Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

While it's reasonable for smaller guns to be less accurate than larger guns, let's also not exaggerate what's in the posted data:

ZHf7ukq.png

Here we have the 12" being about 2.5 times as accurate at 6000 yards, and about 2.6 times at 9000 yards. Compare these stats from Alpha 2:

range_and_accuracy.png.408d8b9f62346a84edc608b078a73c23.png

Granted, the size difference between the guns was larger when I took these (5" vs. 18"), but the 5" also had a two Mark advantage. Here the 18" was 5.3 times more accurate at 5 km, and 60 (!) times more accurate at 10 km.

Edited by Evil4Zerggin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Well in the context of AI and the result or performance of your design against the AI, it can’t be "completely false", I mean we will be facing the same AI whether it’s in arcade, custom or the campaign, therefore the performance of your design and the knowledge you gain would be relevant in the campaign.

 


It has nothing to do with the AI.

It has everything to do with the situations you're facing in both gamemodes.

In scenario you're given a list of enemies, a list of objectives, and resources with which you're expected to build something to deal with **THAT** specific list of enemies and objectives.

In a campaign the same ship that meets a flotilla of destroyers with a couple CLs in one engagement might be taking a place in a battleline action against the enemy battleline, only weeks, days, or even hours after the first battle.

If your design is one-dimensionally tailored for a single scenario that once you're done with, it's over for good (no need to return to port, no problem if you're almost out of ammo because you're not liable to find more enemies in your way back to port, etc), then it won't be able to perform well in widely different scenarios. Given that those ships are the ones you build with the resources your nation has, it'll be exceedingly ill-suited for many possible situations that ship can find itself in, while being only tailored for just a particular one, and as such will be woeful (and expensive) mistakes that will put you at a disadvantage during the campaign.

Long story short: the scenarios do a good lot of teaching, but as all teaching tools it can lead to completely mistaken conclussions unless you're mindful of what they exactly represent.

In my videos, for instance, I make a point of putting things in all my scenario ships that are COMPLETELY wasted tonnage in that particular scenario (such as at least standard range fuel capability, antitorpedo bulkheads even if I know there are no torpedoes in the scenarios, battleship-grade armor on battleships even if I know my enemies are going to be TBs with 3'' guns at best, etc), but that they would be indispensable for any such design of warship in the context of the very widely different scenarios that ship can find herself in during the course of a campaign.


It's the suboptimal way to beat scenarios - but is the optimal approach for campaign designs. Which points out that no, scenarios shouldn't be taken as "this is how I should design my ships", but rather "this is the kind of approach I should take to give my ships capability against this kind of threats in particular". Completely different thing.

Any ship worth the investment should be able to handle itself well in widely different scenarios, not just in one. And secondaries are a key part of that flexibility in what regards to capital ships. You might think they're completely worthless in the scope of a given scenario, the same antitorpedo bulkheads may be in others. But try to run around in ships without any kind of proper antitorpedo system in the campaign ,see how much your ship lasts....

Same with the secondaries.

Edited by RAMJB
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Evil4Zerggin said:

Granted, the size difference between the guns was larger when I took these (5" vs. 18"), but the 5" also had a two Mark advantage. Here the 18" was 5.3 times more accurate at 5 km, and 60 (!) times more accurate at 10 km.

The size difference is huge, like many orders of magnitude different than 6" v. 12" (and the actual test results would be for Mark I or Mark II equivalent guns).  That said, the max range of lighter guns is being severely artificially limited in game, which may be skewing the accuracy fall off.

Edited by akd
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Evil4Zerggin said:

While it's reasonable for smaller guns to be less accurate than larger guns, let's not exaggerate what's in the posted data:

ZHf7ukq.png

Here we have the 12" being about 2.5 times as accurate at 6000 yards, and about 2.6 times at 9000 yards. Compare these stats from Alpha 2:

range_and_accuracy.png.408d8b9f62346a84edc608b078a73c23.png

Granted, the size difference between the guns was larger when I took these (5" vs. 18"), but the 5" also had a two Mark advantage. Here the 18" was 5.3 times more accurate at 5 km, and 60 (!) times more accurate at 10 km.

