Rate of Fire ~ Tier I to X fun factors

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

In this link I posed the question to the developers regarding rate of fire per tier level, which KGB replied with "We are planning to use close to historical digits."

 

Now, many here are expecting to grind to and end-tier battleship of our choosing.  Personally, with the IJN and USN trees being offered during testing, I am not too concerned with lower tiers.  However, when you consider the ramifications to what Wargaming.net has indicated, one may need only review WWI and WWII data to see how the higher tiers will be limited in their ability to deliver its ordnance.

 

Ordnance is something that everyone in any game should be concerned with, that which is the tip of the sword, that spells disaster for those drawing fire.  For this discussion, we'll start with what many consider to be an end-tier gun, the 16 inch.  Consider for the moment that the Montana will sport 12 x 16 inch main guns, with each gun firing every 30 seconds.  Considering one match is 20 minutes, that equates to 40 possible firings-per gun.  This translates into a maximum ordnance delivered of 480 rounds.  Sounds like a lot?

 

Let's consider that each gun will be loading at the beginning of the game, and the warship plots a route.  Let's assume that aerial scouts are airborne and also plotting a patrol route.  The mean time between start and contact could be counted in seconds, maybe even minutes, depending on how effective forward screens make initial contact.  For the sake of this discussion, 2 minutes have passed.

 

Aerial scouts make contact with forward enemy groups, destroyers, cruisers, and aircraft aloft.  Battle groups in the rear take up tracks on these spots, and begin firing.  However, fast moving destroyers and cruisers are essentially stripping the sky of your scouts, perhaps giving the 16" batteries a minute, maybe two, to engage.  Now we're 4 minutes into the engagement.

 

Surface contacts begin to light up, lower tiers are engaging, cruisers are dumping torpedoes, and more aerial aircraft are entering the fray.  Now, the mix is so coagulated that battle groups are pouring 16" ordnance into what is essentially the bane of surface battles, battleships frantically targeting anything worthy of a shelling.  It's now 7 to 8 minutes into the match, and both sides have yet to effectively detect, let alone fire on opposing battleship groups.  Sure, an occasional scout gets through, and in the few seconds that carrier or battleship is spotted, a river of AA flows into the sky, disseminating that scout element.  Rear ships dispatch 16" ordnance to the other support group, until the fog of war returns.

 

10 minute mark comes and goes.  Battleships are no closer to engaging enemy opponent battleships, remaining in the rear to support forward scouting operations, focusing on sightings, damaging targets of opportunity, and combating the occasional scout.  Depending on many factors, from communications, coordination, team work, and the ability to focus fire, one team pulls ahead in assets, pushing through forward line.  The lesser carrier group, turns, steaming to the edge of the map, while surviving battle groups begin to screen its retreat.  Its 15 minutes into the match.

 

One begins to appreciate the value of marksmanship, insofar as the 16 inch gun, since at this point in the battle, maybe 30 rounds have been fired-per gun--a total of 360 rounds.  Of course, this assumes the captain firing has his finger firmly pushed down on the firing mechanism when each round is ready.  That will not be the case, so this ordnance down range will be less, and since accuracy over range diminishes, less than that will find a target.

 

We have some confidence in knowing that shell travel will be x3 to x4 normal travel time, and give captains some idea of how they fair at long range engagements.  Even so, this will not impact reloading times, and every battle group will have to maximize coordinate fire to increase attrition at the target point (MPI).

 

With all this talk of time and rate of fire, how will this equate to player enjoyment once they reach this lofty status of piloting a Tier X battleship that will effectively sit in the rear of virtually every match.  Sounds like fun?  We'll find out soon enough.

 

Let's compare notes and look at the data supplied, ships, tiers, and the associated rate of fire, effective ranges, and so forth.  I'm interested in seeing what all this looks like and how this creates awareness among those that will eventually pilot these ships.

[Jager_Panther1]

good read, but you are using real life scenario, the battleships never gets upfront, only provide AA support and only use 16" guns if necessary. I think WG will make it so that we get BB to BB engagements, otherwise there will be alot of disappointed folks (including me).

