Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Big_Spud

Something worth potential salvage

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,491
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,973 posts
5,679 battles

I happened to be doing some reading about the anti-aircraft mechanics in World of Warships, when I stumbled upon an old post from 2015... on the-

Spoiler

World of Warplanes website

Shock! Awe! Surprise and alarm!

 

Now before you projectile vomit across the room at the mere mention of that name, I want you to actually read about how that "game" handled anti-aircraft fire from ground emplacements, because it struck me as a surprisingly sensible way to do things.

 

Quote

First of all, every AA gun has a so called “table of priorities” which contains all the aircraft in its shooting range. The gun picks a target from this table based on its class (for example, the Attack Aircraft cause more “aggro” on the gun than other classes) and distance to it. The gun proceeds to shoot at the chosen aircraft until one of three possible things happen: the target is destroyed, it leaves the shooting radius or another aircraft with double the “aggro” value enters the shooting radius. For example, when an AA gun is shooting at a Fighter that’s flying far away from it while an Attack Aircraft is closing in on it – eventually it will switch targets.

The main interesting thing to know about the anti-air guns is their shooting. They do so using mechanics totally different from aircraft armament. In fact they don’t shoot at all! Instead the server picks a lead compensation (similar to the aiming point marked by a targeting reticle on the enemy aircraft you see in dogfights). This aiming point is calculated based on the target’s speed, distance to it and flight direction. AA gun’s rate of fire, projectile velocity (as we already mentioned, virtual “projectile”) and distance to the target are used to calculate the delay, and then at the aiming point’s location a pseudo-explosion is generated. If the aircraft was flying at constant speed and didn’t change direction during that time – the AA gun will score a direct hit and deal maximum possible damage.

 

Here’s the interesting part: if the target is maneuvering, the system will recalculate damage dealt to it depending on how far it actually was from the point the AA gun was aiming at. You will not be able to evade damage completely, but active maneuvers can reduce damage your aircraft takes quite significantly.

 

 

The usual AA “machineguns” deal damage only to the target they were aiming at. The high-altitude AA guns damage all the aircraft inside the blast radius of their “projectile”, but still they aim at a single target. The said radius, similar to the AA gun’s base damage, scales with the battle tier. Different classes take different amounts of damage from AA fire: the Attack Aircraft take less due to their armor, while Fighters take maximum possible amounts. The AA fire can cause critical damage: if a maneuver leads to a situation when the only part of the aircraft in the pseudo-explosion radius is a wing or a tail – it will soak up the damage instead of the airframe, and might get critically damaged (enter the yellow state). The Attack Aircraft pilots might have noticed that the AA guns damage their tanks quite often – that’s because they fly straight and low, so the gun is pounding the plane’s belly and wings. Bear in mind that AA fire cannot destroy wings or tails, wound the crew or cause fires.

And finally a third nuance: every AA gun needs time to take aim. Once they do – they start dealing maximum damage. You might have noticed that first several seconds when a gun is firing at your aircraft – you take virtually no damage, but than your machine starts taking more and more hits. That’s exactly what’s happening – the AA gun corrected aim. Also all the guns have certain rotation speeds – after targeting an aircraft it will need to spend some time to “reorient” itself to face another target before starting to take aim.

You can use all this in your battles to stay relatively safe. First of all, never fly in a straight line under AA fire, maneuvers will save you precious HP points. This relates both to attempts to leave the AA fire zone as well as flying approach vectors to destroy the gun: straight route means you will soak up all the shots the gun fires at you. Try to form up behind an allied Attack Aircraft before entering the AA fire zone – it will become a priority target and other classes will be safer. And finally when you have low HP and hear the distinct “knock-knock” of the first AA shots – try leaving the area as soon as possible, you have a small time frame before you start taking damage.