Ideally with the information we have, whatever mk represents a 1909 12in would be 2.5 times as accurate as a 1909 6in at 6000 yards, and  2.6 times at 9000 yards. 

I'm not saying this particular British test should be the baseline for the whole game, it just happens to be the reference I had closest at hand.

Simulating Ballistics is a complicated business, but there seems to have been a bit of good work on the subject.

Once that baseline is created and a formula satisfactorily matches up, the in-game modifiers could work pretty much as they do now. 

Here's an example of a tool to do just that. More can be found here as well.

Edited by DougToss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another rough comparison just on the basis of pattern size:

5"/38

During the Okinawa campaign, so much 5"/38 ammunition was expended in such a short period of time that concerns were raised regarding excessive barrel wear. Two Fletcher class destroyers, USS Hall (DD-583) and USS Richard P. Leary (DD-664), the latter of which had expended about 4,270 rounds per gun, were ordered to perform an offset practice shoot to determine the effects of barrel wear on accuracy. The exercise found that the range patterns from USS Richard P. Leary were 260 yards at 6,000 yards (240 m at 5,500 m) and 470 yards at 12,000 yards (430 m at 11,000 m), which were both within the nominal accuracy specifications.

vs

14"/50 mk7

he Mark 7 was a remanufactured 14"/50 (35.6 cm) Mark 4 with a smaller chamber, a shell centering cone, a single-slope band seat, uniform rifling and a tube locking ring. The Mark 11 was the Mark 7 with the addition of chromium plating to the bore. During the battleship modernization program of the 1930s, the 14"/50 (35.6 cm) Mark 11 was used to rearm the New Mexico and Tennessee Class Battleships, although the battleship Tennessee did not receive updated guns until 1942.

The problems with dispersion experienced with the 14"/50 (35.6 cm) Mark 4 guns seem to have been corrected with these rebuilt weapons. At Surigao Strait, USS Tennessee (BB-43) and USS California (BB-44) reported pattern sizes of 300 to 400 yards (275 to 365 m) for six and nine gun salvos at 20,000 yards (18,300 m), which was not appreciably different than that achieved by the newer battleships during the war.

vs

16"/50 at best possible performance (beyond capabilities of our era)

As modernized in the 1980s, each turret carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvements made these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made. For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.

 

That of course does not account for other elements of accuracy when actually engaging a moving target, e.g. the longer flight time to reach the same range of the smaller caliber shells.

Edited by akd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Evil4Zerggin said:

While it's reasonable for smaller guns to be less accurate than larger guns, let's also not exaggerate what's in the posted data:

ZHf7ukq.png

Here we have the 12" being about 2.5 times as accurate at 6000 yards, and about 2.6 times at 9000 yards. Compare these stats from Alpha 2:

 

Granted, the size difference between the guns was larger when I took these (5" vs. 18"), but the 5" also had a two Mark advantage. Here the 18" was 5.3 times more accurate at 5 km, and 60 (!) times more accurate at 10 km.

Let's first check what Alpha 4 turns out to be, and also the in-game effect. In addition to the larger caliber difference, however, you might also note that the bonus to the larger gun also covers it being connected to more sophisticated fire control (IIRC, that quoted chart was before director firing became a thing), while little gun may be connected to very little at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Let's first check what Alpha 4 turns out to be, and also the in-game effect.

Certainly. I do not intend to pass judgment of Alpha 4 here. My opinion is simply that Alpha 3 was an over-correction in both the "over" and "correction" aspects. (Granted, more of the former than the latter.)

3 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

however, you might also note that the bonus to the larger gun also covers it being connected to more sophisticated fire control (IIRC, that quoted chart was before director firing became a thing), while little gun may be connected to very little at all.

