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

Bow-on vs. Broadside - where gameplay and reality divorce

52 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,670
[ARGSY]
Members
5,717 posts
3,894 battles

IRL, engagement ranges were frequently at the extreme of competent gun-aiming capability. Dispersion was horrendous, and you were probably not going to score more than one or two hits out of every salvo (if that). You needed ALL your guns firing to have a reasonable possibility of a hit, and broadsides were the rule. Bow-on put you at a huge disadvantage, and HMS Hood might have hit Bismarck first if she'd been firing eight guns instead of four.

BB's, imagine that all your shots are taken at 20km with all the time delay and aiming difficulties that entails. Do you REALLY want to limit yourself to forward guns only?

 

By the end of WW2, gun engagements were becoming something of a lottery. Without carriers, missiles would have become an inevitability a lot sooner than they were.

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,309
[-TAB-]
Members
1,597 posts
5,126 battles

IRL, I was divorced. reality was involved, Washington is a community property state. this translated to me getting all the debt, she got all the assets.

tonite, I played a bunch of battles. I lost most all of them, and there was nothing I could do. I fail to see how this is divorced from reality.

MM is working as intended. RNG is working as intended. if there was problem with dispersion, or any other factor in the game, WG would have fixed it already.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles

DIspersion and getting hits wasn't the main reason for broadsiding, the fact that your best armour was your main belt was. In game rnage compression makes pen values far too high for that to work however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
13 posts
4,427 battles

I think one problem is how angling armor works. I am pretty sure 30mm of bow armor  at more than 30 degrees wouldn't be bouncing every single 300mm armor piercing shell. Otherwise a T34 with 45mm of armor at 45 degrees  could bounce every shell from a battleship much less a Tiger's 88mm. If the bow armor of ships were vulnerable to more shells calibers there would be far less incentive to sail at a sharp angle toward or away from the enemy.

 

Another idea is make the dispersion look like the elipse shaped aiming reticle from a dive bomber. A ship coming straight at you would fall fully into the dispersion zone. A ship at full broadside would have most of the shots landing in front or behind it. 

 

I think any change would be great. I want crossing Ts to be a thing.

'

Edited by Sgt_Joshu
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
1 hour ago, Sgt_Joshu said:

I think one problem is how angling armor works. I am pretty sure 30mm of bow armor  at more than 30 degrees wouldn't be bouncing every single 300mm armor piercing shell. Otherwise a T34 with 45mm of armor at 45 degrees  could bounce every shell from a battleship much less a Tiger's 88mm. If the bow armor of ships were vulnerable to more shells calibers there would be far less incentive to sail at a sharp angle toward or away from the enemy.

 

Another idea is make the dispersion look like the elipse shaped aiming reticle from a dive bomber. A ship coming straight at you would fall fully into the dispersion zone. A ship at full broadside would have most of the shots landing in front or behind it. 

 

I think any change would be great. I want crossing Ts to be a thing.

'

 

 

If bow armour didn't bounce shells you'd all be Yamato's scoring mass bow cits. Most BB's don't have enough bow and belt armour to bounce same tier BB's at below 15km no matter how they angle without using autobounce mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,249
[RIPQP]
Members
3,705 posts
14,463 battles

 

1 hour ago, Sgt_Joshu said:

Another idea is make the dispersion look like the elipse shaped aiming reticle from a dive bomber. A ship coming straight at you would fall fully into the dispersion zone. A ship at full broadside would have most of the shots landing in front or behind it. 

 

 Bringing all your guns to bear and yet be in the most survivable position? No, this will break the game completely. You should have a choice: either bring all your guns into the fight and risk punishment or bring a portion of the guns to bear but have a lower chance of suffering damage, kinda like the choice we have to make currently.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
13 posts
4,427 battles

According to your own logic the game is already broken completely.  You can fire all your guns from a significantly angled position on many ships, giving you as simultaneously all your guns and the most survivable position, which I agree with you is bad for gameplay.

 

To go broadside with different dynamics would not be without any drawbacks.

If you go broadside you sacrifice your ability to close or open the range to either the target or the objective, trading aggression or running away for increased protection.

 

An advancing ship going towards the enemy is more vulnerable, making you pay a price for choosing to close the range.

If the opposing ship tries to sail away, it too becomes more vulnerable.

This would make kiting away or not more of a choice, because currently it gives you all the advantages.