[Wake_Island]

Oh great now the US 5 inchers are going to be really fast! >:(

[Rumshot]

I guess we just have to wait and see how "shooting" works! maybe you have limitet ammo?

[alphakaynine]

Rumshot, on 30 October 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

I guess we just have to wait and see how "shooting" works! maybe you have limitet ammo?

i think that would be the obvious choice

[Ninja_Shark]

The other factor that may play into this, is the accuracy. As stated in the Q&A: The accuracy will improve with each salvo, i.e the reticule will get smaller, providing the target is not moving! I would imagine that the accuracy of the large guns like the 16" will be about equal to the tier 8 arty in WOT. I would bet that you will end up actually being able to shoot about 1 per minute with only about 50% accuracy.

[ironhammer500]

Once a minute does sound good. And im sure the large guns turn super slow so u cant just derp a destroyer at point blank.

 

BB = arty?

 

Aircraft carriers = scout? lol

 

Btw @ OP im sure u summed up a regular game of WoW in about 1 years time. But i dont see how we can comment untill we know for sure the firing mechanics of even get videos of devs showing us the fireing.

[SimulationX]

I don't think your giving the aircraft carriers enough credit here. rather thean jsut light up targets, one of their main purposes is to take out the battleships with waves of bombers.  that is a purpose that I plan to fulfill. many times.

[alphakaynine]

the carrier is a "jack of all trades" bro.

[DementedMind]

Since it is stated that accuracy improves after each salvo....I speculate that this provides an advantage to destroyers because they get to fire their smaller caliber faster.  That means they will able to hit enemies consistently much sooner comparing to battleships...

[Mathayus]

DementedMind, on 30 October 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Since it is stated that accuracy improves after each salvo....I speculate that this provides an advantage to destroyers because they get to fire their smaller caliber faster.  That means they will able to hit enemies consistently much sooner comparing to battleships...

This depends on how much the accuracy improves after each salvo. But I don't know if they will come up with different values for that.

[TenaciousTanaka]

Wake_Island, on 30 October 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Oh great now the US 5 inchers are going to be really fast! >:(

Well, in all fairness,  the 5inch/38 did nominally top out just over 15 rounds per minute.  There were reports of "GOOD" crews serving the guns like demons and pumping out 54 pound shells at the rate of 25 rounds per minute.  Fast?  Darn Skippy!... just like it should be.  The Fiver was hell on a/c, especially with VT fused ammo.

Keep in mind though that this absurdly high rate of fire was with ready stored ammo, meaning the shells and powder cases were kept right by the gun at all times.  Once those stocks were gone, ammo hoists has to bring up the charges and then SUSTAINED rates of fire dropped down to the more human 15+ rounds per min.

[James296]

delete

[mrlazorz]

Wake_Island, on 30 October 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Oh great now the US 5 inchers are going to be really fast! >:(

US guns are always annoyingly fast.

Always.

[Cobra39]

I think this will be much more of an arcade style game than the more simulation one that you describe, but I'm really looking forward to seeing what WG comes up with!

[Crag_r]

cobra39, on 01 November 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

I think this will be much more of an arcade style game than the more simulation one that you describe, but I'm really looking forward to seeing what WG comes up with!

If you read what he wrote he was stating that it will be an arcade style???

[Thearl]

I'd call out 2 things to that.  

 

From WoT:  KV-2 w/ derp (tier 5 version).  Without any crew improvements or a rammer, it's about a 20/25 second reload.  And it was so devestating that teammates called it out as the prime target, even in tier 6 and 7 matches.  Take the S-51 and the 203mm B4.  Thats like a 40 second reload and that little arty is DANGEROUS.

 

Second thing, based on what KGB outlined about teams, you're probably not going to be with an all BB team (although that would be awesome).  If you're a BB, you're going to need the scout planes from your teammates to point out where your shells will be most effective, and maybe while you are reloading, you can put your hull between that torpedo and your teammate's CV.

