Jump to content


American Fire Control System Accuracy -> Dispersion SHRINK

Accuracy Aiming Dispersion

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

Vermel #1 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:33 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 26
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

I recommend we fix American BB Dispersion and main battery accuracy. It should be much smaller. 1942-1945 the most accurate, tested and re-tested (1980s) was the Fire Control and Targeting systems onboard our North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa class BBs. At Sea testing onboard North Carolina with high speed maneuver and rudder (Open Source data) readily supports this fact. Night Battle at Savo Island. The Armor schemes are accurate (minus the superior metallurgy -> i.e. I get more for less it is more expensive we have citadels half a mile long, but our gun dispersion is pathetic and wrong on all accounts. Optical range finding was terrific on German and Japanese BBs, but their ability to adjust to maneuver and rapidly compute range was the major weakness and radar was the future.

 

V/R

Vermel    



_Jayzilla #2 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 603
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
USN tiers eight, nine, and ten battleships are quite accurate in the game already. The majority of the time the dispersion is manageable even above 18 kilometers.

Played Navyfield and such. 

Spoiler


The_first_harbinger #3 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:43 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,268
  • Member since:
    10-28-2015

Firstly, BalanceTM

Secondarily, USN bbs are not that much more accurate historically. Yamato straddled her target 20km away on the first salvo. Bismarck straddled Hood maneuvering at full speed on the second salvo, sinking her on the fifth, than straddled Prince of Wales, a different target, immediately on the next. Both Yamato and Bismarck were equipped with either computers or electro-magnetic calculators.

​Thirdly, with some of the game's most desirable sigma value, based aim and penetration tier for tier, inaccuracy are only illusions created by inadequate aiming, especially for Colorado, NC, Iowa(or Mo) and Montana


"May the Meteorblitzkrieg begin!"
Battleship Cult Cardinal

Ships that deserves Admirals' love series

Latest addition: Algérie

 


Vermel #4 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:59 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 26
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

View PostThe_first_harbinger, on 19 May 2017 - 02:43 PM, said:

Firstly, BalanceTM

Secondarily, USN bbs are not that much more accurate historically. Yamato straddled her target 20km away on the first salvo. Bismarck straddled Hood maneuvering at full speed on the second salvo, sinking her on the fifth, than straddled Prince of Wales, a different target, immediately on the next. Both Yamato and Bismarck were equipped with either computers or electro-magnetic calculators.

​Thirdly, with some of the game's most desirable sigma value, based aim and penetration tier for tier, inaccuracy are only illusions created by inadequate aiming, especially for Colorado, NC, Iowa(or Mo) and Montana

 

You are incorrect -> historically the fire control systems on board US Radar equipped battleships where significantly more advanced and accurate. Straddling vs hitting are to different things. i.e. optics vs radar. Also advantage US in computing and TMA systems

 



Vermel #5 Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:00 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 26
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

View Post_Jayzilla, on 19 May 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

USN tiers eight, nine, and ten battleships are quite accurate in the game already. The majority of the time the dispersion is manageable even above 18 kilometers.

 

Sure they are manageable, but they still suck.. There guns where designed to be accurate at 23KM. 

 



AVR_Project #6 Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:05 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,759
  • Member since:
    10-31-2015

Radar guided Automatic Fire Control was extremely devastating and ended the IJN dominance of night fighting supremacy... especially when it was mounted on destroyers.

Improvements were made to this system over the course of the war.  Data inputs were fed DIRECTLY into the computer and the guns were commanded directly.  Wave motion, wind, barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity was compensated for and the rifles were fired by the electronics.

All the humans did was kept track of the results.

...

however

...

This is a game.  It'd be awfully boring to put a cursor over an enemy ship and say, 'commence firing'.


So much has been lost, so much forgotten. So much pain, so much blood. And for what? I wonder. The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between. But there is still time to seize that one last, fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference.  -- Babylon 5


El_Judarino #7 Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:22 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,712
  • Member since:
    04-10-2015

View PostVermel, on 19 May 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

I recommend we fix American BB Dispersion and main battery accuracy. It should be much smaller. 1942-1945 the most accurate, tested and re-tested (1980s) was the Fire Control and Targeting systems onboard our North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa class BBs. At Sea testing onboard North Carolina with high speed maneuver and rudder (Open Source data) readily supports this fact. Night Battle at Savo Island. The Armor schemes are accurate (minus the superior metallurgy -> i.e. I get more for less it is more expensive we have citadels half a mile long, but our gun dispersion is pathetic and wrong on all accounts. Optical range finding was terrific on German and Japanese BBs, but their ability to adjust to maneuver and rapidly compute range was the major weakness and radar was the future.

 

V/R

Vermel    


You are correct in that what made the American (and also late-war British) fire control systems a generational leap beyond their contemporaries was a fire control system that allowed the ship to maneuver while keeping guns on target. Basically prior to this, everyone had to pick a heading and stay on it or the guns would continually lose their target. Basically, every ship in the game gets this functionality out of the box as it makes gameplay more fun, more First-person shooter-y than if players were locked into a heading in order to accurately fire their ordinance. 

