Instant Way to make ammo and shell choice better (Not Clickbait)

[T_the_ferret]

Double, triple or heck quadruple base accuracy bonuses given by propellant and shell weight

Right now light shells and choices like tube powder aren't nearly as worth it as options that simply increase your range. Shell customization should be a sliding scale of "how accurate do i want my shell vs how hard and how far can they punch" but since the game released pretty much range has much more of a tie into accuracy than base accuracy does, where you have that extremely weird situation where choices increasing range but decreasing base accuracy actually buff your accuracy because of how range calculation works, while the reverse decreases it instead.

There's many other components like it that could be fixed easily too

Edit: Oh also stop making it so the bigger the gun the more accurate it is. I know its true to a sense, but its taken to an extreme in the game

Edited November 25, 2021 by T_the_ferret

[PainGod]

10 hours ago, T_the_ferret said:

Shell customization should be a sliding scale of "how accurate do i want my shell vs how hard and how far can they punch" 

Absolutely not? Outside of increasing mass, precision and range directly correlate with each other. Meanwhile, accuracy isn't a property that should ordinarily be affected by the guns or shells themselves.

Accuracy: what is my mean impact point?
Precision: how close together are my shot groups?

In other words, intrinsically long range guns that are imprecise are physically impossible as the properties that give them long range increase accuracy at the same time. Leave that concept with WoWS.

Also, in the past there have been calls to introduce upgraded rangefinding equipment to affect gun accuracy.

[Commander Reed]

Lmao. Yes, navies definitely employed sliders which determined how accurate it was at hitting targets. Definitely was not down to good targeting and calculation from the crew, nope, DEFINITELY NOT.

Go back to world of warships, kid.

[T_the_ferret]

Ok so basically you guys still want the same system where stuff that doesn't increase range is useless vs modules that don't? 

 

7 hours ago, PainGod said:

Absolutely not? Outside of increasing mass, precision and range directly correlate with each other. Meanwhile, accuracy isn't a property that should ordinarily be affected by the guns or shells themselves.

Accuracy: what is my mean impact point?
Precision: how close together are my shot groups?

In other words, intrinsically long range guns that are imprecise are physically impossible as the properties that give them long range increase accuracy at the same time. Leave that concept with WoWS.

Also, in the past there have been calls to introduce upgraded rangefinding equipment to affect gun accuracy.

Ok so just remove base accuracy bonuses at this point as well as modules that don't increase range, because nobody uses them. This isn't IRL, the game has nothing close to realistic about it. At least make it good gameplay and have every module do something worth it

4 hours ago, Commander Reed said:

Lmao. Yes, navies definitely employed sliders which determined how accurate it was at hitting targets. Definitely was not down to good targeting and calculation from the crew, nope, DEFINITELY NOT.

Go back to world of warships, kid.

Lmao, everything in this game is already a slider. Range = precision so everything that doesn't increase it or even reduces it just makes the already garbage accuracy much worse. "Go back to world of warship" isn't a cope excuse when you try to tell me this game isn't a slider designer already anyway. If you guys want to keep the useless modules and secondaries go right ahead but i'd like stuff that's in the game to have a purpose, please.

I'm not even talking long range accuracy, and you guys know that. Having less range somehow making it so you get -7% to hit at 1km when you already get super low chance is a horrible mechanic, and the biggest influencer being crew (that doesn't matter in custom because everyone maxes it out except when they set arbitrary restrictions on themselves) just makes the process have even less importance.

Edited November 26, 2021 by T_the_ferret

[T_the_ferret]

Oh also you can whine as much as you want telling me "go back to wow" (massive stupidity that keeps going on in this forum for some reason) but having modules say they decrease accuracy when actually they increase it because base accuracy is nothing compared to range which boosts accuracy at all range for some reason is bad game design.

