Unrealistic Torpedo boats

[Ulfberht_Viking]

It is unrealistic how hidden torpedo boats can be, they blink in and out of existence at close range even not with

fog machine on and are way too maneuverable, they can zig zag like bicycles on dry land and fart out 

torpedos few hundred meters form you totally invisible, really not realistic and really needs rethinking.

 

 

[aboomination]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_(game_design) 
• http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/kemp-bush-unfair-plane

[Trigger_Happy_Dad]

Maybe this is balanced in that way because it's a game?

 

Do warships have HITPOINTS  in reality ?

 

No?

 

See?

[ilhilh]

Is that the only unrealistic thing you have managed to spot?

[BillydSquid]

Yes there are issues, but realism is a slave to game balance, if you want realism BBs wouldn't be able to hit a barn door and the range of engagement would be miles not KM. if you want a simulator this is not the game for you. 

[Lladdir_]

1. Without stealth there would be no point in playing torpedo destroyers because of how fragile they are.

 

2. They are literally half the size of some of the battleships and are a hell of a lot lighter, of course they are maneuverable as hell. A different way to think about it is if they moved like bricks what would battleships be like.

 

3. Do you mean the destroyers are invisible 200m away or the torpedo's are? Cause destroyers, based on the stealthiest ships, don't have stealth below 5km. As for torpedo's they become visible around about 2ishkm, i'm sure someone has the actual numbers somewhere for all the different kinds but in all honesty if you rely on seeing the torps to dodge you are probably gonna get hit

[Jester86]

Damn and I thought CV's could land and reload planes in a matter of seconds in real life too.

 

Dreams shattered.

[Ictogan]

True, in real life quite often a single torpedo was enough to sink or seriously threaten even a BB. And Japanese Type 93 torpedoes were incredibly difficult to spot in the water and often weren't seen until impact. Oh, and let's not forget that there were far more destroyers than BBs or CAs irl.

 

People like to ask for realism, bit only when it's good for their preferred class.

[ColonelPete]

I think someone is bad at the game and needs something to blame.

[krazypenguin]

I agree it's not realistic, but it's how the game is balanced - it's not a simulator, after all.

 

The only thing that I think they could maybe implement (which I don't think they have, but I could be wrong, it's just I've never noticed it) is that there could be a visible animation for torpedoes being fired and splashing into the water.  So if you are watching a vessel closely enough at the time it launches torps you will know it has done so, rather than having to wait until you see the wakes.  Or perhaps they could add that as a captain skill, e.g. if a ship in visible range launches torpedoes you get an audible alert that torpedoes have been launched.  Just a thought.

[Niibler]

Blablablablablabla mummy a bad DD hurt me...

 

 

 

[Ictogan]

I agree it's not realistic, but it's how the game is balanced - it's not a simulator, after all.

 

The only thing that I think they could maybe implement (which I don't think they have, but I could be wrong, it's just I've never noticed it) is that there could be a visible animation for torpedoes being fired and splashing into the water.  So if you are watching a vessel closely enough at the time it launches torps you will know it has done so, rather than having to wait until you see the wakes.  Or perhaps they could add that as a captain skill, e.g. if a ship in visible range launches torpedoes you get an audible alert that torpedoes have been launched.  Just a thought.

If you zoom in and watch how he turns his guns and torpedo tubes, it's often possible to tell when tortuous are launched. The moment he doesn't give your ship a proper lead anymore, torps are in the water 90% of the time.

[conductiv]

If you zoom in and watch how he turns his guns and torpedo tubes, it's often possible to tell when tortuous are launched. The moment he doesn't give your ship a proper lead anymore, torps are in the water 90% of the time.

 

there was a time that when they fired, little splashes could be seen don't know if its still there.

 

the DD's do indeed have a bit of a balance conundrum, being very hard to spot and capable of unloading torpedoes from stealth is a amazing defense.

 

with only the carrier having the ability to counteract this by sending over a plane to stalk the DD. However, should the defense falter, having low HP and no armor can get you erased from the battle in no time flat (as DDs have no citadel it is very hard to 1-shot a DD of the same tier, it is unlikely they will die instantly).

 

in their current state, they need that ludicrous stealth to be of any value...however, its counter options are extremely limited, so a well played destroyer with no CV in the game is practically invulnerable to all but his own class. (this does not make them offensively effective though, torpedoes are powerful...but also slow and relatively easy to dodge)

[Eternus_Damnatio]

This is not a historic simulator.

[kodos]

PS: it is historic correct and realistic

 

SMS Szent Istvan was sunk at 10.6.1918, by a Italian torpedo boat because it get unseen (together with another ship) into a range of 600m hitting the BB with 2 torps and could escape undamaged.

[Mayv]

PS: it is historic correct and realistic

 

SMS Szent Istvan was sunk at 10.6.1918, by a Italian torpedo boat because it get unseen (together with another ship) into a range of 600m hitting the BB with 2 torps and could escape undamaged.

