Get rid of the WOWS style concealment/spotting system. really.....

[Danelin Aruna]

11 minutes ago, madham82 said:

Yes you do need to see a ship to engage it. Radar just provides sighting without using an eyeball. At Guadalcanal, they were so close that you just had to aim at the flashes/fires on the opposing ships to have a reasonable chance to hit. There was also friendly fire going on due to the chaos. 

At Surigao, US radars were advanced enough to see their shell splashes, which is exactly how you can shoot accurately at something with radar. Without being able to see the splashes, you cannot adjust fire and therefore are just "blind firing". 

The problem in the game is that blind firing has no accuracy penalty. If one of their ships spots yours, all of their ships in range can fire as accurately as they could if they were in direct line of sight, radar or not. This makes completely unrealistic tactics like sailing one of your DDs into spot their fleet, while the rest of your fleets fires from outside visual range with impunity.

"West Virginia tracked them as they approached in the pitch black night. At 03:53, she fired the eight 16 in (406 mm) guns of her main battery at a range of 22,800 yd (13.0 mi; 11.3 nmi; 20.8 km), striking Yamashiro with her first salvo." - History of United States Naval Operations in World War II
so... ya that kinda throws your argument about radar out the window. Again blind fire works with radar.

as to the Guadalcanal campaign the Japanese navy had trained for night engagements, and engaged at the us forces well. And at night most of the time you return fire on the ships that shoot at you. But the Japanese would torpedo at night to great success. They were able to spot the enemy, at night effectively, although there were some friendly fire incidents, ala the last fight of USS Houston, and HMAS Perth.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Danelin Aruna

[madham82]

21 minutes ago, Danelin Aruna said:

"West Virginia tracked them as they approached in the pitch black night. At 03:53, she fired the eight 16 in (406 mm) guns of her main battery at a range of 22,800 yd (13.0 mi; 11.3 nmi; 20.8 km), striking Yamashiro with her first salvo." - History of United States Naval Operations in World War II
so... ya that kinda throws your argument about radar out the window. Again blind fire works with radar.

At Surigao, US radars were advanced enough to see their shell splashes, which is exactly how you can shoot accurately at something with radar. Without being able to see the splashes, you cannot adjust fire and therefore are just "blind firing". 

You missed this. 

[Danelin Aruna]

3 minutes ago, madham82 said:

At Surigao, US radars were advanced enough to see their shell splashes, which is exactly how you can shoot accurately at something with radar. Without being able to see the splashes, you cannot adjust fire and therefore are just "blind firing". 

You missed this. 

umm I didn't, but the point that West Virginia hitting on her first salvo at 22K yards, with out being able to see her at night, makes your argument that you need to see her false. And she was blind firing as she hadn't seen any shell splashes as they had hadn't opened fire yet. Well it helps that they could they didn't need to as the radar gunnery and advanced fire control got them a first shot hit. And it was done in pitch darkness. which goes to the whole spotting mechanic needing a whole rework, especially for later tear techs. Like Radar, where they should be able to shoot with out needing to spot the vessel. you can do it in RTW2 IIRC. though by that time i was launching flights of bombers at them as well.

[madham82]

8 minutes ago, Danelin Aruna said:

umm I didn't, but the point that West Virginia hitting on her first salvo at 22K yards, with out being able to see her at night, makes your argument that you need to see her false. And she was blind firing as she hadn't seen any shell splashes as they had hadn't opened fire yet. Well it helps that they could they didn't need to as the radar gunnery and advanced fire control got them a first shot hit. And it was done in pitch darkness. which goes to the whole spotting mechanic needing a whole rework, especially for later tear techs. Like Radar, where they should be able to shoot with out needing to spot the vessel. you can do it in RTW2 IIRC. though by that time i was launching flights of bombers at them as well.

Luck? You should have posted the full text. It illustrates the point. They had an accurate firing solution, but that doesn't mean they will be precise with their fire. HMS Warspite and Scharnhorst both made hits at moving targets at ranges approaching practical limit of spotting. Doesn't mean they can do it every time. You can't have reliable fire without constant adjustment for both the target's movement and your own shells being affected by the environment, barrel wear, crew experience, and countless other factors. 