 

Now, we all know the blighted history behind this so called "game", but this struck me as a solid system that could be easily nestled into World of Warships, should the supposed aircraft carrier re balance ever come to fruition. A few more hints were dropped recently as to concepts that were being tested, including a Battlestations Pacific-esque manual control of plane squadrons, with actual HP values, maneuvering, etc, which was hinted at in a Q/A session

 

Quote

13) (18:43) Half the dev team are navyfield veterans. Initially the CVs had a kind of artillery view so they played relatively similar to the other ships and there, the CV concept worked out because of this. Balance was fairly ok back then, but we had no really good idea how to rework the CV concept for the new top down view. We maybe have an idea where you could control your planes the same way you follow your shells, but here you could actually control the panes, which would enable a sort of skill shot. Well, it’s but one idea. 

 

18) (25:00) Next CV tech tree will be British, but no comment on when they’ll come. We still need to rework the CV gameplay before that anyway. IJN Tone is also tied to this rework, as are other hybrid vessels, meaning they’ll certainly not come before the CV rework is done.

 

USS Robin? 

In any case we do not generally reveal new ship bfore it is time to do so, so… no comment, follow the forums and facebook page and wait for when such a thing appears :)

TBH Brits would have a potential or “carrier fighters” and “carrier fighter-bombers” rather than a “torpedo / dive bomber” split, but that would require new mechanics etc. – we are not there yet. Give it some more time :)

 

While this is undoubtedly still far in the future, it seems like some actual ideas are being floated. It has been widely speculated that any aircraft mechanic rework would require an AA mechanic rework, and vice versa. I think at least basing the new system off of the one utilized by World of Warplanes would be the most logical method, as some of the leg work has already been done in that department.

 

Furthermore, it add's some interesting new balancing parameters for how different nationalities and ship classes could interact with aircraft. Perhaps Destroyers and cruisers could have a shorter "re-focus" time between targeting aircraft squadrons in exchange for their overall less potent weaponry, while battleships and carriers take longer, but inflict more damage once they have achieved a "lock" with their larger and more numerous weapons.

 

 Perhaps different nations would have more or less accurate artificial shot-leading done by the system. Maybe target acquisition times being different between large and small caliber AA guns could be added. Maybe focusing a particular squadron for all AA guns could cause a considerable "dead-time" if you suddenly attempt to lock on to a different squadron, giving a CV a larger window in which to strike.

 

CV's, if given more control over their individual squadrons, would be prompted to maneuver and increase/decrease speed and altitude on the way in to avoid taking excessive plane losses from a ship with strong AA focusing planes flying in a perfectly straight line at them. Different aircraft types could have certain in-built survivability stats modeled into them, rather than just increased HP versus more dice-rolls.

 

 

Anyways, I'm not proposing anything concrete here, the concept just struck me as something interesting that may be salvageable from an otherwise ruined game.

 

 

 

 
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,491
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,973 posts
5,679 battles
2 minutes ago, SparvieroVV said:

Have your aa gunners priority target laden torp bombers without intervention? :cap_win:

 

Ah, but here comes the three squadrons of manually controlled AP dive bombers that now have a 5-7 second window of opportunity to drop their bombs before the full power of the AA guns can be re-focused on them instead of the torpedo bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
698
[UFFA]
Beta Testers
3,749 posts
3,752 battles
4 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

 

Ah, but here comes the three squadrons of manually controlled AP dive bombers that now have a 5-7 second window of opportunity to drop their bombs before the full power of the AA guns can be re-focused on them instead of the torpedo bombers.

 

tumblr_mdkl7v5x7P1qe5udso3_250.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,191
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,138 posts
3,867 battles

Interesting.

 

One could tie this into Zim's "AA Wedge" rework as well, and different AA emplacements can prioritize different targets in their respective arcs. Automating the bulk of this would be the better option, while still allowing the player to assign a focus that overrides the gun's "natural" priority choice when the target is in their cone of fire. Which allows for overlapping cones and focused fire when planes come in from the broadside, for instance, as all AA "wedges" on that side would prioritize the indicated squadron due to overlap.