 

Additionally sailing broadside would protect you against shells but make you more vulnerable to torpedoes, making coordination between destroyers and battleships more meaningful

Currently sailing toward or away from the enemy while angled is the best position for both torpedoes and guns and it shouldn't be.

 

 

Edited by Sgt_Joshu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
13 posts
4,427 battles
18 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

 

If bow armour didn't bounce shells you'd all be Yamato's scoring mass bow cits. Most BB's don't have enough bow and belt armour to bounce same tier BB's at below 15km no matter how they angle without using autobounce mechanics.

the point of the suggested change is to produce exactly as you suggest: massive potential damage when sailing towards enemy battleships at close ranges

 

the effect on gameplay is to make the most advantageous position for your ship to be roughly broadside to an approaching enemy ship, thus make 'crossing the T' a prevalent tactic in the game, as it was in actual naval theory and engagements.

 

If the best position for a battleship to sail at an angle away from the enemy and the 2nd best position is to sail at an angle toward the enemy

what does that produce?

A long range chase. What is the least fun engagement type? A long range chase.

 

If the best position is crossing the enemy T, the incentive to get to the best position first forces both ships to maneuver towards each other.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
8 minutes ago, Sgt_Joshu said:

According to your own logic the game is already broken completely.  You can fire all your guns from a significantly angled position on many ships, giving you as simultaneously all your guns and the most survivable position, which I agree with you is bad for gameplay.

 

 

A couple of RN BB's aside this si false, if you can get your rear guns on target you can be citted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
Just now, Sgt_Joshu said:

the point of the suggested change is to produce exactly as you suggest: massive potential damage when sailing towards enemy battleships at close ranges

 

the effect on gameplay is to make the most advantageous position for your ship to be roughly broadside to an approaching enemy ship, thus make 'crossing the T' a prevalent tactic in the game, as it was in actual naval theory and engagements.

 

If the best position for a battleship to sail at an angle away from the enemy and the 2nd best position is to sail at an angle toward the enemy

what does that produce?

A long range chase. What is the least fun engagement type? A long range chase.

 

If the best position is crossing the enemy T, the incentive to get to the best position first forces both ships to maneuver towards each other.

 

 

 

And with your change the best position is still fully bow in because thats the smallest target. Broadside is suicide no matter what you change about overmatch, because it's a massive target and your armour does not protect you at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
1,194 posts
4,125 battles
2 hours ago, Carl said:

 

 

If bow armour didn't bounce shells you'd all be Yamato's scoring mass bow cits. Most BB's don't have enough bow and belt armour to bounce same tier BB's at below 15km no matter how they angle without using autobounce mechanics.

Then remove the "citadel" and leave just the magazine zones as the heavy damage zones, like it was in real life.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229
Members
1,089 posts
2,369 battles

Wasn't able to find it, but I remember a thread by dseehafer that iirc was about a book on the Admiral Hipper class and how it included, amongst other things, suggested angles of approach to various Allied ship classes. As in, angling to protect against the enemy's shells. It also included things like not even bothering with an angle when it came to, say, enemy battleships, because it wouldn't matter. Now, why does all of that sound familiar...?

 

Also, If I'm not mistaken, the point of "crossing the T" was that it allowed one's own ship/fleet to fire the maximum possible guns at the target, while minimizing the number of guns the enemy could fire back at you. Given that this originated in the age of sail, I don't think I've ever seen a proper argument for whether or not it was still, in fact, a thing by the time of WWII (and, if so, why it was still a thing), so I'm gonna have to ask for a citation on whether or not actual WWII-era naval engagements would have cared about such a thing.

 

After all, with the development of these wonderful things called "turrets," it's not like going full broadside was necessary in order to fire all guns at a target. Similarly, WWII-era ships also tended to have rather more firepower capable of pointing straight ahead compared to ships from the age of sail, along with not having the same restrictions on their ability to maneuver while still moving, what with not being dependent on the wind and all, so "crossing the T" would A) not protect you from many of the enemy's guns, and B) not be likely to last very long in any case if it were indeed particularly disadvantageous to the opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
1,194 posts
4,125 battles
1 hour ago, Sgt_Joshu said:

According to your own logic the game is already broken completely.  You can fire all your guns from a significantly angled position on many ships, giving you as simultaneously all your guns and the most survivable position, which I agree with you is bad for gameplay.

 

To go broadside with different dynamics would not be without any drawbacks.

If you go broadside you sacrifice your ability to close or open the range to either the target or the objective, trading aggression or running away for increased protection.