At 03:16, West Virginia's radar picked up the surviving ships of Nishimura's force at a range of 42,000 yd (24 mi; 21 nmi; 38 km). West Virginia tracked them as they approached in the pitch black night. At 03:53, she fired the eight 16 in (406 mm) guns of her main battery at a range of 22,800 yd (13.0 mi; 11.3 nmi; 20.8 km), striking Yamashiro with her first salvo. She went on to fire a total of 93 shells. At 03:55, California and Tennessee joined in, firing 63 and 69 shells, respectively, from their 14 in (356 mm) guns. Radar fire control allowed these American battleships to hit targets from a distance at which the Japanese battleships, with their inferior fire control systems, could not return fire.^{[51][49][page needed]}

The other three U.S. battleships also had difficulty as they were equipped with less advanced gunnery radar. Maryland eventually succeeded in visually ranging on the splashes of the other battleships' shells, and then fired a total of forty-eight 16 in (406 mm) projectiles. Pennsylvania was unable to find a target and her guns remained silent.^[55]

Edited December 6, 2021 by madham82

[Littorio]

On 12/4/2021 at 12:26 PM, madham82 said:

 

What's funny is even WoWS understands this is an issue and has a simple mechanic to balance it. When you fire, your detectability increases to your max firing range. So no stealth ships firing with impunity. Yet some people defend how the game does it today.  

 

To me, this is where the current system goes out the window, most especially in the early ears. If someone is shelling you, how can they be invisible? You need a visual on them. At the very least, we should be able to "detect" some classification of vessel based on the trajectory of the shells and possibly their caliber. As it stands now, you can get magically shelled out of nowhere and your "spotters" don't pick up anything, not even a bearing on the incoming fire....

[akd]

Another RTW2 exercise, but now with day / "poor" weather selected for scenario.  Result is only low clouds (so not crazy poor like rain or fog).  Max visibility for day is 15,000 yards, for night 4,000 yards. Visual limit for Bs at start of scenario at 2pm is 15,000 yards, for DDs 11,500 yards.  The opposing B is spotted at the edge of the visual limit (there can be no beyond visual limit spotting of smoke columns because the visual limit is less than the horizon). Opposing DDs are first spotted somewhat inside the visual limit of my B (and this make sense as visual signature / size matters more when vision is degraded to less than the horizon).  Weather conditions later change to overcast and max visibility increases to 21,000 yards, presumably because the earlier "low clouds" conditions were assumed to accompanied by more sea level moisture / mists), but max night visibility drops to 3,500 yards (presumably because ambient moon / star light is blocked more by overcast conditions).  1 hour before dusk B visibility is 21,000 yards, DD 16,800 yards.  Note that even in overcast / low clouds day conditions all these early ships are able to see all targets beyond the maximum range of their guns.  At twilight with weather remaining overcast, visual circle for B drops to 13,000 yards, for the Ds 10,800 yards.  Then with the onset of night (accompanied by a slight increase in the max day sighting range to 22,500 yards and night to 4,000 yards due to some small change in conditions) the B and D both have their visual sighting circles limited to 4,300 yards.  Note that in these extremely restricted visual conditions, the greater height of the spotters in the B no longer provides any relative advantage in spotting distance, compared to the nearly 6,000 yard advantage in clear day conditions with clear vision all the way to the horizon.

There are no visual spotting upgrades to ships at any time in the RTW2 timeframe, as spotters working with eyeballs and standard optics remained the primary means of acquiring targets until the advent of radar, which was of course a revolution, not a gradual upgrade.

Edited December 6, 2021 by akd

[Skeksis]

16 minutes ago, Littorio said:

If someone is shelling you, how can they be invisible? You need a visual on them.

I don’t think it’s about being realistic but more about providing longevity for smaller units.

If small vessels were visible (all full weapon's range) we’ll just target and destroy them one by one. By giving them/AI a ‘buff’ of survivability its assigns tactical positioning to the player, makes the game demanding. Can you really take that away?

[Littorio]

6 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

I don’t think it’s about being realistic but more about providing longevity for smaller units.

If small vessels were visible (all full weapon's range) we’ll just target and destroy them one by one. By giving them/AI a ‘buff’ of survivability its assigns tactical positioning to the player, makes the game demanding. Can you really take that away?

"Can you really take that away?" Yes....yes I can. A smaller ship, such as a TB, can change course and speed faster than a large target. That is how it survives. Use them in fog, rough weather, etc. to take advantage of the much reduced visibility of larger ships (though given the completely utter lack of visuals in the game that show these conditions we're in a depressing place in this regard).

