting killed. Some team rammers doing it on purpose on the other hand, forcing you to "tank" damage for them. Sure, in general both players could be made responsible, both unwary of their surrounding. But even if you try ur best, it can't always be avoided. I think everyone knows, that this can be situation-related a matter of getting killed or even losing a match, since maneuverability is clearly constrained = taking more damage or even insta-kill through torp-salvo or citadels and alike, which of course... sucks. But what I seriously dislike about it, is the fact that in 95% of these cases, I have to pay way more compensation fine to the actual rammer, then the rammer himself to me. The mechanic is insomuch god-awful, it makes me insane. Here is an example (Beware, it's a large Picture!): 1st ram, 2nd ram, I have to pay more then double for this players stupidity. Wtf. Before questions arise: No, I don't play only BB's. I know of other ships maneuverability. That's why it is even more incomprehensible for me. I encountered dozens of similar situations, in which someone rams me because of whaddefuckdoiknow, although I try my best to evade. It's not about the amount of the compensation fine, it's about the principle of doing nothing wrong and beeing forced to pay for someone elses brain malfunction. I simply can't stand this. A fine for damaging through any kind of weapon is totally fine, since that really very rarely happens and if so, it should really hurt. But the mechanic of ramming compensation needs serious rework or better has to be abolished completly, since I doubt it can be coded reliably to determine who is the actual perpetrator. If I were Wargaming, I would abolish this mechanic asap, since it doesn't work as intended, nor will work as intended in the future, since no one with the slightest bit of brain and/or responsibility would put any kind of (human)ressources into something that stupid. tl;dr: ramming fine is far too minor to make players care, nor does it work reliably - has to be abolished. I want to be compensated for that all of that btw.
  22. When playing a match in my Kongo today my game suddenly dropped from a good frame rate of 50-60 to a stable 4 fps. This happened when my ship sustained heavy damage, and remained this way until the exact moment my ship was destroyed (about 5 minutes). During this period i tried a number of things to get it resolved so that I could perform for my team, including setting all graphical settings to low and checking my task manager for culprits running in the background. Neither of which yielded any results; lowering graphics to minimum didn't so much as rise the frame rate by 1. I suspect there is something wrong with the damage model of the Kongo, or perhaps a damage related bug that causes a massive resource sink? This has never happened before, and I couldn't find any related information about this. I also hoped to check out the replay of this battle, but apparently I have not enabled this feature so no replay exists. I'm interested to see if anyone else has experienced similar issues. regards, Migrond
  23. I have to say this because either i am really bad at math or WG is charging for the crew meals. 1 - I am team killed seconds after battle begins. Team killer pays 78K fine, i pay 91K damage --- Is this a prize for team killers or 78=91? 2 - If i sink i pay 91K damage. If i have half damage (6300 dmg) i pay 52K --- 52+52=91?? 3 - I end the battle without a scratch, full HP --- I pay 13K damage --- Is this the crew meals or something? I hope you can explain this math otherwise i'm going back to school. Thanks
  24. So was testing the new and improved Furushitta. Yeah it's still bad. Maybe when it's maxed out but even though it's improved some issues persist. It's a big destroyer - every HE hit puts it on fire, takes out modules, rudder, and engine. It's horrid. Every AP hit unless very well angled is a pen. That is why I love furutakas and aobas in my cleveland - paper armour with easy to hit citadels. 6 citadel hits on one Aoba in a salvo once. Yeah - game over. Anyways, on to MY POINT: In game, is basically dead, everything went wrong - but the cleveland HE-spamming me is tunnel-visioning on me. So even without rudder I manage to reverse to change angle - get off my torps. Three torps with damage listed as 14600 each. I have hit him a few times allready, I go back to my guns and HE-him a bit - setting him on fire. So he is not on full health. Die - wait for my torps: All three hit, two floodings caused. Sure I will get the flesh-wound award. But no - he survives. And flooding does not sink him - probably kept his repair. BUT! All three torpedoes hit - thats a base, raw damage of 14600x3=43800 damage! The Cleveland, upgraded, has 35200HP. As far as I know it hasn't got torpedo bulges, It has armour but still. I hit him with 43800 damage thats 8600 more than his max health, and he wasn't on full health when I hit him. Someone plz explain if this makes sense or if the torps are bugged. Edit: Cleveland had 30911 HP when I hit him with torps. And I was wrong all three hit, all three caused floodings and they were pretty much midship - Just watched the replay.