 

An advancing ship going towards the enemy is more vulnerable, making you pay a price for choosing to close the range.

If the opposing ship tries to sail away, it too becomes more vulnerable.

This would make kiting away or not more of a choice, because currently it gives you all the advantages.

 

Additionally sailing broadside would protect you against shells but make you more vulnerable to torpedoes, making coordination between destroyers and battleships more meaningful

 

Currently sailing toward or away from the enemy while angled is the best position for both torpedoes and guns and it shouldn't be.

 

 

I fixed that last sentence for you.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
1,194 posts
4,125 battles
1 hour ago, Carl said:

 

 

And with your change the best position is still fully bow in because thats the smallest target. Broadside is suicide no matter what you change about overmatch, because it's a massive target and your armour does not protect you at all.

And yet you miss the point completely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229
Members
1,089 posts
2,369 battles
3 minutes ago, comtedumas said:

Then remove the "citadel" and leave just the magazine zones as the heavy damage zones, like it was in real life.  

 

Er...the "citadel" is historical. There's a reason it's the most heavily armored portion of a ship: that's where vital components like boilers and engines and such are. If you take hits to that machinery, you're not gonna have a good time. Unless you enjoy being dead in the water with no power and no ability to fight back, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
1,194 posts
4,125 battles
Just now, Izolyn said:

 

Er...the "citadel" is historical. There's a reason it's the most heavily armored portion of a ship: that's where vital components like boilers and engines and such are. If you take hits to that machinery, you're not gonna have a good time. Unless you enjoy being dead in the water with no power and no ability to fight back, I guess.

A citadel as modeled in game is not historical.  you shouldn't lose half of more of your HP because one of 6 or seven ring rolls says you basically hit an empty space on the ship.  Hit a magazine, as happened to Indefatigable, and yes you should go boom.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
229
Members
1,089 posts
2,369 battles
4 minutes ago, comtedumas said:

A citadel as modeled in game is not historical.  you shouldn't lose half of more of your HP because one of 6 or seven ring rolls says you basically hit an empty space on the ship.  Hit a magazine, as happened to Indefatigable, and yes you should go boom.  

 

By that logic, we shouldn't have an "HP bar" at all. But we do. What's the HP bar for, I wonder? Is it maybe a sort of abstract representation of your ship's ability to keep fighting, where things that detract from said ability to keep fighting are represented as damage to your HP bar?

 

Hm, I wonder, how might we represent your ship being reduced to a nonfunctioning wreck that is technically not sunk? Maybe by taking lots of health off the HP bar that is included for that very purpose?

 

And again: You're not hitting "empty space." You're putting an explosive into the middle of lots of vital machinery. The shell itself may not go through a boiler or the like, but the shrapnel from it will, and that's just as bad.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,989 posts
4,192 battles
4 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

IRL, engagement ranges were frequently at the extreme of competent gun-aiming capability. Dispersion was horrendous, and you were probably not going to score more than one or two hits out of every salvo (if that). You needed ALL your guns firing to have a reasonable possibility of a hit, and broadsides were the rule. Bow-on put you at a huge disadvantage, and HMS Hood might have hit Bismarck first if she'd been firing eight guns instead of four.

BB's, imagine that all your shots are taken at 20km with all the time delay and aiming difficulties that entails. Do you REALLY want to limit yourself to forward guns only?

 

By the end of WW2, gun engagements were becoming something of a lottery. Without carriers, missiles would have become an inevitability a lot sooner than they were.

 

2 hours ago, Carl said:

 

 

If bow armour didn't bounce shells you'd all be Yamato's scoring mass bow cits. Most BB's don't have enough bow and belt armour to bounce same tier BB's at below 15km no matter how they angle without using autobounce mechanics.

 

There are tiers where people don't bow on because they would prefer to get all guns to bear. It's called low tiers.

 

The best way to fix bow camping is to not eliminate autobounce (we need more defensive options,) but to properly scale firepower.

In low tiers most ships have either balanced dispersion paired with balanced pen, or balanced shell flight time. I say we go back to what works, and model it off either of these two.

These are the two simplest methods to address this.

Shell Flight time:

Friant, the tier 3 French Cruiser I'm getting Doubles for example, has something like 12km range, which is huge at tier 3. Except that it takes something like 13 seconds to travel that far. Just like the USN 5" that is making USN DD gameplay atrocious in high tier, no matter how much you buff other gun properties per tier, the effective range would not grow appreciably.