[Carrier_Enterprise]

cobra39, on 01 November 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

I think this will be much more of an arcade style game than the more simulation one that you describe, but I'm really looking forward to seeing what WG comes up with!

You must be new to WG.net

[Capcon]

If the spotting works anything like world of tanks your scenario breaks down on map size versus battleship gun range. 50 x 50 kilometer maps have been mooted meaning most "modern" battleships when sitting in the center can shoot the entire map. In game scale speeds will exceed real world speeds. In the real world a US BB of the standard type would take 86 minutes to cross the map at full speed. I think everything will be faster in game, still proportional but faster.

 

I also think you are being too conservative, too real world. The gamers will be far more aggressive IMHO. I know I will be. :Smile_teethhappy:

[PhilJD_NA]

Nice thought provoking post - Couple of points in response:-

 

1) Most vessels cruiser and larger carried about 100 shells per gun (plus or minus 10%).

2) That shell number is split across AP/HE/Common (perhaps the japanese will get their main calibre 'beehive' round!)

3) Unless there is no other choice it would be unlikely for BB calibre guns to engage DD's etc unless danger threatens - purely on the basis that they are unlikely to hit at any significant range without a lot of luck and superb Fire Control [iIRC the Iowa straddled a Japanese DD trying to escape from Truk using a single turret.. the range was circa 30k yards but the target was maintaing a steady course and speed.. until the straddle arrived].

[rangetanks]

ironhammer500, on 30 October 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

Once a minute does sound good. And im sure the large guns turn super slow so u cant just derp a destroyer at point blank.

BB = arty?

Aircraft carriers = scout? lol

Btw @ OP im sure u summed up a regular game of WoW in about 1 years time. But i dont see how we can comment untill we know for sure the firing mechanics of even get videos of devs showing us the fireing.

BattleShips=Heavy tanks
Carrier=Artty
destoryers= TDs
cruisers=Medium tanks

[Ariecho]

rangetanks, on 27 November 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

BattleShips=Heavy tanks
Carrier=Artty
destoryers= TDs
cruisers=Medium tanks

I can hardly think of destroyers as TDs, as they would lack the large guns needed to offer a viable comparison.  Destroyers will be your light tanks.

Battlecruisers would be more suited as TDs.  Lighter armor than battleships, but still large guns.

[Kensei]

t42592, on 30 October 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Let's compare notes and look at the data supplied, ships, tiers, and the associated rate of fire, effective ranges, and so forth.  I'm interested in seeing what all this looks like and how this creates awareness among those that will eventually pilot these ships.

Assuming the maps are to be 50x50km, if the developers are using realistic ranges for battleships, looking at a tier X ship like the Iowa or Montana  we could assume that theoretical ranges are to be around 35 to 45km. Engagement ranges should be, hopefully, much shorter due to scouting by fast-moving planes encouraging a great deal of ship movement.  I think it will come down to which teams can more effectively scout out enemy forces for longer periods of time, and which ships can more effectively bracket large enemy ships in quickly. As scouts become increasingly important a focus on anti-scouting must necessarily be extremely important to teams engaged in serious fighting. So the tier X battleship players will be forced to rely on their scouts very heavily, just as they must rely on anti-scouting maneuvers from their associate ships. A tier X ship is therefore only as good as the team that it nominally works with. So enjoyment of playing tier X ships will be derived from whether or not teams are capable of working together, and the opposite is true, as well.

[rangetanks]

Ariecho, on 27 November 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

I can hardly think of destroyers as TDs, as they would lack the large guns needed to offer a viable comparison.  Destroyers will be your light tanks.

Battlecruisers would be more suited as TDs.  Lighter armor than battleships, but still large guns.

Well that chould be possible as that.

[Akuzimo]

Honestly, I'm not sure you'll be able to "derp" anything with a battleship in this game.  The guns on those things are massive.  They turn relatively quickly to the speed of a ship, however.  I mean if you're up against a low-weight speed demon, you might run into troubles but in regards to most every other ship you'll be facing with 16" guns, it won't be an issue.

 

-Akuzimo