Planning of next updates

[Whomst'd've]

I would perfer this to be implemented soon:

 

[Steeltrap]

6 hours ago, rgreat said:

I want this:

Advanced damage control system.

Sadly the only screenshot with flooding i can find is very small.

 

Trying to keep your ships afloat and still able to fight was perhaps the most interesting part of old Great Naval Battles series games.

I have pointed out many times that "Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic: 1939-43" had by far the best damage and damage control models I've ever seen in any naval warfare computer game, and that was released in 1990 (FFS!!!).

Thanks for taking the time to add screenshots.

[Steeltrap]

3 hours ago, The Fundamentalist said:

What are you even arguing right now? Scout planes were present and used during surface engagements for a variety of roles. They ought to be represented in the tactical battle map as such, and there's nothing wrong for pointing that out in the thread specifically created for the purpose of future development. 

Some of you need either a day job or to go for a walk and spend some time outside. This is becoming toxic 

Challenging an idea is NOT "being toxic". Personal attacks, I agree, are a different matter, yet I'm not aware of anyone else stooping to that level.

I thought this is a forum where people get to discuss the merits and pitfalls of the game and/or ideas on how to change it.

If people can't handle discussing ideas directly yet politely, their own or others, I suggest the problem is theirs and not everyone else's.

If people want to add A when there are grounds to argue A does not fit in the game's stated aim of accurate and realistic portrayal of the various naval weapons and ships built through the period covered, why shouldn't someone provide that counter point?

The topic is planning next upgrades. Which means opportunity costs, which means saying choose A over B, or even don't do B at all. If I think A is preferable to B yet you feel the other way around, are you suggesting neither of us ought to comment to that effect? If so, the thread could just become an endless wish list with the devs none the wiser as to what or why or when. Nor sure how that helps anybody.

[Skeksis]

.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Skeksis

[Brandon L]

I would love to be able to place barbette's in the center of battleships so I can recreate more ships and design my own.  Also would like to be able to pick the shape of my turrets when using the unlock feature it will make designing ships much better and way more interesting than being forced to use a certain gun housing style like say how the turrets look in 1904 versus the 1940 look so unlocking every turret style will make ship designs endless and I will spend literally hundreds of hours just playing with designs and loving every minute of it. 

Really love the game and I look forward to whats to come.

[Shaftoe]

9 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Name them. With specific detail please. Number of planes involved, roles covered, and actual efficiency in each case. And yes, in surface ship-to-ship engagements (meaning, you don't need to list the instances where they were used for land bombardment spotting).

AS for what's becoming toxic, I'll let you decide who or what is. Someone who's just giving historical details to put the game (And suggestions) into perspective, or someone who just comes to dish people in three line degrading answers.

Tbh I do agree with The Fundamentalist. Your unexpectedly rude behavior, as shown by that rant - which is totally uncalled for, is somewhat disconcerting. Apparently, this game means A LOT to you. But this is an open forum, we have our right to voice our opinions (especially given that opening post made by a developer specifically requests that) - regardless of what you (or anyone else) may think of it. 

If it is not clear: your, mine or anyone else's argumentation for or against something is most likely meaningless. I think devs merely estimate general direction and number of requests for some feature, and then see whether or not it's at all possible to start working on it short term, or if it'd be possible to address long term.

In other words... Respectfully, there is no need for you to guard this topic every day, hissing on everyone who voices an opinion different from yours.

 

As for "specific details" and "number of planes involved, roles covered, and actual efficiency in each case..." - you know, that does not matter. What is obvious is that you are demanding another user to dedicate time and effort to conduct a comprehensive research, expecting them to either refuse, or fail, thus automatically "validating" your points. But that's a fallacy, and should we refuse, we are not wrong, and you (or someone else) is not auto-right. If you truly want to know - please, go forth and do your research yourself. Or at least re-read contents of my post, yes, it's not very detailed, but there are some facts you requested nonetheless. Something is better than nothing, right? Otherwise, I would have to ask... why such dishonesty? Lol.

[RAMJB]

1 hour ago, Shaftoe said:

Apparently, this game means A LOT to you. But this is an open forum, we have our right to voice our opinions (especially given that opening post made by a developer specifically requests that) - regardless of what you (or anyone else) may think of it. 