 

Not sure how you'd incorporate evasive maneuvering into World of Warships though.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,052
[OPG]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,871 posts
10,414 battles

If we add priority targetting, you dumb down the process of shooting down planes even further, and what is the purpose of the manual aa skill at this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,191
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,138 posts
3,867 battles
14 minutes ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

If we add priority targetting, you dumb down the process of shooting down planes even further, and what is the purpose of the manual aa skill at this point?

Unless you specifically tell your AA battery to do this, the damage bonus doesn't apply.

 

Frankly I think the best fix to AA would be to actually treat damage per second as damage per second and give planes health bars that aren't restored until the planes return to the carrier. Which, note, is not mutually exclusive to this idea or Zim's rework.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,491
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,973 posts
5,679 battles
3 hours ago, AraAragami said:

Interesting.

 

Not sure how you'd incorporate evasive maneuvering into World of Warships though.

 

With the potential manual control over an entire squadron of planes at one time, this could be achieved by varying the altitude and heading that you are pursuing, assuming manual flight control also allows for it. Naturally coming in fast at high altitude would make you harder to target than low and slow, etc, giving an advantage to dive bombers and late model torpedo bombers. Earlier torpedo bombers have to run the gauntlet for a longer period of time, but are also usually flying in the face of less intense AA fire (unless its a Cleveland, Atlanta, Gneisenau, etc). Mayhaps they would have a larger HP pool and more "robust" damage zones in exchange, and could zig-zag to the target at low altitude until they drop, avoiding being targeted perfectly by the AA guns. Perhaps another adjustment that could be made would be more powerful torpedoes, to make piercing the AA bubble more rewarding.

 

Another idea could be to make larger caliber AA guns less effective at lower ranges, and mid range less effective at long. For example, a 5"/38 would be operating at full tilt between 3-7.2 kilometers, but closer than that and its targeting bonus drops off rapidly to simulate the larger mount trying to keep up with a target at close range (which could be a problem for even the quickest turning heavy gun mounts). A Bofors could start doing work at 5 kilometers, but really come into its own at 3.5 km and below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,191
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,138 posts
3,867 battles
20 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

 

With the potential manual control over an entire squadron of planes at one time, this could be achieved by varying the altitude and heading that you are pursuing, assuming manual flight control also allows for it. Naturally coming in fast at high altitude would make you harder to target than low and slow, etc, giving an advantage to dive bombers and late model torpedo bombers. Earlier torpedo bombers have to run the gauntlet for a longer period of time, but are also usually flying in the face of less intense AA fire (unless its a Cleveland, Atlanta, Gneisenau, etc). Mayhaps they would have a larger HP pool and more "robust" damage zones in exchange, and could zig-zag to the target at low altitude until they drop, avoiding being targeted perfectly by the AA guns. Perhaps another adjustment that could be made would be more powerful torpedoes, to make piercing the AA bubble more rewarding.

 

Another idea could be to make larger caliber AA guns less effective at lower ranges, and mid range less effective at long. For example, a 5"/38 would be operating at full tilt between 3-7.2 kilometers, but closer than that and its targeting bonus drops off rapidly to simulate the larger mount trying to keep up with a target at close range (which could be a problem for even the quickest turning heavy gun mounts). A Bofors could start doing work at 5 kilometers, but really come into its own at 3.5 km and below.

Something else I've seen floated around is to give carriers a "formation toggle".

 

For example, bombers can fly high and have a defense against surface AA, but are less accurate when they release their ordnance, or they can fly low for a higher accuracy but are more vulnerable. Torpedo planes, specifically, would be affected by this-- I feel like dive bombers should be effective at high altitude because that was their "thing" anyway.

 

And fighters can be handled similarly-- Attacking lower altitude bombers or other fighters gives them a DPS increase, but low-flying fighters move a little faster (A crude representation of burning altitude for speed vs burning speed for altitude/energy fighting).

 

It's kind of a "shower idea" and not fully fleshed out, but this could solve the problem of how to handle evasive maneuvering. Especially if torpedo planes can't attack while set to high altitude and have to drop down first.

 

EDIT: But given the amount of micro this introduces, I also can't really see it working unless manual drops are removed entirely and it is implemented as part of a rework to improve auto-drops.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×