Even so, for the sake of argument under perfect conditions, just because my hypothetical BB can see a given TB, doesn't mean she is going to hit it. A TB swarm is still dangerous. Smaller vessels shouldn't get some kind of "survivability buff" as you say just because they are "small and easier to kill" so to speak. As I said above, that isn't necessarily true if used properly given the prevailing tactical conditions. Are you actually arguing in favor of this current, ridiculous spotting system with it's complete lack of bearings?

Edited December 6, 2021 by Littorio

[admiralsnackbar]

On 12/3/2021 at 3:48 PM, TBRSIM said:

Yes, totally concur. Current spotting, even more than "accuracy" mechanism and the "angling for ricochets" is so jarringly arcadey that it suspends the suspension of disbelief.

This mechanism is so divorced from reality (i.e. tries to simulate/abstract something that is not even there in reality) that it is the part which bugs me about the game as is massively. Mostly because I have been an active duty naval officer and have quite some experience in how well (or badly) you can see at sea (NPI) under very different conditions.

The current "spotting" mechanism "might" work, with some re-work focusing on the basics (i.e. look at what aspects of reality you want to simulate/abstract, not what kind of gameply mechanism you want to preserve from early programming) for night/fog action but not at all for anything close to average daylight conditions, even the sub-average winter/autumn conditions in the Baltic and North Sea.

Until we get diesels and/or gas turbines visual range from spotter position (i.e. eye height) equals detection range for both sides. If anything a battleship, with its higher masts and larger crews (i.e. more dediccatred spotters on watch higer up), could "sight" a TB/DD/CL earlier (since the smaller ship would only have the top opf the mast above the horizon when its hull is visible to the lookouts on the battleship mast. But the smoke from oil, and especially coal, propulsion simply would serve to "guide" the lookout's eyes to what part of the other ship is above the horizon.

As is the easiest abstraction for spotting range is what RTW does, have a "spotting range" as a weather condition that is shared by all ships. Modify by directionality (sunrise/sunset, glare etc.) and, at night, have firing guns and fires onboard (as well as, may I hope, searchlights and flares) modify spotting range dynamically and have crew experience influence speed of classification (i.e. target or friendly) and identification (as is in game, i.e. what type of ship, what class of ship etc.). Heck, every other naval computer wargame (Fighting Steel, Distant Guns Series, Age of Sail series) did this right. Frankly, but for this game "World of Warships" is the only other naval computer game I know of that gets visual spotting so massively wrong.

 

 

I have no problem with angling for ricochets TBH [or partial pens], if one or both ships are closing to each other at an angle in order to get within a more favorable [from their POV]  firing range, they will be angled to eachother. Belt penetrations will be coming in at an angle. However, I *suspect* the early campaign fire control systems [including the mark 1 eyeball] would probably struggle to get good firing solutions when one or both ships are closing on each other, at least, not as easily as if both ships are moving parallel to eachother. 

 

[akd]

22 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

I don’t think it’s about being realistic but more about providing longevity for smaller units.

If small vessels were visible (all full weapon's range) we’ll just target and destroy them one by one. By giving them/AI a ‘buff’ of survivability its assigns tactical positioning to the player, makes the game demanding. Can you really take that away?

Or maybe unless you are able to use the cover of darkness / obscuration*, small combatants should have to work in concert with a fleet to survive a close approach against the far greater firepower of capital ships?

*Ironically, the current system actually has the opposite effect.  Let's say you want to make a surprise attack on capital ships at night with torpedo boats.  Sure, you can get close before being spotted (which is how low visual signature should work in concert with obscured visual conditions, although you should also need to keep your speed down), but then the moment you are spotted by any ship every gun in the opposing fleet instantly engages your TB because there is no relative spotting and there is nothing else spotted on the map for them to engage.

Edited December 6, 2021 by akd

[Littorio]

10 minutes ago, akd said:

Or maybe unless you are able to use the cover of darkness*, small combatants should have to work in concert with a fleet to survive a close approach against the far greater firepower of capital ships?

*Ironically, the current system actually has the opposite effect.  Let's say you want to make a surprise attack on capital ships at night with torpedo boats.  Sure, you can get close before being spotted(which is how low visual signature should work in concert with obscured visual conditions, although you should also need to keep your speed down), but then the moment you are spotted by any ship every gun in the opposing fleet instantly engages your TB because there is no relative spotting and there is nothing else spotted on the map for them to engage.