And there goes again, and this time I'm not even bothering to answer this by writting a new paragraph. I'll just copy and paste something I wrote in the past against exactly the same kind of bullshit argument, and be done with it:

Now let me make something clear here - I'm ok with anyone telling what they want and desire. By any means, everyone has an opinion and a right to voice it. I'm not here to shut anyone up. Not at all. And It's not my place, nor my intention, nor my purpose to tell them they should not say what they think. That I don't go to WOWS forums trying to turn that game into something that's not intended to be doesn't mean I don't respect the right of people with different tastes than mine coming here and saying what they want and think. I do. Completely. That I present arguments against their opinions doesn't mean I dont' respect opinions - it just means I disagree with them, and that I'm more than willing as to say why.

Debating someone else's opinions doesn't mean I somehow want to shut those opinions up, see.

But respect towards opinions and the right of sharing them goes both ways: Meaning that the same anyone should be OK with voicing his opinions here, then he should be OK with me answering with my own opinions about what he wants within the context of what this game is intended to be (Vs what they want it to be).
 

 

Now that's copy and pasted I'll add some thoughts to it.

I've NOWHERE, stated that anyone should not say what they think. I can argue about others opinions, but I'll NEVER, EVER, tell anyone not to have those opinions, or to not share them here.

Yet you come here doing exactly that: I've never tried to shut anyone up, yet you come here and do exactly that. Your post can be translated into a TL:DR of "shut up", which is exactly what you're accusing me of doing, yet I've never done.  Yet somehow I'm still the bad guy in this movie who's shutting others up. Care to explain please?.

Grow up. Seriously. And learn to take differing opinions with an open mind. That someone disagrees with you, or anyone else, doesn't mean said someone is trying to shut you up. Means he has a different view of things. And on top of it he provides sources, reasons, arguments and insight on why. He's just not telling you "I disagree". He's telling you "I disagree and here's why".

If you can't put up with disagreeing opinions to your owns, what are you doing in a public discussion forum to begin with?. Care to explain?.

 

 

1 hour ago, Shaftoe said:

As for "specific details" and "number of planes involved, roles covered, and actual efficiency in each case..." - you know, that does not matter. What is obvious is that you are demanding another user to dedicate time and effort to conduct a comprehensive research, expecting them to either refuse, or fail, thus automatically "validating" your points.

Of course it's obvious I am demanding other users to dedicate time and effort to conduct a comprehensive research. Specially so after a scummy post with such a blatant personal attack as the one I quoted back there.

And why do I "demand other users to do that"?. Because is what I do when I've been asked to provide proof to my affirmations. Something that has happened several times in the past, in this very forum. And I've never resented that - whatever sources I use (of which there are many), are very good reads for anyone who asks for them. And it really doesn't take much time...just picking the proper book, go to the proper chapter, quote the proper paragraph. Or providing an adequate link.

Essentially, if I make a claim, it's because I know it's true. And I know it's true because I've read it from a source. And I'll know which source it is. So when I'm asked for the source, I have only to refer to it.

If, however, say, was to make some wild claims made out of hot air and nothing solid, while talking out of my rear end, then if asked for sources I'd be in a real tight spot. And then I'd be either forced to shut up, or try and bust my ass hoping to find stuff that backs me up, while PRAYING, that **Something** backs me up.

But as I don't do that, I've never had any trouble providing sources in literally seconds after being asked for them.
So it's kinda suspicious that finding sources is so difficult for others, hm?. Makes one think.


On the other hand this doesn't mean I'm always correct. I talk a lot out of memory and sometimes that has it's drawbacks. Other times I dismiss some instances of a given topic because my personal view on them disqualifies them as examples of something I'm stating (or the inverse), which ends up in me making generalistic affirmations that, in detail, can be qualified as wrong. Doesn't happen a lot, but now and then it does.

And when told so I don't go crying around saying "you're toxic". Just because someone has come with a counterexample that shoots one of my arguments off, backed by proper sources and arguments, I don't go ballistic thinking he's trying to "shut me up". Much less I go in a tirade of public unwarranted personal attacks against him.
Because he's not trying to "shut me up". He's not being mean. He doesn't mean any ill will. He's trying to get things right and facts straight - something I respect a lot, btw. And something I wouldn't have any other way.

So in those instances, I, instead, say "yup, you're right on that one, I stand corrected".
See the difference?. 