  25. Hi all. Have been reading a large number of articles, books and web sites lately about actual performance and capabilities of Destroyers during WW2 and was a bit inspired. I think the wikipedia page on the Battle of Samar sums some parts up quite nicely: First a bit about a number of "Destroyer Escorts" involved. Destroyer Escorts was smaller, slower (usually just about 20 knots), less armed etc ships normally used to escort freight convoys, that is, far weaker and less capable than a full Destroyer This was after coming under fire from Heavy Cruisers of the Japanese side. Then the legendary actions of Commander Ernest E. Evans in the USS Johnston, a Fletcher. There are many more stories like this, this one is found here: An interesting article in full. Now, I know the game is what it is, and it's to late for any real changes of game mechanics at this point, but it might not be needed either. From what I've learned, Destroyers where indeed a very real threat to capital ships, and in reality they didn't have the "cloaking device" from the game. Rather, a small ship like a destroyer, with the amount of agility and speed they had was an extremely hard target to hit using the targeting technology of the time. They where also, despite lacking in armor, generally very durable and notoriously hard to finish off. Yes, they often suffered damage which decreased their performance, but outright sinking them wasn't all that easy. This, by the way, goes for many other ships as well: far more ships where put out of action, not being able to fight anymore and needing repairs than outright sunk. Now, what I would like to see is a more detailed system for managing damage. A real ship (or vehicle, or person) doesn't have hit points. Focusing on ships, when they take damage, a couple of things can happen. They can start leaking, and if the leak is greater than the pumping capacity or the pumps are disabled it will start sinking, how fast depending of course of the size and numbers of holes. Systems on the ship may be hit and damaged or destroyed, which seems to be the most common effect of getting hit. It may also, on rare occasions, be penetrated in a sensitive are, a magazine or boiler, which will cause catastrophic damage, generally sinking the ship quickly. The ship may also catch fire, and finally, crew may get killed. A torpedo hit is special, since it does work by sinking the ship, but generally, the hole created is so big that there is no time to react to this, and in the case of smaller ships it may well break the entire structure of the ship. Now, none of these kinds of damage are taking a toll on some ship-wide pool of hit points which, when expended, causes the ship to explode. I believe a mechanic more akin to reality would actually be an improvement for gameplay. AP: AP shells should have a couple of effects. On a penetration it will cause immense damage to the systems located where the shell ended up, the radius of damage correlating to the shell size, which may also cause fires. This will generally knock the system out for the rest of the game, also killing most of the crew manning said system. If a sensitive system like a magazine or boiler room is penetrated this should generally cause catastrophic damage, sinking the ship. This needs to be very difficult to achieve, since these areas are always extremely well protected and also not trivial to hit. An AP shell might also overpenetrate just as today. This should have a small chance of damaging any system in the shells path and also to kill some crew. Damage would not be as catastrophic, and be fixable by the crew. An underwater overpen will cause a small leak. HE: HE Shells exploding on deck will cause damage to nearby systems: the larger the shell, the radius again depending on shell size. It will also kill crew and have a chance to cause fires. Against very light armor, or plunging shells on the deck of light ships a HE shell may penetrate into the hull, causing even more damage then a penetrating AP shell, and risking causing leaks. Torpedos: A torpedo hit is always serious. Some ships, battleships foremost, have torpedo bulges which may save them from catastrophic damage, only causing the ship to need to slow down for the remainder of the battle. In all other cases, if the torpedo isn't a dud, it will cause a very serious leak, which will generally be impossible to fix, or break the structure of the ship, instantly sinking it. Now, this needs to be balanced of course, things to consider are introducing "duds", which was a quite common problem, limiting torpedo supplies, making torpedo bombers dropping much more difficult where the planes need a fairly long straight approach where they are very vulnerable to AA fire and fighters, introducing a risk that a TB under enough fire might botch their drop, causing the torpedo to destruct on water impact, missing widely etc. Torpedo hits