[T_the_ferret]

Frick it, bringing this back so it doesn't get drowned out in feedback

In my opinion having the only advantage of Light Shell and some Propellant modules be a slight RoF increase (that can be achieved via loading mechanism anyway) is not worth it versus the huge bonus that is having shells that do more damage, penetrate more, are more accurate, have more range and more chance to damage something important, while having stuff like Dunnite get obsolete incredibly fast is very odd considering its boost that are better than most other explosives.

In my opinion propellant, explosives and shell types need to be rebalanced

[akd]

Repeating things said years ago, but the whole "propellant" choice as part of ship design seems a bit silly (not that it wasn't an important area of development in naval warfare).

1. Use of newer propellants tended toward a steady progression. Not necessarily all adopting at same time, but generally moving from older tech to newer tech without a lot of positive vs. negative decisions (aside from cost considerations).

2. Because there weren't real trade-offs like this in the development of propellants, either fake or exaggerated bonuses and maluses have been added to make the choice meaningful.  Despite the separation of explosive choice (inherent to the shell itself) vs. propellant (independent of the shell), propellant choices are still doing totally nonsensical things like making shells themselves heavier.

Since these choices are not entirely grounded in reality and totally disconnected from the ship design itself (and apparently very confusing in their effects), it would make more sense to have propellant technology just progress in the background with research and then be applied automatically to all ships when unlocked.  Replace the propellant "choice" with something that has direct impacts on ship design (e.g. more choices to tailor fire control equipment on a ship).

Edited December 1, 2021 by akd

[DougToss]

On 11/25/2021 at 6:23 PM, PainGod said:

Accuracy: what is my mean impact point?
Precision: how close together are my shot groups?

I agree with everything you said, here’s a generic picture and one used at the Artillery School for the concept.

e: @akd I was musing while playing campaign today about the fleet logistics of having multiple types of propellant in use for the same calibre guns, depending on when the hull was laid down.

Can you imagine trying to get the ammunition train in order?

 

e: Actually, @Nick Thomadis, @akd’s idea is pretty good. If propellants advance as a technology, players still get to choose their level of tech investment to make it happen, there’s still an advantage relative your enemies in having it, it allows you to do stuff like have early ships suffer from temperamental propellants .

 

I’d leave shells for the players’ choice, 100%, but advancing propellant tech makes this interesting too: Heavy shells might be impractical or have a very niche role early on, only to become a mainstay once propellant technology advances.

 

Just a thought.

Edited November 30, 2021 by DougToss

[UnleashtheKraken]

I'd really like to see the ability to 'upgrade' existing ships, which currently doesn't exist, with new shells and even take them into the shipyard to modernize as much as can be.  I just researched MK2 9" guns?  Park my 9" armed BBs in the shipyard, install new turrets with the upgraded guns with a lower 'build time' than doing a full ship.  On the other hand, just got a better explosive?  1 month, restock and resupply and rezero the guns with test firing.  Same with propellants,  we still get to choose, but as long as the ships are in port, we can swap out to the new propellant.

I feel like there's a bunch of mechanics suggested by the campaign and ship design and research tree, but which are currently missing.  Apart from the hull and major superstructure, we should be able to upgrade existing ships gun/torps, radars and sonars and radio detection, when and if upgrades become available.  Not sure about swapping fuels, I'd guess that would require ripping out all the engine guts and be a more serious job, to the point of costing so much in time and money that it's better to just build a new ship from the keel up.

[T_the_ferret]

Completely random thing i also saw, why is the difference between Marks of guns so huge anyway? A Mark 3 330mm has its accuracy set at 57%/20%/6.1% while a Mark 4 305mm has its accuracy set at 100%/37%/12%. That's a huge difference only for a single Marks between them isn't it?

[Littorio]

On 12/3/2021 at 11:31 AM, T_the_ferret said:

Completely random thing i also saw, why is the difference between Marks of guns so huge anyway? A Mark 3 330mm has its accuracy set at 57%/20%/6.1% while a Mark 4 305mm has its accuracy set at 100%/37%/12%. That's a huge difference only for a single Marks between them isn't it?

Intriguing observation, but I have no idea.