Also of course I expect them to refuse or fail - because I know the answer to the question I made. SOmeone came here blatantly stating something false. I know what he stated is wrong. But given that in the very same post where he made his mistaken claim, he also calls me "toxic" I don't feel like telling him where he's mistaken. Which I usually do when I'm answering people who are posting with honest intentions.

Instead I ask him to provide for sources that back the claim he made in the first instance. Do I know he can't provide them?. Of course I do. Because he made a false claim to begin with. But as you'd expect I'm not going to go through the paces of writting a very long post explaining how and why he's mistaken, just after he has called me "toxic" for just doing that when answering other forum members.

 

1 hour ago, Shaftoe said:

But that's a fallacy

Is that so?. Really?.

Then provide the proper sources I asked for.

Otherwise this claim is as false as the original one I asked sources about. See? I did it again. I've asked you this time to come with sources proving me wrong. Knowing you cannot, because that claim is false.

At any rate: don't tell me I'm wrong, when I'm the first one to come with sources when I'm asked for them. Immediately, and without complaining, yet you can't do the same.

 

 

1 hour ago, Shaftoe said:

we are not wrong

Ok. Prove it then. I can prove whatever arguments I've made in this forum. And I'm willing to do so if asked (and I've been asked to do just that repeatedly in the past)

So do the same. Prove your claims are right by providing the sources that back them up. Otherwise you're full of shite up to your neck. 

 

1 hour ago, Shaftoe said:

If you truly want to know - please, go forth and do your research yourself.

I don't have to. I've read plenty to know what I'm talking about. I've been in personal conversations with both historians and engineers about the topic. I've already done my research, so to speak. To the point that when asked for sources I have only to stand up, walk to my shelf, and pick the proper book that gives the sources that back me up. Or do a fast online search, because I know where to look for the sources...as I've already been there to look for them in the past.

I'm sorry if that's not your case - but if it was, then the claims you're making ,you wouldn't making them in the first instance. Kind of a catch-22, ain't it?

 

1 hour ago, Shaftoe said:

why such dishonesty? Lol.

After what you've written that you accuse me of dishonesty is comedy gold.


 

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[Angus MacDuff]

You guys are having a personal argument which is off topic.  Take to PM, would you please?

[RAMJB]

6 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

You guys are having a personal argument which is off topic.  Take to PM, would you please?

If I'm attacked in public, I'm defending myself in public. I know this is a huge offtopic, but I refuse to take the blame on this one. I didn't start this, but by any means this time I'm going to see it finished.

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[Shaftoe]

1 hour ago, RAMJB said:

I'm attacked in public

Woops! And just like that, I am going to ignore his (her?) rants for the rest of my stay here. Not dealing with that attitude. Lol.  

---

But yeah, as I said before, its open forum. People can suggest whatever they want, providing any degree of clarification. But nobody here is obligated to answer whatever "challenges" some special guys may have in store for them. For one, because it's overwhelmingly unlikely that developers' decision would be based on such interactions, rather than on the amount and quality of ideas themselves. And in-game implementation would be quite different from real world, too - only devs can decide what functions and in what capacity such units as, say, recon planes would fulfill. So, such arguments as the one RAMJB insists on having are... meaningless. Energy being wasted for nothing. Let's just all coexist peacefully and do our own things. That's basically a pro-tip on how to avoid being dragged into a conflict on the internet. Lol.  

That's going to be my last off-topic message here. Obviously, it's hard to debate with anyone, when each of your messages needs to be checked by a moderator, so there may be significant response delays, and ongoing discussion usually waits for no one. Still, I edited this post to include my view of this situation above. To summarize: anyone should have the right to voice their ideas and suggestions, and no other user should assume some ridiculous ideas of own seniority or insist on challenges, unless the other party openly commits to it, and time investments it requires. And certainly, no user should clutter this suggestion topic by a myriad of their own walls of text that they imply are invaluable to the process. Let's just uphold order. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Shaftoe

[stevieshae]

44 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

If I'm attacked in public, I'm defending myself in public. I know this is a huge offtopic, but I refuse to take the blame on this one. I didn't start this, but by any means this time I'm going to see it finished.

How are you being attacked?

[RAMJB]

4 minutes ago, stevieshae said:

How are you being attacked?

Well in just two posts I've been openly called "toxic", "rude", "writer of an uncalled for rant", "hisser", "dishonest"... and I'm sure I'm missing something in the background noise too.

On top of that I'm implicitly being accused of "trying to shut other people's opinions up", which I DO take as a very serious personal attack in what regards to my contribution in this forums. Because it's utterly, blatantly and completely false.