Precisely. Small vessels should have to use tactics to survive a close approach, taking advantage of weather/visibility as available. Currently they just get hammered given the artificial constraints of this system because the enemy might not see your battleline when they clearly should be able to, but they certainly have spotted your much closer screening vessels. The result is your screens taking all the fire from everyone as you say...it's the worst of both worlds. It's fake and gamey and doesn't even really end up helping small vessels, a lose-lose.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Littorio

[madham82]

37 minutes ago, Littorio said:

 

To me, this is where the current system goes out the window, most especially in the early ears. If someone is shelling you, how can they be invisible? You need a visual on them. At the very least, we should be able to "detect" some classification of vessel based on the trajectory of the shells and possibly their caliber. As it stands now, you can get magically shelled out of nowhere and your "spotters" don't pick up anything, not even a bearing on the incoming fire....

Yea it goes back to bad assumptions made about visual spotting or purpose built game mechanics that fail to prevent abuse. 

17 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

I don’t think it’s about being realistic but more about providing longevity for smaller units.

If small vessels were visible (all full weapon's range) we’ll just target and destroy them one by one. By giving them/AI a ‘buff’ of survivability its assigns tactical positioning to the player, makes the game demanding. Can you really take that away?

This is WoWS like thinking as in disregarding realism for gameplay. I understand where you are coming from, but it fails to prevent abuse like was mentioned by @akd , myself, and others. So in the end, gameplay is worse. 

[ReefKip]

28 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

I don’t think it’s about being realistic but more about providing longevity for smaller units.

If small vessels were visible (all full weapon's range) we’ll just target and destroy them one by one. By giving them/AI a ‘buff’ of survivability its assigns tactical positioning to the player, makes the game demanding. Can you really take that away?

Historically TB's and DD's did very well without needing a survivability buff so why would they need one in game that tries to potray history?

Anyway TB's should always be part of a bigger fleet and never be THE fleet itself. Every ship compliments eachoter but TB's and DD's punch way above their weight in both how difficult they are to spot and their survivability right now.

[akd]

oops, meant to edit, not post

Edited December 6, 2021 by akd

[Skeksis]

Not trying to start a fight about realism but just trying to envision battles without the current visibility system.

So all I know is as soon as units becomes visible they’re targeted and destroyed regardless of maneuverability, it's an battle tempo. If all were visible, like at med-range, then I envision battles would be about how quickly which side can sink faster, a dogged fight to the end, a very fast tempo.

While that maybe intense, I think most players would also rue the loss of ships and struggle that tempo of battle.

Current system set a pace of battle to which most are happy with, i.e. in and out of visibility, and IMO provides a tactical pace of selecting and encage targets, a tempo of battle.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Skeksis

[akd]

14 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Not trying to start a fight about realism but just trying to envision battles without the current visibility system.

So all I know is as soon as units becomes visible they’re targeted and destroyed regardless of maneuverability, it's an battle tempo. If all were visible, like at med-range, then I envision battles would be about how quickly which side can sink faster, a dogged fight to the end, a very fast tempo.

While that maybe intense, I think most players would also rue the loss of ships and struggle that tempo of battle.

Current system set a pace of battle to which most are happy with and IMO provides a tactically pace of selecting and encage targets, tempo of battle.

This is some extremely convoluted rationalization that isn't even consistent with how things actually work out in the game, even if it were desirable.  A byzantine, unintuitive visibility system is not a good way to govern game tempo.

Edited December 6, 2021 by akd

[ReefKip]

10 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

So all I know is as soon as units becomes visible they’re targeted and destroyed regardless of maneuverability, it's an battle tempo. If all were visible, like at med-range, then I envision battles would be about how quickly which side can sink faster, a dogged fight to the end, a very fast tempo.

Right now with the current spotting system. battles are all about who can poop out the biggest wall of torps without being spotted at fantasy close  ranges  and suprise the opposing side.... but you think it is worse to have your ships die too fast because of historical accuracy?

Am i getting you right?

Edited December 6, 2021 by ReefKip

[Skeksis]

12 minutes ago, akd said:

This is some extremely convoluted rationalization that isn't even consistent with how things actually work out in the game, even if it were desirable.

You don’t think units emerging in and out of visibility doesn’t set the pace of battle and that it couldn't be described as a tempo?

Edited December 6, 2021 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

9 minutes ago, ReefKip said:

Right now with the current spotting system. battles are all about who can poop out the biggest wall of torps without being spotted at fantasy close  ranges  and suprise the opposing side.... but you think it is worse to have your ships die too fast because of historical accuracy?

Am i getting you right?