 

We need a DD stealth buff then!

[txtspeak]

 

you need to see this

skip to 2:54

[Aotearas]

Error: WASD.exe has encountered a serious problem and is shutting down. Would you like to send a report?

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

Yes there are issues, but realism is a slave to game balance, if you want realism BBs wouldn't be able to hit a barn door and the range of engagement would be miles not KM. if you want a simulator this is not the game for you. 

 

Actually it would be meters if you were in the german navy.

[Aotearas]

 

Actually it would be meters if you were in the german navy.

 

I'm not entirely sure, but I think nautical miles are used in the german navy too. I'd have to pass that along my father who was a pilot for marine aviation in the german navy.

[anonym_EFwxJOPWzlER]

It is unrealistic how hidden torpedo boats can be, they blink in and out of existence at close range even not with

fog machine on and are way too maneuverable, they can zig zag like bicycles on dry land and fart out 

torpedos few hundred meters form you totally invisible, really not realistic and really needs rethinking.

 

 

 

I don't think this game is supposed to be realistic, maybe ships, islands, ports, munitions, fires, ocean, sky and other things are made as realistic as they can make at the moment, but the mechanics of the game are never meant to be realistic

[Unintentional_submarine]

 

I'm not entirely sure, but I think nautical miles are used in the german navy too. I'd have to pass that along my father who was a pilot for marine aviation in the german navy.

 

Actually I don't think any navy used nautical miles for range estimation for weaponry. It was a matter of travel distance. The reason behind this interesting split, is that the weaponry was largely centered on artillery, and artillery distance measurements have every since modern artillery was created in the late 1800s, been using those measurements.

 

Nautical miles were used by the German navies, but only for travel distances. Their artillery measurements were hectometers, or steps of 100 meters at a time. The British and Americans also used nautical miles for travel, but used land yards for artillery, torpedo and anti-aircraft distances. The Japanese are interesting as they used Imperial measurements for part of the period, but changed some time around WWI to metric, but kept the nautical miles for travel.

 

And it makes sense. It would be quite complex to use a sort of 'nautical yard', because fathoms were used for depth and weren't easily converted into nautical miles, cables would be possible I suppose, being around a percent of a nautical mile, but it was probably a far too long measurement in the beginning when the distances were only a few kilometers at best at range.

[havaduck]

PS: it is historic correct and realistic

 

SMS Szent Istvan was sunk at 10.6.1918, by a Italian torpedo boat because it get unseen (together with another ship) into a range of 600m hitting the BB with 2 torps and could escape undamaged.

 

Fox example.

You just gotta love how people are unable to recognise that this abridged system is only loosely based on real battles like encounters in the night or with bad weather ....... but rather on a playable and arcady premise.

 

Well I add to that the battle of Matapan: >>>>> The battleships Barham, Valiant and Warspite, unnoticed by the Italian ships, were able to close to 3,800 yards (3,500 m) — point blank range for battleship guns — at which point they opened fire <<<<<<

 

 

Not even going on and bringing up other stuff like the bar-brawl-battle at Guadalcanal.

 

 

I am actually surprised there is no mention of Romulans or Klingons? Well gonna do it myself then:

 

 

 

(every thread like this gets this from now on)

[Aotearas]

 

Actually I don't think any navy used nautical miles for range estimation for weaponry. It was a matter of travel distance. The reason behind this interesting split, is that the weaponry was largely centered on artillery, and artillery distance measurements have every since modern artillery was created in the late 1800s, been using those measurements.

 

Nautical miles were used by the German navies, but only for travel distances. Their artillery measurements were hectometers, or steps of 100 meters at a time. The British and Americans also used nautical miles for travel, but used land yards for artillery, torpedo and anti-aircraft distances. The Japanese are interesting as they used Imperial measurements for part of the period, but changed some time around WWI to metric, but kept the nautical miles for travel.

 

And it makes sense. It would be quite complex to use a sort of 'nautical yard', because fathoms were used for depth and weren't easily converted into nautical miles, cables would be possible I suppose, being around a percent of a nautical mile, but it was probably a far too long measurement in the beginning when the distances were only a few kilometers at best at range.

 

Derp, I didn't have artillery in mind when I read and responded to the post.

 

Informative post though, I didn't knew about the japanese part of it.

[Unintentional_submarine]

 

Derp, I didn't have artillery in mind when I read and responded to the post.

 

Informative post though, I didn't knew about the japanese part of it.

 

To be honest, I don't know specifically when or even how the Japanese changed things. But at some point they switched, which can be seen in the names of their guns. Suddenly they switch from using inches, to using mm. Let's not forget that the Japanese modelled their navy on the Royal Navy to a large extent, and I suppose the influx of British built ships had an impact.