Now I beg the question of how it can be that you have to ask "how are you being attacked" when all the things I just listed are in the open for everyone to see.

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[stevieshae]

1 minute ago, RAMJB said:

Well in just two posts I've been openly called "toxic", "rude", "writer of an uncalled for rant", "hisser", "dishonest"... and I'm sure I'm missing something in the background noise too.

On top of that I'm implicitly being accused of "trying to shut other people's opinions up", which I DO take as a very serious personal attack in what regards to my contribution in this forums. Because it's utterly, blatantly and completely false.

Now I beg the question of how it can be that you have to ask "how are you being attacked" when all the things I just listed are in the open for everyone to see.

Well i'm sorry for you.

[arkhangelsk]

57 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

You guys are having a personal argument which is off topic.  Take to PM, would you please?

With respect to your seniority, may I make a suggestion? Next time when playing the peacemaker you might want to take into account the natural (if perhaps incorrect) inferences caused by putting your post right under one of the debaters - you will be saying it is his fault. Since Shaftoe started the exchange and Fundamentalist made an unwarranted response to RamJB's reasoned reply to Shaftoe, this will likely bring indignation.

Let me approach this "scout plane" business another way. Whether people are advocating their priority or delayed incorporation, a decision would still have to be made on how effective they are in-game. Right now, historical in-battle evidence is basically being proferred only by @RAMJB and he's saying they are useless (really, I didn't realize they were that useless...) and a fire risk. At this rate, the only historical thing to do when they are incorporated will be to give them coefficients of zero (the good news is that they will be incorporated just that bit faster b/c we will only have to teach the AI not to use them at all). Anyone interested in useful scout floatplanes may find their best interests served by rushing out to find some evidence of their usefulness in actual combat.

If no evidence is found, my vote is to either drop them for good or represent them with brutal honesty. No "It is a game" adjustment. And if evidence is found, I suggest posting it here:

Which would allow RamJB to rebutt freely without worrying about cluttering this thread which has a lot of functions to fulfill.

Now, so that this post is not completely dedicated to that topic:

15 hours ago, rgreat said:

I want this:

Advanced damage control system.

Now that this thread has turned into less of a "Top Priority" thread, I'll say I would like to have something similar. No rush, do the campaign first. But in due course I really won't mind having this.

[RAMJB]

18 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

Right now, historical in-battle evidence is basically being proferred only by @RAMJB and he's saying they are useless 

Correction - what I'm stating is that they were useless for purely tactical applications, and in the context of ship-to-ship gunnery engagements. To be precise, in "spotting the shot", which is the most commonly referred role for those things in naval engagements, and where they were truly useless. They also were used to drop flares on night encounters (their effectivity at it was quite questionable at an era where radar was already a thing and starshells could perfectly be shot by surface ships, however).

The only tactical role where ship-borne floatplanes were truly significant was in land bombardment spotting. There they were actually useful - but we don't have land bombardment in the game yet, so what's the point of having floatplanes in the tactical battle engine then?.


They were quite useful in operational roles, however. From antisubmarine patrol, SAR of downed pilots, general search role, recconaissance, even liaison roles, they did prove their worth. Which would make for a FAR stronger case for the introduction of them in a campaign than in the current "custom battles" and "scenarios" we have, which are strictly tactical in nature, and based on ship-to ship engagements. But I also remind that even for those operational roles, once carriers were available in sufficient numbers, the role and importance of floatplanes in the operational level decreased a lot aswell, to the point that by 1943 ships were losing them during refits.


So what I'm pointing out is not that they were useless period. What I'm trying to point out is that those things were historically useless for the role people are asking them for. Completely different thing ;).
And that adding planes (even for very limited roles as floatplanes) is a very complex and demanding process for a small dev team, and that given the very limited real value of those things in the grand scope of things, priority should be given to adress what we already have and make it right, rather than adding planes in just because.

Do I want planes in this game?. Hell yes. Do I want FLOATplanes in this game? hell yes. I want everything that mattered in history in this game. But each thing at it's time, and each feature weighed properly in how much it'd cost in development terms to properly add while not breaking anything else, and while not substracting from attention to far more urgent matters, vs how important and significant they were in real life.