This is the simplest method to balance gun performance without player revolt (aka whiners all about "muh guns" that turned WoT into a game of lasertag.) Technically you could cit someone in a Yamato at 26km (not that it wasn't rare already,) but with lower tier shell flight time, it's unlikely.

Dispersion:

Basically, don't ever buff dispersion on ships as they grow per tier. End of story. They can get buffs to guns related to hard stats: more guns on the ship (Aoba to Myogi for example,) higher caliber on the ship (more damage and pen,) or different shell use (USN SHS,) but nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,553
Members
17,692 posts
5,084 battles
4 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

IRL, engagement ranges were frequently at the extreme of competent gun-aiming capability. Dispersion was horrendous, and you were probably not going to score more than one or two hits out of every salvo (if that). You needed ALL your guns firing to have a reasonable possibility of a hit, and broadsides were the rule. 

 

That's the kicker right there. Players wouldn't put up with anywhere near historical hit rates, game would be too boring.

 

I'm surprised they put up with the usual 20-30%....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,553
Members
17,692 posts
5,084 battles
12 minutes ago, Izolyn said:

 

Hm, I wonder, how might we represent your ship being reduced to a nonfunctioning wreck that is technically not sunk? Maybe by taking lots of health off the HP bar that is included for that very purpose?

 

 

I've always thought a couple more death animations would make things more immersive.

 

If flooding kills you, your ship doesn't blow up, just launches lifeboats as it sinks. For fire deaths, again lifeboats, but fire burns out and floating hulk remains for rest of match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
19 minutes ago, comtedumas said:

A citadel as modeled in game is not historical.  you shouldn't lose half of more of your HP because one of 6 or seven ring rolls says you basically hit an empty space on the ship.  Hit a magazine, as happened to Indefatigable, and yes you should go boom.  

 

Yeah, the Citadel IRL was anywhere where there was insufficient armour between that point and the boilers/magazines to prevent shell splinters reaching those area's. In general thats everything inside the main belt and below the main armoured deck, on all or nothing sceme's anyway, distributed schemes like Bis it's everything under the turtleback.

 

Some in game cits are historical, (most cruiser cits, Yamato, Bismark, Scharnhorst, Old Iowa/NC/Montanna), some are not, (RN BB's, new UUS cits, e.t.c.).

 

7 minutes ago, Naughtius_Maximus said:

 

 

There are tiers where people don't bow on because they would prefer to get all guns to bear. It's called low tiers.

 

The best way to fix bow camping is to not eliminate autobounce (we need more defensive options,) but to properly scale firepower.

In low tiers most ships have either balanced dispersion paired with balanced pen, or balanced shell flight time. I say we go back to what works, and model it off either of these two.

These are the two simplest methods to address this.

Shell Flight time:

Friant, the tier 3 French Cruiser I'm getting Doubles for example, has something like 12km range, which is huge at tier 3. Except that it takes something like 13 seconds to travel that far. Just like the USN 5" that is making USN DD gameplay atrocious in high tier, no matter how much you buff other gun properties per tier, the effective range would not grow appreciably.

This is the simplest method to balance gun performance without player revolt (aka whiners all about "muh guns" that turned WoT into a game of lasertag.) Technically you could cit someone in a Yamato at 26km (not that it wasn't rare already,) but with lower tier shell flight time, it's unlikely.

Dispersion:

Basically, don't ever buff dispersion on ships as they grow per tier. End of story. They can get buffs to guns related to hard stats: more guns on the ship (Aoba to Myogi for example,) higher caliber on the ship (more damage and pen,) or different shell use (USN SHS,) but nothing else.

 

The pen and dispersions factors at low tiers do not significantly favour low tiers at all. ou don;t see bow camping for one really simple reason. It's not practical due to a combination of rnage, top speed, differing threat parameters, (a Minekaze is a much more effective means of getting a BB moving than a SHim, the minekaze fires salvo's at 40 second intervals, the shim is 2 minutes plus, the Shima has much greater alpha and DPm in it;s torps, but the minekaze keeps niggling so the enemy can never settle down between salvos).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[-MS-]
Beta Testers
1,458 posts
3,940 battles
43 minutes ago, Izolyn said:

Wasn't able to find it, but I remember a thread by dseehafer that iirc was about a book on the Admiral Hipper class and how it included, amongst other things, suggested angles of approach to various Allied ship classes. As in, angling to protect against the enemy's shells. It also included things like not even bothering with an angle when it came to, say, enemy battleships, because it wouldn't matter. Now, why does all of that sound familiar...?