needs to be fairly uncommon but extremely dangerous. Bombs from DB's work exactly like HE shells, damage, fire potential and radius based on bomb size. Leaks are tracked on a numerical scale where 0 is no leaks and 100 is sinking rapidly. Pumps at full capacity can stop leaks up to 20-40 on the scale depending on ship, and reduces leaks over that by the same amount: A ship with 25 pump efficiency and 40 leakage has an effective leakage of 15. Water taken on is also tracked, and once it reaches 100 the ship will sink. Water in the ship will slow it down and make it harder to turn. At over 50 water, crew actions will become slower and at 70 crew will start to die. Fires work in a similar way, the amount of fires are tracked from 0-100, where 100 is a raging inferno. A ship has a fire fighting efficiency of 5-20, which is the amount of fires put out in one minute. Fires over 30 slows crew down, over 50 starts to kill crew. Each minute, there is a percentage risk, of modules being damaged or destroyed based on the amount of fires still burning. Modules that are damaged are individually repaired. A ship has a number of repair points which are automatically distributed between all damages. The player can prioritize areas of repair: Weapons, Propulsion and Steering, Sensors etc, haven't thought out all possibilities. While working, the repair efficiency decreases from exhaustion, which is regained if the repair crews gets to rest without fixing anything. Crew number is tracked. Individual crew functions are not however. Instead, every action the ship takes are slowed down by a lack of crew proportionally, including fixing leaks, fighting fires and repairing systems, but also responding to commands (increase or decrease speed, rudder shift), top speed, reloading guns, training guns, AA efficiency, spotting range, the works. Stopping the ship in a hidden location, not doing anything else would let more crew focus on repairs, speeding them up, as long as the ship does nothing. If to many systems are damaged or to many crew are killed the ship is out of action, effectively dead. It will still float in game and can be shot by shells or torpedoes, this has no further impact on the game though, other than that the ship might be used as a shield. If there are to many leaks or fires in relation to the fixing capabilities of the remaining crew the captain will automatically issue an abandon ship, also effectively taking the ship out of action. Now, this is all rough ideas, actual numbers etc would need a lot of tweaking. I think a damage model like this would allow for a much more interesting game though, removing the rather silly concept of hitpoints and instead tracking actual damage to the ships capabilities. It would also fix things like fires from HE shells sinking Battleships: yes, setting fires would cause the Battleship to perform worse, but wouldn't sink it, and it would be unlikely that it caused so many casualties as to putting it out of action in a hurry. It would also allow modelling of things like I talked about earlier, how some ships can be very resilient and hard to sink without any magical cloaks or invulnerabilities. I think it would make the game much more dynamic and interesting. I think generally, the hitpoints paradigm in games is a pretty bad way of managing damage. Same thing goes for tanks for example, maybe even more obviously so: A MBT that is hit is either penetrated, which generally causes damage severe enough to take it out of action or destroy it spectacularly, or it is not penetrated, which will cause very little problems at all, maybe knocking a gyro out of balance disabling the main sight temporarily, knocking out some mirrors, lamps etc. A 25 mm autocannon can shoot at the front of a modern MBT from 1500 meters for as long as it pleases, it won't kill the tank. About the Destroyers in particular, apart from the revamped damage system, they would need to be able to rely even more on maneuverability and smoke to avoid getting hit. I feel that this is what was intended for the US destroyer line, since they can't rely on concealment while firing their guns or using torps, but the game fails to model it correctly, which makes the entire line sub par. Hitting a destroyer needs to be really really hard, and they need to not be knocked out by a few hits, but be able to go on fighting, albeit with reduced capabilities until able to repair. This would be compensated by increasing the detection ranges considerably, removing the feel of a magic aura, making them both more exciting and enjoyable to play, and likely less irritating and frustrating (while at least as dangerous) when facing them. Sorry for the mega-long post, had to much time on my hands I guess. And yea, I know, it's probably to late for major changes like this, one could always hope though, like I said, I think it could potentially settle quite a few problems in the game.