While realistic, there is in fact no such difference currently modeled in the game.

image.png.11b39d306670e5f69fec2efc2e11df0c.png

On the left are 1940 BB secondaries of 6" and 5" size. Since they are both secondaries, we would expect both of them to be connected to the same type of fire control. The difference in accuracy is small at moderate ranges.

On the right are the same size guns on a CA. The overall accuracy is slightly lower due to the CA's lower Stability score. However, this time the 6" is a primary and the 5" is a secondary. If there was a difference between primary and secondary fire control we would expect the gap between the accuracy of the two to widen. However, it does not.

Rangefinder and towers also affect all of these at full strength. For example, if we put max towers, rangefinder, and radar on the CA, we get:

image.png.641385bbf67830b618c3cf86fcbffceb.png

Edited by Evil4Zerggin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iron Duke, Queen Elizabeth, and Revenge battleship classes had secondary battery directors at Jutland, so at least they were not shooting under local control. I think, but do not know, that the secondary battery was connected with a Turret Control Table, a fairly simple computer.

Secondary battery accuracy may have improved fairly substantially later in WWI with new synthetic computers (eg the "Baby Ford"). Small gun accuracy may also have been relatively bettered with radar, such that the difference was lessened between them and big guns, but that is my own speculation.

Either way, secondary guns were virtually destined to survive past WWI, for anti-aircraft use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Internet forums falling for a troll and deviating from the original post past half the second page? Who knew?

I don't remember the term Wehraboo having some political meanings. It's a fun way of mocking "these" obligatory internet guys and their (often) false ideas about german military, nothing more. They also exist for the other nations, although to a lesser extent. I know looking for politics in memes and internet subculture is the way of the new insecure crowd to try to add some "control" and "definition" to all of this mess, but can we stay clear from that in a naval game forum? 

Are we really going overboard with one guy saying it was sad to see some navy kraut wet dream in UA:D in a three line long post? hey at least be more entertaining, add some pictures, .gif ect. It was funnier with the sextuple turret topic.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

Internet forums falling for a troll and deviating from the original post past half the second page? Who knew?

I don't remember the term Wehraboo having some political meanings. It's a fun way of mocking "these" obligatory internet guys and their (often) false ideas about german military, nothing more. They also exist for the other nations, although to a lesser extent. I know looking for politics in memes and internet subculture is the way of the new insecure crowd to try to add some "control" and "definition" to all of this mess, but can we stay clear from that in a naval game forum? 

Are we really going overboard with one guy saying it was sad to see some navy kraut wet dream in UA:D in a three line long post? hey at least be more entertaining, add some pictures, .gif ect. It was funnier with the sextuple turret topic.

 

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least we get the infamous "I Detonate Your Pride" and the "HMS Big Dick Energy" to toy around with next patch :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

Well said.

Too bad the forums has a really werid way of uploading images, seems to be allocated to somekind of external storage (not sure if this is too combat spam or the devs just want to keep the forums as clean as possible till release then we go mental).

Frankly needs a bit moar weeb and murican lol.

Sextuplet thread was a bit spicy, although i wouldn't mind seeing such things in the game as miscellanous or whatever. Need moar olders hulls however and DD plus light cruiser hulls as these two groups seem to get left out quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Content removed according to rule 4 of the forum: discussion of non game related events, real life, politics and religion is prohibited.
@Microscop

This is a game forum and we would like to keep it clean from such discussions. So please do not post such content again here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you are banned now. You do not seem to understand.

EDIT: 
Last post also hidden. 
Hope the reason is understood. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Microscop said:

Yeah cool but you didn't asnwear my question.

Do i still have to repesct nazis? Is the historical fact that Bismarck killed jewish sailors disrespectfull to nazis? 