And the truth is that in the scope of things, floatplanes weren't very significant at all, and whatever significance they had, was restricted to operational roles the game still doesn't cover. So my point is that they had too little an impact compared with how complex they'd be to add... hence very low on any priority list. Doesn't mean I don't want them. It means I want them when many other far more important things are already in the game (and working properly).

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[Angus MacDuff]

12 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

With respect to your seniority, may I make a suggestion? Next time when playing the peacemaker you might want to take into account the natural (if perhaps incorrect) inferences caused by putting your post right under one of the debaters - you will be saying it is his fault. Since Shaftoe started the exchange and Fundamentalist made an unwarranted response to RamJB's reasoned reply to Shaftoe, this will likely bring indignation.

Sigh....

 

12 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

Now that this thread has turned into less of a "Top Priority" thread, I'll say I would like to have something similar. No rush, do the campaign first. But in due course I really won't mind having this.

Actually, I would argue that the damage control aspect should be quite a high priority in this game, and I like that graphic.  Unlike Naval Action where the priority is throwing cannon balls into the target, or an "Air" heavy game where the planes are the hammer, this game is about throwing the bullets and surviving the hits.  We read historical accounts of the damage received to these monsters and the actions taken to keep them fighting.  Even on today's warships (which are made of paper), the Damage Control Organisation is a large and vital part of the overall combat strength of a unit.

[RAMJB]

2 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Actually, I would argue that the damage control aspect should be quite a high priority in this game, and I like that graph

I do agree. The damage model is essential for a game like this and one of the top priorities. I have my own misgivings with the model referred to. It's from a early 90s game and had to make do with a lot of limitations that we don't have today. It wasn't perfect in it's time but it was the best it could be done.

Today, it can be done...and better, and I'd say that as a starting point the GNB damage model is a very good starting point - but it needs a lot of refinement ;).

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[akd]

51 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

Correction - what I'm stating is that they were useless for purely tactical applications, and in the context of ship-to-ship gunnery engagements. To be precise, in "spotting the shot", which is the most commonly referred role for those things in naval engagements, and where they were truly useless.

 

I think we need a caveat here: in the circumstances that developed in WWII they proved mostly useless for tactical employment in ship-to-ship actions, and arguably a liability.   However, we could imagine circumstances that might have developed differently that could have placed a greater premium on that role.  A significant naval conflict in the Mediterranean before the advent of radar and dedicated air platforms might have seen wider employment in the spotting role.

It is quite clear from doctrine and exercises conducted that they were considered a significant potential multiplier for gunfire control. That is not, however, an argument that they need to be included, which without careful inclusion of a number of factors would likely lead to them serving as a must-have combat multiplier in all circumstances (think to the secondary gun debate: if ships had these they must have been super effective, therefore make them super effective in the game and ignore actual data.)

Edited January 17, 2020 by akd

[RAMJB]

7 minutes ago, akd said:

A significant naval conflict in the Mediterranean before the advent of radar and dedicated air platforms might have seen wider employment in the spotting role.

I have very serious doubts about it. The british never even attempted it a 2nd time after the River Plate Seafox fiasco when trying to spot for HMS Ajax. They still used floatplanes extensively however for many other roles, but never again bothered with trying to repeat the spotting drill in ship-to-ship engagements. It was tried, it was shown as impractical, it was never tried again.

It's quite significant, honestly, to the point that I suspect this would've been the case in any war that had happened before WW2. Of course, it's a "suspicion", as with all what-ifs it's impossible to cathegorically say something would've or would've not happened...but if we have to guide ourselves by what **Actually** happened...then...yeah ;).

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[FFire31]

- Atm I get frustrated a bit with smaller ships, because my secondaries always target my main target if it's in range, even if they can barely scratch it. There's plenty different way to solve that.

- The ability to use different kind of shells by caliber (as exemple I want my big guns to target a capital with AP, while my secondaries shoot HE on lighter ships)

- Add to the bulkheads models a 3rd dimension so my ships would capsize if there's too much flooding on the same side (that was pointed by RamJB before)

- Custom battles : let me custom more ; weather, daytime

-Add a minimap

-An order transmission system. During the Jutland battle, maybe the most important dreadnought centered battle of history, many events were decided because of the lack of efficient communications between ships. Radios should be much more than a strategic asset, before radio era, order should be sent with signal flags delaying their execution and forcing to operate ships as squadrons rather than individually

- Night battles with lights systems on ships

- AA on ships, maybe with no effects on tactical combat right now, but mandatory during late campaign.