 

Also, If I'm not mistaken, the point of "crossing the T" was that it allowed one's own ship/fleet to fire the maximum possible guns at the target, while minimizing the number of guns the enemy could fire back at you. Given that this originated in the age of sail, I don't think I've ever seen a proper argument for whether or not it was still, in fact, a thing by the time of WWII (and, if so, why it was still a thing), so I'm gonna have to ask for a citation on whether or not actual WWII-era naval engagements would have cared about such a thing.

 

After all, with the development of these wonderful things called "turrets," it's not like going full broadside was necessary in order to fire all guns at a target. Similarly, WWII-era ships also tended to have rather more firepower capable of pointing straight ahead compared to ships from the age of sail, along with not having the same restrictions on their ability to maneuver while still moving, what with not being dependent on the wind and all, so "crossing the T" would A) not protect you from many of the enemy's guns, and B) not be likely to last very long in any case if it were indeed particularly disadvantageous to the opponent.

Because with the way dispersion works in real life (It's along the Y axis not X like in WOWS) the broad side target is actually smaller. It also presents the up most thickness of armor to the enemy, rather than the thinnest. There is no reality in which 32mm of armor, is adequate to reject shells, even DD guns are capable of ripping through that like tissue paper. In real life, the thicker armor matters the most. Not thin unarmored sections (Yes 32mm and less is considered 'unarmored' in ship design). 
It also still puts the overwhelming majority of your firepower down range, to be broadside or even at a slight angle. Armor surfaces on warships aside were already steeply sloped and angled already to thicken the ships armor. You also in real life can't see the shells incoming. By the time you even hear them they have already impacted the target as well which means shifting your angles like we do in ships, isn't going to actually be a thing. 

 

In any case, WOWS gets ship mechanics and warfare completely and utterly wrong.
I'm sure every Navy in existence worth it's salt got their ship design completely and utterly wrong, and WOWS has it right.. 32 will stop anything but an 18.1" lol, and that more than that actually makes it worse for you as a ship. 
Maybe we should ask the german tanks who came under 14" gunfire from Texas, how well their armor held up because they were "angled". 

Edited by Mavairo
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[KP]
Members
1,992 posts
18,368 battles
5 hours ago, not_acceptable said:

IRL, I was divorced. reality was involved, Washington is a community property state. this translated to me getting all the debt, she got all the assets.

tonite, I played a bunch of battles. I lost most all of them, and there was nothing I could do. I fail to see how this is divorced from reality.

MM is working as intended. RNG is working as intended. if there was problem with dispersion, or any other factor in the game, WG would have fixed it already.

 

Auburn Washington here man. Yeah she got the house, car, kid. Washington is not a good State to divorce in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,989 posts
4,192 battles
16 minutes ago, Carl said:

 

Yeah, the Citadel IRL was anywhere where there was insufficient armour between that point and the boilers/magazines to prevent shell splinters reaching those area's. In general thats everything inside the main belt and below the main armoured deck, on all or nothing sceme's anyway, distributed schemes like Bis it's everything under the turtleback.

 

Some in game cits are historical, (most cruiser cits, Yamato, Bismark, Scharnhorst, Old Iowa/NC/Montanna), some are not, (RN BB's, new UUS cits, e.t.c.).

 

 

The pen and dispersions factors at low tiers do not significantly favour low tiers at all. ou don;t see bow camping for one really simple reason. It's not practical due to a combination of rnage, top speed, differing threat parameters, (a Minekaze is a much more effective means of getting a BB moving than a SHim, the minekaze fires salvo's at 40 second intervals, the shim is 2 minutes plus, the Shima has much greater alpha and DPm in it;s torps, but the minekaze keeps niggling so the enemy can never settle down between salvos).

 

You don't see it in low tiers because you can actually angle with ships in low tiers. Pen and dispersion are so balanced that it is very unlikely you will be cit until well within 7km and flat broadside. It's much more practical to bring out all guns to bear than it is to go bow on for the defense you already get while angled.

As such, you can see opponents well before they are in ideal DPS range and can determine how much DPS you are willing to tolerate in order to enter your own zone of ideal DPS. Versus high tier where as soon as you're lit you can be in critical DPS range of anyone inside 15km (which can include half the enemy team)....except you get lit at 11-14km.

Torpedoes are unrelated to this, but you bring up a good point. They force movement, not cause camping.

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.

×