Both the American Tier 9 and 10 BBs when equipping the Artillery Plotting Room Mod2 become insanely accurate. The tier 8s, while having a worse (displayed) linear dispersion than the tier 8 Amagi both have a better sigma rating (not displayed) which means the shell groupings are less scattershot, essentially rating these ships very similar. At all tiers American BBs outperform German in terms of accuracy.  

Quite frankly, *all* BBs in this game are too accurate (real life hit rates being hilariously poor) for the sake of gameplay, one could build a compelling case that at high tiers, they become so accurate that it negatively affects the game as high tier battles already degenerate into ugly campfests. The last thing this game needs is *more* BB accuracy. 



ValkyrWarframe #8 Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:36 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,173
  • Member since:
    07-04-2015

View PostVermel, on 19 May 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

 

You are incorrect -> historically the fire control systems on board US Radar equipped battleships where significantly more advanced and accurate. Straddling vs hitting are to different things. i.e. optics vs radar. Also advantage US in computing and TMA systems

 

 

Still, the dispersion from the guns was not perfect.  Besides, dispersion is for balance. 

 Key: *In top 50 players on the server, Can't afford at the moment, 

USN: Clemson, Benson, St. Louis, Cleveland, Atlanta* (Guide Coming Soon!), New Orleans, New York, North Carolina, Iowa, Strike Bogue, Strike Ranger, Strike Lexington

IJN/Fleet of Fog/Dragon: Shinonome, Hatsuharu, Kagero, ARP Ashigara/Haguro/Myoko/Nachi, Southern Dragon, Mogami, ARP Takao, Mikasa, ARP Haruna/Hiei/Kirishima/KongouNagamon, Amagi, Hiryu

Soviet Union/Russia/Royal Navy: Kiev, Ognevoi, Svietlana*, Kirov*(My Guide), Chapayev, Dmitri Donskoi, Moskva* (My Guide)Black Swan (kek), Fiji, Edinburgh, Neptune

Kriegsmarine/Marine NationaleT-22Konigsberg, Admiral Graf Spee, Yorck, Nassau, Gneisenau, Bismarck, Friant, Émile Bertin (Guide Coming Soon!), La Galissonniére, Dunkerque (Gift from TenguBlade)


Vermel #9 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:49 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 26
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

View PostAVR_Project, on 19 May 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

Radar guided Automatic Fire Control was extremely devastating and ended the IJN dominance of night fighting supremacy... especially when it was mounted on destroyers.

Improvements were made to this system over the course of the war.  Data inputs were fed DIRECTLY into the computer and the guns were commanded directly.  Wave motion, wind, barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity was compensated for and the rifles were fired by the electronics.

All the humans did was kept track of the results.

...

however

...

This is a game.  It'd be awfully boring to put a cursor over an enemy ship and say, 'commence firing'.

 

I agree, but Warspite has better dispersion then IOWA.    lol

Vermel #10 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:51 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 26
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

View PostValkyrWarframe, on 19 May 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

 

Still, the dispersion from the guns was not perfect.  Besides, dispersion is for balance. 

 

I appreciate balance.. but it has become the ergo counter for logical small change (i'm not asking for 100m Dispersion)... Tactics is for balance in combat

 



Vermel #11 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:51 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 26
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

View PostEl_Judarino, on 19 May 2017 - 03:22 PM, said:


You are correct in that what made the American (and also late-war British) fire control systems a generational leap beyond their contemporaries was a fire control system that allowed the ship to maneuver while keeping guns on target. Basically prior to this, everyone had to pick a heading and stay on it or the guns would continually lose their target. Basically, every ship in the game gets this functionality out of the box as it makes gameplay more fun, more First-person shooter-y than if players were locked into a heading in order to accurately fire their ordinance. 

Both the American Tier 9 and 10 BBs when equipping the Artillery Plotting Room Mod2 become insanely accurate. The tier 8s, while having a worse (displayed) linear dispersion than the tier 8 Amagi both have a better sigma rating (not displayed) which means the shell groupings are less scattershot, essentially rating these ships very similar. At all tiers American BBs outperform German in terms of accuracy.  

Quite frankly, *all* BBs in this game are too accurate (real life hit rates being hilariously poor) for the sake of gameplay, one could build a compelling case that at high tiers, they become so accurate that it negatively affects the game as high tier battles already degenerate into ugly campfests. The last thing this game needs is *more* BB accuracy. 

 

I don't see this insane accuracy for the plotting room MOD

 



El_Judarino #12 Posted 20 May 2017 - 04:24 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,712
  • Member since:
    04-10-2015

View PostVermel, on 19 May 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

 

I don't see this insane accuracy for the plotting room MOD

 

 

This ship upgrade?


It reduces dispersion by 11% (and is unique to Montana, Iowa and Missouri) which brings their dispersion numbers either right in line with or slightly better than the Japanese tier 9& 10... if you want to further make those BBs yet more accurate, you're asking for more than anybody's gonna be willing to give, given the BB induced camp-fest that already is high tier battles.  
 







Also tagged with Accuracy, Aiming, Dispersion

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users