No more about what the game is offering now might still be better that what's suggested.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Skeksis

[akd]

13 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

You don’t think units emerging in and out of visibility doesn’t set the pace of battle and that couldn't be described as a tempo?

No, especially when, e.g., a small ship pops into view at close range and suddenly fire is raining down on my ship all at once from unseen / unseeable foes, even more so when that happens and I haven't even seen an enemy ship yet.  That gives me very different feelings about "tempo."

Edited December 6, 2021 by akd

[madham82]

18 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Current system set a pace of battle to which most are happy with, i.e. in and out of visibility, and IMO provides a tactical pace of selecting and encage targets, a tempo of battle.

They are? From what I have seen in the multiple threads about this topic and posts in the main feedback thread, people are overwhelmingly hating the current spotting system. Granted there are more complaints ATM about the "Smoke detected" issues, but I haven't seen a single post in support of "stealthy" ships either. 

[ReefKip]

2 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

No more about what the game is offering now might still be better that what's suggested.

Oke so you think that the current spotting system is fine. despite it being a mess of half working mechanics that don't make any sense whatsoever because you FEEL it improves the pase of the game. despite countless arguments being provided on why its objectively a crappy system?

I really think you are playing the wrong game here.What you are describing is WOWS game pase. and you can already find that in a different game.

[akd]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

No more about what the game is offering now might still be better that what's suggested.

It's not perfect, but the system used in RTW2 is more consistent, easier to understand and produces more authentic gameplay (directly connected to the technology and tactics of the time).   And in concert with more logical starting positions for battles based on conditions, it also produces gameplay with much better tempo.

Edited December 6, 2021 by akd

[madham82]

4 minutes ago, akd said:

It's not perfect, but the system used in RTW2 is more consistent, easier to understand and produces more authentic gameplay (directly connected to the technology and tactics of the time).   And in concert with more logical staring positions for battles based on conditions, it also produces gameplay with much better tempo.

That is what I would suggest. If it works for them, it should work here. Same goes for a lot of subjects honestly where RTW handles things differently. 

[Danelin Aruna]

1 hour ago, akd said:

It's not perfect, but the system used in RTW2 is more consistent, easier to understand and produces more authentic gameplay (directly connected to the technology and tactics of the time).   And in concert with more logical staring positions for battles based on conditions, it also produces gameplay with much better tempo.

I concur, i would like to see a better more intuitive system as well, and RTW2 is the benchmark for me in this regard, I've played both those games and sunk in way more hours in them then i care to admit.

 

 

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

Not trying to start a fight about realism but just trying to envision battles without the current visibility system.

So all I know is as soon as units becomes visible they’re targeted and destroyed regardless of maneuverability, it's an battle tempo. If all were visible, like at med-range, then I envision battles would be about how quickly which side can sink faster, a dogged fight to the end, a very fast tempo.

While that maybe intense, I think most players would also rue the loss of ships and struggle that tempo of battle.

Current system set a pace of battle to which most are happy with, i.e. in and out of visibility, and IMO provides a tactical pace of selecting and encage targets, a tempo of battle.

Well this might be what the game is going for, it really isn't that fun, especially when the AI for the most part attempts to retreat in the battle anyway. And i don't remember but you can correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't size of target play a fact into the accuracy? A smaller destroyer is harder to hit the a larger Battleship at longer ranges. So instead of some byzantine stealth mechanic just modify chance to hit based on hull size, or tonnage. I know the game applies a malus for "fast moving targets", haven't tested that and see if its effected by turret rotation tech, or what the speed need to reach is considered for the malus. 

I know at 1910 I get pretty decent returns on long range gunnery. I've engaged and scored hits at 9000-10000 meter range which is historically accurate. Now I can see weather, storms in what not allowing people to see the approaching ships until later. But i know i for one at long range would focus on the ships that could damage and reach me at the range. Plus the argument about needing to use this to preserve light forces so they can use there torpedoes in my experience only benefits the AI in my view. This is simply because ships can turn on dimes to avoid torpedo's, and you have to be really close to actually score a hit. It doesn't matter if my Torpedoes can go 9 or 12 kilometers when i can barley get hits a 2000 meters.

It also might help if smoke dropped by DD's and CL's actually spread a smoke screen as it happened historically, instead of being a little blob that hovered over the ships. That would help you can then setup smoke screens to allow your light forces close and then dip behind the screen to break contact. I just think there's better ways to handle it then the current system, that imo favors the AI over the player.

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Danelin Aruna