- The warspite managed to score the longest range gunnery hits from a moving ship to a moving target in history, hitting Giulio Cesare at a range of approximately 24 km. in game atm it's imho a bit too easy to score very long range hits when shooting with latest sights and radar.

- AI badly design its ships and rely about numbers right now ; I would really like if the game could collect some datas and  keep track of the most succesful designs created by humans players, in order to be used by the AI. I know you Darthis were always sensitive about the importance of AI in strategy games, and I personnally keep an eye on your games because of that

[RAMJB]

2 hours ago, FFire31 said:

- The warspite managed to score the longest range gunnery hits from a moving ship to a moving target in history, hitting Giulio Cesare at a range of approximately 24 km. in game atm it's imho a bit too easy to score very long range hits when shooting with latest sights and radar.

Someone will tell me I'm a very toxic person for daring to comment on this, and probably someone else will also come here calling me a hissing dishonest and rude writer of rants...but I'll still do it XDDD

Now sarcastic comments aside, the only reason why longer ranged hits didn't happen is because the chance really didn't present itself that much, and when it did, circunstantial events prevented those hits to happen. Let me explain.

As you correctly mention Warspite managed to hit at almost 27000 yards of range. If that's the longest hit ever achieved, or wether it was Scharnhorst's on Glorious (At virtually the same range) is something nobody will truly know - as it stands they're tied for the record.

One has to remember however when did that happen. Both times in 1940. And which ships were involved: Scharnhorst had a notably overcomplex and unreliable fire control system (as was exposed on her meeting against Renown alongside Gneisenau), a problem that wasn't solved until her post-norway refit in germany where miles upon miles of cable were removed from the system on an attempt to simplify it.
Meanwhile Warspite's FCS, IIRC, was still relying on direct descendants of the WW1 Dreyer Tables, operating on the analytic principle, rather than the far more useful synthetic FCS that were pretty much the norm on other fleets at the era.

Summing up: A ship known for her overcomplex and unreliable fire control system, and a ship operating on essentially somewhat refined WW1 fire control, both achieved hits at 27000m without too much effort.

Now think what ships with proper, modern and reliable, systems of WW2 were able to do. Yes, it didn't really happen but that's because there were very few actual daylight battleship engagements during WW2, much less at extreme ranges.

Yet we still have the instance of Yamato off Samar, where after opening up at almost 35000 yards, on her third salvo she already straddled USS White Plains. So accurate the gunlaying was that one of the misses in that salvo (a diving shell that fell short) detonated outside of the hull of the CVE dealing pretty massive damage to the carrier. While not a hit (and as such didn't make the record) this proves an incredible level of accuracy. And the only reason Yamato didn't hit her afterwards is that due to the damage the carrier had sustained the boilers were affected and a pretty large cloud of smoke enveloped the carrier, convincing Yamato that she had hit her square on and that she was a goner, so she switched targets instead of keeping firing on her. Otherwise the longest recorded hit in history would belong to Yamato for sure, and would stand at well past 32000 yards.

Not an instance of an extreme range hit, but USS Iowa on her third salvo sent Katori to the bottom, from somewhat beyond 15000 yards. In total Iowa fired five or six salvoes, can't recall but it wasn't more than 50 shells for sure, but by all accounts Katori was a goner already by the third salvo.

Then we have Lee's performance on Surigao. By all accounts like shooting fish in a barrel, but that one still implied battleships firing completely blind at 23000 yards and sinking an enemy battleship nonchalantly.

Bottom point here is that, records aside, by WW2 gunnery control standards were truly fantastic, and enabled very accurate gunfire from tremendous ranges. I'm not saying the game is overdoing it or not (I honestly have no definite opinion on it because I'm yet to see a proper source listing the actual hitting chances of shells at those ranges), but certainly looking at the performance of battleship FCSs during WW2 I wouldn't discard out of hand the chance that the game has gotten it perfectly right .

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[Angus MacDuff]

11 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

Summing up: A ship known for her overcomplex and unreliable fire control system, and a ship operating on essentially somewhat refined WW1 fire control, both achieved hits at 27000m without too much effort.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.  In gunnery, you are firing your salvoes into a box.  Range, weather, and quality of fire control will determine the size of the box.  After that, it's just statistics.  If the box is X size, and the target is Y size, then statistically, Z shells will strike the target.  The damage that they cause is a function of bullet quality/technology and target vulnerability.  There is always the chance of the golden BB hit on the Hood....statistically.