Oh... Boy, I see what you're trying to do. Let me put it this way: trolling a dev or a moderator isn't a smart thing to do. I mean, they usually have the same entertainment value as ordinary users - if they take the bait,  but are much more dangerous when provoked. So, unless you have something really subtle and/or powerful to bring to the table (and in your case, apparently, you don't), I'd suggest you to quit while you still can. Lol.

UPD: Yep. The only thing that could have possibly happened - happened. Tbh I don't feel sorry for him. As a troll, he failed completely. 

Edited by Shaftoe
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol r.i.p mini troll.

Anyways, back on discussion i like what i see so far and i don't mind secondaries being tuned down a bit (hopefully they are just decoration and can fulfill some tasks or help supplement the main battery against bigger ships.

Also like many have said moar 1880-1910 hulls, plus moar light cruiser and dd hulls.

Oh and more freedom to barbettes and tower placements plus barbette types.

Not sure if @DougToss's gun sim thing can work but if you can could you take a look into it? @Nick Thomadis? also thanks for the clearing up the forums, that guy had enough chances lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sad because i came to late to this topic and i don't understand a thing what just happened 
But i guess it wasn't worth it from what i see.

As said above, let's head back to the topic: 

Did you guys though about adding "complete superstructure" instead of Rear/Main Tower?

I mean, just look at the Iowa based superstructure, where you must choose the right spot to connect rear and main tower, and when you do that by moving just the main tower, (i think it's work also for the rear tower) you can move the hole superstructure.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure the "Hood" based superstructure would work the same as the Iowa based superstructure.

It would apply mainly to the modern superstructures where the old one's (let's say: from the dreadnought era) still uses Main and Rear Tower combination.

Edited by HusariuS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love tons of hulls to play around with. I think we all would.

At the same time I think that maybe the development time would be better spent in more flexibility with the hulls that are already there (placement of barbettes, guns, towers etc.) and making other things work, than including more and more different hulls. This is not to say that the number of hulls is already sufficient, there is still some lack in the DD and CL department especially, but I am a bit worried we are focusing too much on hulls.

I was really, really hoping for a taste of the campaign next Alpha, but can fully understand that they are not quite there yet.

Here is a feature I really want and I don't think it's coming for this update, or have I missed something?

Saving your design in custom battles!

Let's say I designed a US BB to fight a UK BB. Cool, I won. Now I would like to see how that design would do against 3 UK CAs. Or maybe 2 old UK BBs. I will have do redo the entire design. I hate that.

Also, it would be great if we could 

a) design all ships that take part in custom battles
b) at least the ones for you side

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any chance 20.1 inch (51 cm) guns will be added? Even if its only available in a single or two gun turret. It would be cool. Super Yamato was an interesting idea.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fsp @HusariuS Ye i agree i think we should focus on making current hulls more flexible and customizable, i think once thats done, we then add the next batch of hulls (light cruisers and DDs pls!) and see if it works on those.

I think also saving designs for custom battles would be very nice to have as well, that way you don't have to keep remaking the same thing over and over, and it saves a lot of time in general.

And since RTW's has 20inch guns i don't see why they can't be added too be honest.

Then after the above we should focus on if the gun system needs changing or overhualing. After that i don't really mind too be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Too bad the forums has a really werid way of uploading images, seems to be allocated to somekind of external storage (not sure if this is too combat spam or the devs just want to keep the forums as clean as possible till release then we go mental).

 

will see if we can increase the internal image storage for members . meanwhile you can use imgur

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin said:

will see if we can increase the internal image storage for members . meanwhile you can use imgur

In addition to that, could you please look into one visual bug? User location is displayed inappropriately (merged). Just look at my profile and you'll notice "LocationRussia" as opposed to "Location: Russia".

Also, there is an error in "landsman" rank name. Should be "landsmAn" (single), as opposed to "landsmEn" (plural).

Edited by Shaftoe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another gun rebalance will certainly be interesting to test. Do you have an idea of when the update will go live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...