>>>Alpha-8 Feedback<<<

[Steeltrap]

I pointed out some time ago that in all the versions I've read of the Battle of the River Plate (there are quite a few, some including alleged statements from Langsdorff himself) not one of them mentions "angling" for the purposes of presenting a narrower target (except for torpedoes, but that's a different issue entirely).

From what I've read, Langsdorff clearly was attempting to reduce the rate at which the CLs were closing the range (it was to their advantage to get closer) PLUS reduce the danger of enemy torpedoes (a torpedo solution from astern is a bad deal).

Meanwhile, the Brits' approach to the battle was to behave as though they were a destroyer squadron. Engage with the CA and attempt to flank/torpedo with the CLs. For Graf Spee it's control the range and mitigate the threat of torpedoes. On at least one occasion she was even splitting her fire; not ideal, but then fighting 3 ships solo was hardly ideal and all her opponents held technical speed advantages.

The ridiculously high hit rates in this game are skewing everything else. If your hit rate is around 5% it was MUCH more important to maximise your guns on target and your stability as a gunnery platform than worry about "angling". When your hit rate is more like 30% then the game has to come up with ways of ships surviving far more hits than they might have expected to take. Mind you, sinking ships with gunnery could be a notoriously unpredictable thing.

REALITY was the point was to get as many of your guns pointed at your enemy under the most favourable conditions for you then blaze away. Yes, that would include potentially turning towards or away as a means of controlling the engagement RANGE, but, unless someone else can present me with specific instances, I maintain the suggestion of "narrowing profile" or "angling armour" is a load of nonsense.

What's the good of a theoretical immunity zone, for example, if captains spent so much time angling that they kept straying into/out of it?

I've seen claims about HMS Hood so-called "angling", yet her chosen course was a perfect illustration of what I have been saying.  She wanted to close the range to minimise the known danger of plunging fire, doubly so as her aft spaces had not had their horizontal protection increased whereas her forward magazines etc had. That was it. No other factor. Had her armour not caused the Admiral and Captain to conclude they needed to close to a certain range, she would have turned to bring her aft battery to bear whenever that was deemed appropriate.

In fact the evidence suggests she was making a turn to port to unmask her stern battery when she suffered her fatal blow (in her aft propellant/magazines). No "minimising profile", no "angling for armour", just a clear tactical choice based on DICTATING RANGE and perceived effectiveness of her armour scheme (again, reference to 'immunity zone', not that I believed she had one against Bismarck).

I suppose I'd sum up my understanding as follows:

1. Capital warships tended to head toward or away from enemy ships for reasons of controlling range.

2. Danger from torpedoes was well known and any Captain would definitely keep that in mind. Exactly what Langsdorff did, and exactly what Jellicoe did in his statement of intention as to how to use his battle line (right down to the ranges at which he felt gunnery would prove decisive, and how many minutes he had before the anticipated wave of German torpedoes may arrive).

3. Ships could and did manoeuvre extensively when the combat odds meant survival was itself by no means certain. Thus you see things such as "salvo chasing", laying smoke (which anything could do; HMS Prince of Wales withdrew under smoke) and various other things besides. None of THOSE are about doing anything much other than opening the range while making the task of the enemy maintaining an accurate gunnery solution as difficult as possible.

4. Despite the thousands of hours of reading I have done over 30+ years I have never seen anything about a general principle of "presenting a narrow profile" or "angling to improve armour". How is that, if it's as common a tactic as claimed? Have I simply not read the correct sources? I've not seen any who think it was a thing ever present any sources to support their claims, so it remains a mystery to me.

If anyone's got a bunch of sources that DO demonstrate how presenting a narrow profile for the purposes of being a more difficult target, for example, was the goal itself as opposed to an incidental consequence of wanting to close/open range or turn away from a torpedo threat (all the things going on at River Plate), please do list them because I am always happy to go from being ignorant to having more knowledge.

I don't mind accepting I was ignorant or mistaken when presented with evidence that is contrary to my views. To maintain opinions despite substantial evidence to the contrary strikes me as pretty foolish. It's why I try to provide evidence, although I tend to do so only when presenting a view that's perhaps misunderstood or seriously contentious. It's also why I like others to present evidence under similar circumstances, and why in this instance I'd love to see some actual, primary or secondary source evidence in support of the supposed purposes of presenting narrow angles as some have claimed.

Indeed, and frankly more importantly IMO, I'd love for the devs to explain their whole approach to "angling", including the quote I mentioned from the game's help pages. On what are they basing all that? Why? We can discuss all we like, but it's what the devs choose to put in the game that really matters.

Meanwhile, I watch the AI insist on this angling and then eventually that brings them to ranges that are rather suicidal for their ship(s) against mine. It's even harder to explain when it's a lighter ship that doesn't have torpedoes doing it. What, exactly, are they hoping to achieve?

Then what happens? Well, they can turn away, but then they get smashed because they lose that (nonsense) "angling" benefit. Or they slow right down and keep their bows pointed at me, which means their firepower is usually at least halved, and even worse they often lose their "target lock" so they can't hit crap anyway.

Yes, seems like brilliant tactical doctrine. Probably explains why I've NEVER read about it happening, let alone happening so often.

Cheers

Edited September 20, 2020 by Steeltrap

[TotalRampage]

15 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

I pointed out some time ago that in all the versions I've read of the Battle of the River Plate (there are quite a few, some including alleged statements from Langsdorff himself) not one of them mentions "angling" for the purposes of presenting a narrower target (except for torpedoes, but that's a different issue entirely).

From what I've read, Langsdorff clearly was attempting to reduce the rate at which the CLs were closing the range (it was to their advantage to get closer) PLUS reduce the danger of enemy torpedoes (a torpedo solution from astern is a bad deal).

Meanwhile, the Brits' approach to the battle was to behave as though they were a destroyer squadron. Engage with the CA and attempt to flank/torpedo with the CLs. For Graf Spee it's control the range and mitigate the threat of torpedoes. On at least one occasion she was even splitting her fire; not ideal, but then fighting 3 ships solo was hardly ideal and all her opponents held technical speed advantages.

The ridiculously high hit rates in this game are skewing everything else. If your hit rate is around 5% it was MUCH more important to maximise your guns on target and your stability as a gunnery platform than worry about "angling". When your hit rate is more like 30% then the game has to come up with ways of ships surviving far more hits than they might have expected to take. Mind you, sinking ships with gunnery could be a notoriously unpredictable thing.

REALITY was the point was to get as many of your guns pointed at your enemy under the most favourable conditions for you then blaze away. Yes, that would include potentially turning towards or away as a means of controlling the engagement RANGE, but, unless someone else can present me with specific instances, I maintain the suggestion of "narrowing profile" or "angling armour" is a load of nonsense.

What's the good of a theoretical immunity zone, for example, if captains spent so much time angling that they kept straying into/out of it?

I've seen claims about HMS Hood so-called "angling", yet her chosen course was a perfect illustration of what I have been saying.  She wanted to close the range to minimise the known danger of plunging fire, doubly so as her aft spaces had not had their horizontal protection increased whereas her forward magazines etc had. That was it. No other factor. Had her armour not caused the Admiral and Captain to conclude they needed to close to a certain range, she would have turned to bring her aft battery to bear whenever that was deemed appropriate.

In fact the evidence suggests she was making a turn to port to unmask her stern battery when she suffered her fatal blow (in her aft propellant/magazines). No "minimising profile", no "angling for armour", just a clear tactical choice based on DICTATING RANGE and perceived effectiveness of her armour scheme (again, reference to 'immunity zone', not that I believed she had one against Bismarck).

I suppose I'd sum up my understanding as follows:

1. Capital warships tended to head toward or away from enemy ships for reasons of controlling range.

2. Danger from torpedoes was well known and any Captain would definitely keep that in mind. Exactly what Langsdorff did, and exactly what Jellicoe did in his statement of intention as to how to use his battle line (right down to the ranges at which he felt gunnery would prove decisive, and how many minutes he had before the anticipated wave of German torpedoes may arrive).

3. Ships could and did manoeuvre extensively when the combat odds meant survival was itself by no means certain. Thus you see things such as "salvo chasing", laying smoke (which anything could do; HMS Prince of Wales withdrew under smoke) and various other things besides. None of THOSE are about doing anything much other than opening the range while making the task of the enemy maintaining an accurate gunnery solution as difficult as possible.

4. Despite the thousands of hours of reading I have done over 30+ years I have never seen anything about a general principle of "presenting a narrow profile" or "angling to improve armour". How is that, if it's as common a tactic as claimed? Have I simply not read the correct sources? I've not seen any who think it was a thing ever present any sources to support their claims, so it remains a mystery to me.

If anyone's got a bunch of sources that DO demonstrate how presenting a narrow profile for the purposes of being a more difficult target, for example, was the goal itself as opposed to an incidental consequence of wanting to close/open range or turn away from a torpedo threat (all the things going on at River Plate), please do list them because I am always happy to go from being ignorant to having more knowledge.

I don't mind accepting I was ignorant or mistaken when presented with evidence that is contrary to my views. To maintain opinions despite substantial evidence to the contrary strikes me as pretty foolish. It's why I try to provide evidence, although I tend to do so only when presenting a view that's perhaps misunderstood or seriously contentious. It's also why I like others to present evidence under similar circumstances, and why in this instance I'd love to see some actual, primary or secondary source evidence in support of the supposed purposes of presenting narrow angles as some have claimed.

Indeed, and frankly more importantly IMO, I'd love for the devs to explain their whole approach to "angling", including the quote I mentioned from the game's help pages. On what are they basing all that? Why? We can discuss all we like, but it's what the devs choose to put in the game that really matters.

Meanwhile, I watch the AI insist on this angling and then eventually that brings them to ranges that are rather suicidal for their ship(s) against mine. It's even harder to explain when it's a lighter ship that doesn't have torpedoes doing it. What, exactly, are they hoping to achieve?

Then what happens? Well, they can turn away, but then they get smashed because they lose that (nonsense) "angling" benefit. Or they slow right down and keep their bows pointed at me, which means their firepower is usually at least halved, and even worse they often lose their "target lock" so they can't hit crap anyway.

Yes, seems like brilliant tactical doctrine. Probably explains why I've NEVER read about it happening, let alone happening so often.

Cheers

O here we go again.

I've got to paste a copy of a vertex with some rays here. You can angle to avoid fire, angle to present all your guns to a specific target, angle to move away without being completely broadside which has been my point. Because well hate to break it to you but that's what they did.  They plot a course due to the heading of your ship and the enemy.

Its almost like every warship ever made since the age of sail has had a map, a pencil, a compass, a mathematical compass and maybe protractor to use angles to plot courses and headings due to the bearing of an enemy ship to I don't know maybe angle appropriately to the enemy ships position?

I have not disagreed with you at all about the importance of firing ranges and or importance of guns on target well because fights are decided that way. If you again bothered to actually read my posts just as much as you claim to love reading then you would have seen my post where I say this.... 

Quote

 

"No actually its very historically accurate not to be broadside in a ship with a majority of forward firing guns or aft if the enemy ships were chasing you or if you lost your only guns in either way. Or to Actually use historical "angling" to move away or kite enemy ships away.

My ships also dont need to go completely broadside if I issue a change fire order on a ship thats CLEARLY a bug if my ships could actually adjust fire without having to do so. Especially if they force the whole battle line broadside"

 

Which is what happened in the river plate with The fore gun out so this battle proves this statement right here. Explain to me why you would continue on a heading broadside to someone if it presents a bigger target while also providing no benefit with a turret out?

In that little tidbit I'm also clearly complaining about the LACK OF AI MANUVERING and the fact that the AI just shows none of your let me quote you

Quote

 Yes, that would include potentially turning towards or away as a means of controlling the engagement RANGE

Because you know the AI right now does that. They seem to control their engagement range by just choosing the shortest path to an enemy ship and rushing in like a brain dead monkey and continuing bow in at some points even if all the AI's fore guns are knocked out. 

 

15 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

2. Danger from torpedoes was well known and any Captain would definitely keep that in mind. Exactly what Langsdorff did, and exactly what Jellicoe did in his statement of intention as to how to use his battle line (right down to the ranges at which he felt gunnery would prove decisive, and how many minutes he had before the anticipated wave of German torpedoes may arrive).

Go to this post since I don't feel like writing it out again where I talk about angling to present a proper broadside again which the AI doesn't do. 

Quote

 

•  

Posted September 1

  On 9/1/2020 at 12:53 PM, madham82 said:

I am confused what point you are trying to make. You are not actively trying to sink another ship if your forces are fleeing,. Chasing, obviously if you want to chase you have to keep going the direction the enemy is retreating. In both cases the number of guns you can bear on target dictate a far reduced chance to hit, even more so to do real damage. 

So the reality is in these cases both sides are "maneuvering" for a better engagement. No commander is actively trying to "kite", since doing so reduces their ability to do damage to the enemy. 

Also, a fleeing/chasing enemy is even harder to hit because of the reduced target size and difficulty ranging (without radar). You cannot estimate speed and range as accurately at those angles. This forces plunging fire as the only practical hit to hope for, since you can't aim for a narrow stern/bow on a flat trajectory and score reliable hits to begin with. Plunging fire doesn't care if you are kiting away since the angle the shell is coming to the deck is what matters. 

As for those battles, think you are taking some isolated instances as tactics instead of circumstance. See these battle maps. It is obvious the tactic was to close to effective engagement range, then maneuver to keep the most number of guns on target (if you are the aggressor). 

 

Expand  

I think you miss understand what I mean by kiting. Kiting is just a term I use when someone keeps the enemy at range and then proceeds to block there movement to a specific location which jellico did at the battle of Jutland by stopping the enemy fleet from returning to port but refusing to definitively engage.  Also in the first picture you posted 

(5) 16:45 hrs, Beatty's battlecruisers move out of range of Hipper.
(6) 16:54 hrs, Evan-Thomas's battleships turn north behind Beatty With this action they put themselves in a position to Kite or be chased by the main fleet and scouting fleet of the Germans. Essentially making them chase them which was the appropriate action because they wanted to drag the German high seas fleet out into combat with the rest of the battle fleet led by Jellico.

Also you can see an actual example by Jellico here where he talks about the enemy actually maneuvering by turning away and I quote "The enemy constantly turned away and opened the range under cover of destroyer attacks and smoke screens as the effect of the British fire was felt, and the alterations of course had the effect of bringing the British Fleet (which commenced the action in a position of advantage on the bow of the enemy) to a quarterly bearing from the enemy battle line, but at the same time placed us between the enemy and his bases."  https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/jutland_jellicoe.htm 

Essentially its just as you put it maneuvering which the AI does none of. Which goes back to my previous point of they just go broadside even your very own AI when you give an attack order completely burning there speed and also decreasing the accuracy of your own guns by making an extreme turn. In the example link I posted before you see prince of wales angle accordingly to Bismark during the battle of the Denmark straight not go completely broadside thus giving a bigger target to bismark. And Graf Spee at the river plate actively angles away to provide less of a target. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait#/media/File:090102_PoW_gunnery_plot.png

Also here is Graf Spee "kiting" away from enemy contacts during the battle of river plate. At the time stamps you can see that graf is actively trying to angle away from Achilles and ajax at first to give those ships "who had the majority of the firepower in terms of number of cannons" as little a target as possible to then focus its guns at Exeter to essentially fight as little people are possible while getting rid of the biggest threat to her. Which once she did she didn't capitalise on. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Plate#/media/File:HMSO_Graf_Spee_battle_map.jpg

This just supports my statement that the AI makes no engagement maneuvers what so ever to get out of fire range to re-position for another engagement or adjust fire on a side with the wind more advantageous for them. They just go broadside. 

Also when you say isolated instances I know an admiral doesn't go into a giant fleet battle thinking "im going to kite them away" That's not the point I was trying to make at all. Angling refers to how much a target you make yourself and historical admirals were very well aware of how to get all guns on target without completely going broadside which was my main point. The ships dont ANGLE properly they just go broadside which is a bug. If i can get all my guns on target at 45 degrees why am I sailing at 90 degrees to the enemy? It makes no sense what so ever so not only will you keep your speed and be able to continue to move away or pursue based on if the enemy is larger or smaller than you. 

Quote

2. Danger from torpedoes was well known and any Captain would definitely keep that in mind. Exactly what Langsdorff did, and exactly what Jellicoe did in his statement of intention as to how to use his battle line (right down to the ranges at which he felt gunnery would prove decisive, and how many minutes he had before the anticipated wave of German torpedoes may arrive).

Wait...maybe he angled away from them so he wouldn't hit them! Gosh and here I thought I had to keep my ships sailing at the same vector.

You say the damn word angle and you get a bunch of people screaming WOWS and ThAt's NoT RiGhT.

Guys you can angle away from a ship for range, angle to close, angle to present all your guns you don't need to be broadside. In the river plate he clearly saw the Exeter as the bigger threat which is why he ANGLED towards it to give it his attention. That was his target he gave him self a position to shoot it. He wasn't going to choose a single vector and stay on it for the whole battle to be out flanked. He will choose a vector based on each situation weather its a ship chasing him, shooting at him, or the one he's targeting to limit the chance of his ship being hit "By sailing away from the other 2 cruisers" while focusing fire on the other the bigger threat. 

I'm not imagining an captain yelling at his sailors to angle here. To forget the mathematics that went into every single battle is madness. They don't just grab the damn helmsman screaming angle. He gives him a vector that has been thought out to provide the most benefits and least risk to the ship.

 

Also @Steeltrap http://globalmaritimehistory.com/battle-of-the-river-plate-part-iii-battle/ 

This is a good video if your interested where he talks about the battle and combatants which I'm sure you know. I'm done responding to this I feel you aren't understanding me or I you. I see most of your points but the fact remains angling while they might not say angling against was done. In the maneuvers they conducted or the ships they targeted. It all went through there head.  

Edited September 21, 2020 by TotalRampage

[TotalRampage]

On 9/4/2020 at 9:37 AM, madham82 said:

Related subject, the AI does know something about avoiding fire.

I'm sure we all have seen a case where one AI ship takes damage and then turns to run. Since there is no particular place to "run to", the AI will keep maneuvering to keep it's stern pointed to you. This is broken logic. Turning to run away is one thing (but the AI/players need somewhere to withdraw to on the map), but constantly turning to stay stern on to a superior enemy is a "cheat" because of the damage modeling. 

I have brought this up before in other threads, but to me it does show the AI has some logic about avoiding fire in unfavorable conditions. My suggestions would be to build upon this in a way so the AI will try to "disengage" if under sustained, effective fire. But we also need withdraw zones on the maps and victory conditions that take these into account. 

Just saw this now. Isn't that the AI just sending the ship to the back of the battle line? Also when they go to the back of the battle line it sometimes messed up the whole battle line. I don't know if you saw that.

[Steeltrap]

3 hours ago, TotalRampage said:

I'm done responding to this

We can agree to disagree and not clog this thread any further.

Cheers

p.s. I've been subscribed to Dr Clarke's channel on YT for some time. His video makes pretty much exactly the points I did as the opening of my previous post when it comes to tactics etc. Not aware of any reference to "angling to provide a more difficult gunnery target" or "improve armour". I'm pretty sure there was no way any of the RN ships could "bounce" an 11" shell no matter what angle, which I'd have thought might get people wondering about how that battle would play out in this game.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Steeltrap
Deleted long reply

[Doomed]

I don't know how relevant this is but I did notice this quote with regard to HMS Renown

'Deputy Controller said the ship could best deal with the German Scharnhorsts at about 18,000 yds and 45° bearing. 

Friedman, Norman. The British Battleship 1906-1946 . Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition. '

Its in a section regarding armour protection following the loss of Hood.

However earlier in the same page it states that both the QE's and KGV's should fight beam on against the Bismarck.

So it would seem to me that angling for better armour protection  was considered but like all things it would depend on a number of considerations.

[madham82]

13 hours ago, TotalRampage said:

Just saw this now. Isn't that the AI just sending the ship to the back of the battle line? Also when they go to the back of the battle line it sometimes messed up the whole battle line. I don't know if you saw that.

Nope happens with just a single ship too. It is also obvious the AI is responding directly to the player's ship course. Since if I double back the other direction, the AI turns that way too. 

[SonicB]

6 hours ago, Doomed said:

So it would seem to me that angling for better armour protection  was considered but like all things it would depend on a number of considerations.

I agree. I'm sure it may have been a tactically relevant factor among many others, but I for one would be happy with "whew, that was a lucky ricochet, glad I was closing/opening the range" as opposed to the current "if I angle I can probably tank those 11" rounds with my light cruiser."

I can almost guarantee that the first sentence has been said historically and the second... has not.

[Skeksis]

17 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Not aware of any reference to "angling to provide a more difficult gunnery target"

Here’s one…

Battle of Cocos

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cocos

“but despite the heavy rate of fire from the Germans over the next ten minutes (at points reaching a salvo every six seconds), the high angle of the guns and the 'narrow profile presented' by Sydney meant that only fifteen shells hit the Australian warship, of which only five exploded”.

Wikipedia generalizes battles so there aren’t too many references to this topic. Someone who has a library of documents will probably have more, just not too much specific content for us google readers.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Skeksis

[madham82]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Here’s one…

Battle of Cocos

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cocos

“but despite the heavy rate of fire from the Germans over the next ten minutes (at points reaching a salvo every six seconds), the high angle of the guns and the 'narrow profile presented' by Sydney meant that only fifteen shells hit the Australian warship, of which only five exploded”.

Wikipedia generalizes battles so there aren’t too many references to this topic. Someone who has a library of documents will probably have more, just not too much specific content for us google readers.

Good read but not anything about angling to increase armor effectiveness or avoiding fire. The Sydney was responding to the raid and also believed the Emden had a shorter range. All this account shows bow in targets are harder to hit (which is not how you can fight an entire battle unless you are playing WoWS). 

[Skeksis]

19 minutes ago, madham82 said:

not anything about angling to increase armor effectiveness

No that’s @Steeltrap clouding @TotalRampage topic on the merits of suitable bearings of attack.

19 minutes ago, madham82 said:

All this account shows bow in targets are harder to hit

This is @TotalRampage topic.

[madham82]

22 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

No that’s @Steeltrap clouding @TotalRampage topic on the merits of suitable bearings of attack.

This is @TotalRampage topic.

No he specifically mentioned the AI going bow in even with forward guns put of action, questioning why the AI did not angle. Bow in is not angling.  

Edited September 22, 2020 by madham82

[bshaftoe]

On 9/20/2020 at 1:06 AM, TotalRampage said:

What's a bigger target the front or the side? Or maybe we could angle the ship to maximize firepower while limiting our size at the same time. Also my argument is you don't need to be broadside to get the most out of your guns. 

Also a rifle works just like a cannon........................

As far as I remember, and take this with a pinch of salt, in (naval) artillery it was MUCH easier to adjust the bearing of your guns that adjusting for the range, at least when not shooting in flat/tense trajectories. It was trivial to point your guns with very extremely high accuracy in the direction of your target, but finding out range and calculating the angle at which your guns should fire with enough accuracy to hit at medium to long ranges was extremely difficult. Even worse, factors that would decrease your bearing accuracy would most likely also impact your range accuracy.

So, in your diagram, when shooting at a target that is far, it's more likely you will hit when it's not presenting its broadside, because you can adjust the bearing easily even if it's a narrow profile, and then you can hit in all the length of its hull, and when the ship is close, the opposite will be true. This is, you have more area "in depth" when the target is not broadsiding than when it is.

This is: at medium to long ranges, it doesn't make any tactical sense at all not to broadside: you lose half of your artillery (unless you have all your guns in the bow or in the stern), and even worse, you are an easier target. And in close ranges, I'd say it's debatable depending on the armor, amounts of guns you have and all that.

All of this not counting torpedoes.

In short: angling to become a smaller target didn't make any sense at all at medium/long ranges.

Edited September 22, 2020 by bshaftoe

[TotalRampage]

4 hours ago, bshaftoe said:

As far as I remember, and take this with a pinch of salt, in (naval) artillery it was MUCH easier to adjust the bearing of your guns that adjusting for the range, at least when not shooting in flat/tense trajectories. It was trivial to point your guns with very extremely high accuracy in the direction of your target, but finding out range and calculating the angle at which your guns should fire with enough accuracy to hit at medium to long ranges was extremely difficult. Even worse, factors that would decrease your bearing accuracy would most likely also impact your range accuracy.

So, in your diagram, when shooting at a target that is far, it's more likely you will hit when it's not presenting its broadside, because you can adjust the bearing easily even if it's a narrow profile, and then you can hit in all the length of its hull, and when the ship is close, the opposite will be true. This is, you have more area "in depth" when the target is not broadsiding than when it is.

This is: at medium to long ranges, it doesn't make any tactical sense at all not to broadside: you lose half of your artillery (unless you have all your guns in the bow or in the stern), and even worse, you are an easier target. And in close ranges, I'd say it's debatable depending on the armor, amounts of guns you have and all that.

All of this not counting torpedoes.

In short: angling to become a smaller target didn't make any sense at all at medium/long ranges.

Okay first you can angle without losing guns on target. 

I've never been advocating for any lose of firepower unless the situation deemed it extremely important i.e. Spees fight where one of her guns initially didn't work so she turned out (so I guess no real lose of firepower but she also tried to keep the range). Unless she loses firepower to close the distance fast enough. 

I've been saying an admiral would not just kindly line up as a perfect parallel line to an enemy formation and slug it out. They would angle away (i.e. turn out) to reposition themselves in a more favorable way for the engagement either to close the distance or expand it while minimizing the target. And yes you can move towards or away from an enemy while keeping guns on target

And as of right now the AI will either charge in blindly or present themselves at an angle that puts them at a disadvantage for no rhyme or reason other than to close the distance extremely fast or if you start the fight within spitting range they will just sail parallel to you.

Hope that clears it up a bit but also what would be the difference between a sniper shooting at 2km or a cannon? The both have to account for the rotation of the earth, wind and weather, while also taking target size into the equation?

Edited September 22, 2020 by TotalRampage

[TotalRampage]

14 hours ago, Skeksis said:

No that’s @Steeltrap clouding @TotalRampage topic on the merits of suitable bearings of attack.

This is @TotalRampage topic.

 

14 hours ago, madham82 said:

No he specifically mentioned the AI going bow in even with forward guns put of action, questioning why the AI did not angle. Bow in is not angling.  

Both of you are right I did make the argument on suitable bearings of attack being historically while also gripping that the AI does none of that even when guns are out.

Essentially the AI seems to like 90 degree angles of attack and will either go completely perpendicular to the lead or whatever ship they are targeted to close the distance. Then once closed they then switch to practically parallel to engage with no other forms of tactical movements. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by TotalRampage

[madham82]

54 minutes ago, TotalRampage said:

 

Both of you are right I did make the argument on suitable bearings of attack being historically while also gripping that the AI does none of that even when guns are out.

Essentially the AI seems to like 90 degree angles of attack and will either go completely perpendicular to the lead or whatever ship they are targeted to close the distance. Then once closed they then switch to practically parallel to engage with no other forms of tactical movements. 

Now I understand the exact issue, pathfinding. The AI isn't being efficient in:

A. keeping all guns in the fight while closing the range

B. plotting an effective intercept course (i.e. it probably keeps adjusting course to sail directly at the player instead of plotting an intercept point ahead)

With the upcoming patch I think we should see if this changes anything. 

[Hangar18]

On 9/19/2020 at 8:06 PM, TotalRampage said:

What's a bigger target the front or the side? Or maybe we could angle the ship to maximize firepower while limiting our size at the same time. Also my argument is you don't need to be broadside to get the most out of your guns. 

Also a rifle works just like a cannon........................

 

Rifles and naval artillery are not the same. Put a box on an even plane down range, try to hit the top of the box. Not gonna happen. Where naval artillery used this as actual doctrine. Changing the orientation of the ship does not change the amount of surface area the shell would have to land because it is not on a 2D plane.

 

Naval guns and rifles, also mechanically don't function the same. They both push an object down a rifled barrel, thats it. large caliber naval guns don't use fixed ammunition, and their ammunition is electronically fired. Thats being pretty pedantic though.

[TotalRampage]

5 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Rifles and naval artillery are not the same. Put a box on an even plane down range, try to hit the top of the box. Not gonna happen. Where naval artillery used this as actual doctrine. Changing the orientation of the ship does not change the amount of surface area the shell would have to land because it is not on a 2D plane.

 

Naval guns and rifles, also mechanically don't function the same. They both push an object down a rifled barrel, thats it. large caliber naval guns don't use fixed ammunition, and their ammunition is electronically fired. Thats being pretty pedantic though.

If your far enough away you can hit the top of something. That's why you cant shoot a gun straight up into the air gravity brings it down on someone's house. 

By your definition an 20mm,40mm, 76mm cannon isn't technically a "cannon" because they don't have a separate propellent base? They still follow the same laws of physics something goes up it comes down. It all depend on the angle its fired at and how fast the object will drop but all objects eventually start dropping. Which is why you adjust the angle up to make sure the shell or bullet hits the target. Naval ships obviously have more propellent so they can force a shell out farther. Please look at these diagrams and tell me how they are different? To me a rifle and a cannon follow the same physics.

Historically even machine guns could be used to provide indirect fire even without line of sight by shooting at the correct angle. We use the same principles today with the mk40 grenade launcher.

A gun shooting at a 3d object follows the exact same principles as an ship shooting a 3d object. I can get a bullet to land anywhere with enough of an angle and distance from target. 

But say if that object is turned at a 180 degree angle instead of a 30 degree angle to yourself yes I can hit the deck but I also have 150 degrees more surface area to hit in conjunction with the surface area of the deck. That's why hunter prefer to shoot at an animal when its showing its side rather than nose in because it provides more of an opportunity to hit something.

Smaller angles mathematically = Smaller target

If a ship coming towards you had a bow that is 20 square meters plus the deck of lets say 100 square meters total area to hit if the ship didn't have a superstructure (think a barge) the total area to hit is 120 square meters.  Now if the ship was at a paralle course to you and lets say the side provides 120 meters plus the deck that's 220 square meters of area to theoretically hit. 

So changing the angle of a ship does actually does change the surface area a shell can hit. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by TotalRampage

[bshaftoe]

On 9/22/2020 at 3:37 PM, TotalRampage said:

Okay first you can angle without losing guns on target. 

I've never been advocating for any lose of firepower unless the situation deemed it extremely important i.e. Spees fight where one of her guns initially didn't work so she turned out (so I guess no real lose of firepower but she also tried to keep the range). Unless she loses firepower to close the distance fast enough. 

I've been saying an admiral would not just kindly line up as a perfect parallel line to an enemy formation and slug it out. They would angle away (i.e. turn out) to reposition themselves in a more favorable way for the engagement either to close the distance or expand it while minimizing the target. And yes you can move towards or away from an enemy while keeping guns on target

That's true, but that's called maneuvering, not angling. And then, after maneuver to close/open range, they would usually put themselves in a perfect "paralel" line because that's exactly the position in which they are more difficult to hit.

Again, if my assumption that adjusting bearing is much, MUCH easier than adjusting range is true (please, someone with more knowledge confirms/rejects it), when you are perfectly "paralel" to the enemy, offering your broadside, he has much more difficulty in hitting you because the amount of possible ranges in which it can hit you are way smaller than when you are heading directly towards him (or away from him). So being in that position, at least in medium to far ranges, will be always the optimum position in terms of avoiding enemy hits. Angling at any angle will always be sub-optimal.

Let's use the Bismarck as an example. Bismarck had (according to the wikipedia), a Length of 251 meters, and a beam of 36 meters. Let's use two possible positions to explain what I mean:

- Bismarck sails directly towards/away from you. Your target size in bearing is 36 meters, your target size in range/depth, 251m.

- Bismarck is perfectly perpendicular to the line from your cannon to it. Perfect broadside. Size in bearing is 251 meters, and in depth/range, 36 meters.

- In any intermediate position between sailing towards/away and broadside, you are increasing your size in range, so it's worse than broadside.

Since it's much, much easier adjust your fire on bearing that it is adjusting on range, offering your full length for your opponent to adjust his range is always much much worse than offering the full length. He was going to get the perfect bearing in the first shot, but getting the right range to hit you is much more difficult.

So you will maneuver to close or open range, and once/while you're in your desired range you will keep your broadside. Obviously, if you can't keep your desired range for longe, you will be maneuvering most of the time, either to go away or close range, but as long as you want to engage, the best position is broadside, because it's the safest for any other.

But again, that's not angling: it's maneuvering. They wouldn't angle to offer a smaller target (unless they're at point blank range with very flat projectile trajectories, and then, depending on the relation of forces, your artillery power and armor against what you know of your enemy's).

[quote]Hope that clears it up a bit but also what would be the difference between a sniper shooting at 2km or a cannon? The both have to account for the rotation of the earth, wind and weather, while also taking target size into the equation?[/quote]

A rifle shooting at 2 km has much flatter trajectory that the typical engagement ranges of battleships or cruisers pre-1945 (the game timeframe). And even then one of the first thing they have to do AFAIK is calculate range and adjust their sights accordingly.

[TotalRampage]

1 hour ago, bshaftoe said:

That's true, but that's called maneuvering, not angling. And then, after maneuver to close/open range, they would usually put themselves in a perfect "paralel" line because that's exactly the position in which they are more difficult to hit.

Correct I'm talking about far to medium ranges where shells could arch into the deck. Thatt would mean they could hit the whole for example

1 hour ago, bshaftoe said:

Again, if my assumption that adjusting bearing is much, MUCH easier than adjusting range is true (please, someone with more knowledge confirms/rejects it), when you are perfectly "paralel" to the enemy, offering your broadside, he has much more difficulty in hitting you because the amount of possible ranges in which it can hit you are way smaller than when you are heading directly towards him (or away from him). So being in that position, at least in medium to far ranges, will be always the optimum position in terms of avoiding enemy hits. Angling at any angle will always be sub-optimal.

I'm a little confused here. I'm guessing first part talking about close range engagements or gun effective ranges when you would want to be broadside. But if you don't mind I'd like alittle more clarification on the second part!

1 hour ago, bshaftoe said:

So you will maneuver to close or open range, and once/while you're in your desired range you will keep your broadside. Obviously, if you can't keep your desired range for longe, you will be maneuvering most of the time, either to go away or close range, but as long as you want to engage, the best position is broadside, because it's the safest for any other.

Completely agree.  Just saying at longer ranges shells can arch into the deck if you were say completely parallel so for arguments sake if you are facing someone on your port side instead of bow in or angled you are theoretically giving them a bigger target yes? So you wouldn't want to be parallel to him until you are also in your effective firing range.  Say your a light cruiser fighting a heavy cruiser with bigger guns. Your going to want to close the distance so your guns are effective then expose more yourself to fire(or run)? That's the basis of my argument. 

1 hour ago, bshaftoe said:

A rifle shooting at 2 km has much flatter trajectory that the typical engagement ranges of battleships or cruisers pre-1945 (the game timeframe). And even then one of the first thing they have to do AFAIK is calculate range and adjust their sights accordingly.

But yes its still the same math. Flatter trajectories just have to do with the velocity that the shell is fired at and what angle. So when I talked about propellent getting shells out farther then you would start to see them arc down more like a bullet at the end of its travel arc. I was just explaning

 

 

But good points tho I'm pretty sure we agree on most just you don't like me using angling instead of maneuvering. I consider maneuvering more of changing speed as well as direction/ orientation to a target while closing or running away. 

LMK if I miss understood anything

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by TotalRampage

[Dontshoot]

Any update on when this patch will be released?

[bshaftoe]

On 9/24/2020 at 1:12 AM, TotalRampage said:

Correct I'm talking about far to medium ranges where shells could arch into the deck. Thatt would mean they could hit the whole for example

I'm a little confused here. I'm guessing first part talking about close range engagements or gun effective ranges when you would want to be broadside. But if you don't mind I'd like alittle more clarification on the second part!

Completely agree.  Just saying at longer ranges shells can arch into the deck if you were say completely parallel so for arguments sake if you are facing someone on your port side instead of bow in or angled you are theoretically giving them a bigger target yes? So you wouldn't want to be parallel to him until you are also in your effective firing range.  Say your a light cruiser fighting a heavy cruiser with bigger guns. Your going to want to close the distance so your guns are effective then expose more yourself to fire(or run)? That's the basis of my argument. 

But yes its still the same math. Flatter trajectories just have to do with the velocity that the shell is fired at and what angle. So when I talked about propellent getting shells out farther then you would start to see them arc down more like a bullet at the end of its travel arc. I was just explaning

But good points tho I'm pretty sure we agree on most just you don't like me using angling instead of maneuvering. I consider maneuvering more of changing speed as well as direction/ orientation to a target while closing or running away. 

LMK if I miss understood anything

 

No, first part I was talking about medium to far ranges. In those, offering your broadside is always better. At close ranges, I'd say it depends on a lot of factors, but optimizing your armor would probably be among the least relevant ones.

I can agree with what you say at the end. It's a problem of terminology. If, instead of angling, you had used maneuvering or closing/opening range, nobody would have bat an eye, but when you say angling some will get upset because it seems you're implying that someone at 25+ km should offer part of the bow and the broadside so any hit will hit at 60 degrees against the armor, that is simply, pure bulls***t (if you want to make a game that is a little bit realistic).

Because it's true that any ship in naval warfare will be maneuvering a big amount of time in a given battle. To close, open or even tomaintain range, and in response of what the enemy does or trying to make the enemy to do something.

[Hangar18]

On 9/23/2020 at 1:24 AM, TotalRampage said:

If your far enough away you can hit the top of something

Do it then...

You'll find yourself on an Olympic level shooting team if you can do it. I'll even double your cost in munitions if you succeed. 

rifles and artillery follow the same physics, sure, but this is what makes them entirely different. Because the physics for you to accomplish this with and rifle are not on your side. Notice in your example how they show you a 2d target? Its because the shot you are describing is basically unrepeatable with the amount of mass and energy at your disposal. Assuming you could do it once, which I would not expect a single person on the planet to accomplish without months if not years of trail, error, and favorable atmospheric conditions. There is not even a way to correctly aim this shot. 

[Norbert Sattler]

Something I've noticed recently is that the enemy ships are overeager for knife-fights.

The enemy pretty much always tries to go right between by ships, more often than not resulting in either them ramming me or my ships ramming them.

[TotalRampage]

4 hours ago, Norbert Sattler said:

Something I've noticed recently is that the enemy ships are overeager for knife-fights.

The enemy pretty much always tries to go right between by ships, more often than not resulting in either them ramming me or my ships ramming them.

They just charge nose in right? I've noticed not a lot of maneuvering from the AI. 

[TotalRampage]

14 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Do it then...

You'll find yourself on an Olympic level shooting team if you can do it. I'll even double your cost in munitions if you succeed. 

rifles and artillery follow the same physics, sure, but this is what makes them entirely different. Because the physics for you to accomplish this with and rifle are not on your side. Notice in your example how they show you a 2d target? Its because the shot you are describing is basically unrepeatable with the amount of mass and energy at your disposal. Assuming you could do it once, which I would not expect a single person on the planet to accomplish without months if not years of trail, error, and favorable atmospheric conditions. There is not even a way to correctly aim this shot. 

Considering you say the physics are on my side then say they don't follow the same physics means well you don't know what your talking about here. Especially since you challenged me to prove you wrong which I did. Per your statement below

Quote

Rifles and naval artillery are not the same. Put a box on an even plane down range, try to hit the top of the box. Not gonna happen. Where naval artillery used this as actual doctrine. Changing the orientation of the ship does not change the amount of surface area the shell would have to land because it is not on a 2D plane.

But back to the topic.

Since this argument was clearly about target size based on what angle is shown at a distance. It's true mathematically that an object like a ship has a smaller surface area nose in (because its smaller). Your first argument on this topic was I was wrong. Well you have yet to tell me exactly how that statement is wrong. Ships are mathematically smaller targets nose in. People have commented on this thread talking about it not being historically accurate which I can get (differences of opinion). 

 

We can use this diagram of a houses surface area. The Bow will be the 20' side the 45' would be port.  Which side is bigger i.e. mathematically the bigger target? Which side is smaller?

 

If you said the 20' side is smaller than the 45' side congrats you have agreed with every point i've made on this thread.