[RAMJB]

7 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.  In gunnery, you are firing your salvoes into a box.  Range, weather, and quality of fire control will determine the size of the box.  After that, it's just statistics.  If the box is X size, and the target is Y size, then statistically, Z shells will strike the target.  The damage that they cause is a function of bullet quality/technology and target vulnerability.  There is always the chance of the golden BB hit on the Hood....statistically.

I rather qualify those as hits perfectly achievable even by the ships involved. Scharnhorst had a very complex system that tended to not work very well at first, but when it worked, it was excellent (and nobody ever complained about it ever again after the 1940 refit that simplified it). Meanwhile, Warspite might have had a FCS operating on an inferior principle, but still was a system that had been worked on for more than two decades, and massively more capable that whatever had been fielded at Jutland.

Both ships achieved hits after having fired remarkably accurate opening salvoes. I don't think is a case of a "broken clock giving the right hour twice a day". Hits are a statistical matter - gunlaying your opening salvoes pretty much on top of the enemy is not. Well, at least, it usually is not ;).

So my point was not dishing the accomplishment of either ship, it was more of a case of "if those ships, which didn't really have top of the line Fire Control when they achieved those hits, were able to achieve them at those ranges, now think what ships with top of the line equipment were truly capable of" ;).

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[akd]

Straddling a target at that range was likely not possible at Jutland, but I think Angus’s point is valid.  There is a going to be a minimum dispersion pattern for a salvo at a given range that no amount of fire control correction is going to reduce.  Accuracy improvements in game allow you to keep reducing this pattern until it is possible to have most of the shells in salvo strike a target in one salvo at extreme range.  There should be diminishing returns on increasing accuracy at the upper ends to account for shots that are accurate, but precision that cannot be increased further.  (The game of course treats accuracy and precision as a single factor.)

p.s. Did you know Warspite had one of her aircraft aloft and spotting fall of shot when she hit Giulio Cesare, the longest hit between two moving battleships.  That speaks to a bit more tactical relevance (contributing, not decisive) than you have allowed for in previous posts.  The same pilot also played a crucial tactical role at the Second Battle of Narvik. 😜

Edited January 17, 2020 by akd

[RAMJB]

33 minutes ago, akd said:

There is a going to be a minimum dispersion pattern for a salvo at a given range that no amount of fire control correction is going to reduce.

Valid point, to an extent. But maybe only to an extent. I'll openly admitting here I'm out of my element here because top of my head I just don't recall salvo dispersion pattern sizes at top range for battleships of the era. I'm sure that data exists somewhere, but I just don't recall specifics about it.

If you have any source citing those we can take a look and see exactly how bad (or nonexistant, depending on the case) the dispersion problem would be at max ranges. IT certainly didn't look like anything serious for Yamato off Samar, that's for sure, and all accounts about the battle of Jutland mention that dispersions achieved by both british and germans were far too narrow, for the detriment of both sides (as with wider patterns more hits would've probably been achieved). Keeping in mind Jutland happened at 20-15km for the most part, that doesn't really seem like promising huge dispersion patterns at 30km or beyond.

But as I said I'm out of my element so I won't go any further than speculation - until we find some hard data to look at and to comment on :).

 

 

33 minutes ago, akd said:

p.s. Did you know Warspite had one of her aircraft aloft and spotting fall of shot when she hit Giulio Cesare, the longest hit between two moving battleships.

No, I was not aware of that. I know the italians launched a few floatplanes more or less at the same time the first reports of contacts were radioed from the scouting italian ships. I also know they didn't get anything done. I do remember that at least one british cruiser had to dump her floatplane off the board because (seems a recurring theme, doesn't it? ;)) a hit had set it aflame. I do remember Formidable was around and some british planes were around, but top of my head none of them were spotting. And I remember one of the british battleships shooting wide for most of the engagement as she was incorrectly spotting some other battleship's fall of shot (which doesn't really point at any kind of "spotting" done by aircraft, to be honest)

But I don't remember reading anywhere that any british floatplane was doing any kind of "correction of fall of shot" during Punta Stilo. In fact a book I have, which is specifically about the history of floatplanes and their use by all the warring nations of WW2 makes absolutely no citation of something like that (I've just checked it), even while that should be one of the obvious highlights achieved by those planes. Where does that info come from? O.o

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB