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

Suggestion - Orientation Impact on Accuracy

Yay or Nay?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Is this idea sensible?

    • The problem isn't even a problem
      2
    • There is a problem, this isn't a good solution
      0
    • There is a problem, this is a reasonable idea
      6
    • I hate you OP!
      0
    • Bacon
      4

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,499 posts
14,074 battles

This game is not a sim. This game is only loosely based on historic accuracy, and just because it's historic doesn't mean it should happen.

Conversely, some things in this game are somewhat out of balance and if there was something with a historic/science justification and if it improved balance, maybe it has value? I've been mulling a suggestion for a while, which I've finally put together. 

 

Point the First - Shooting Accuracy Varied Depending on Firing Ship Orientation

Historically the controls on accurately delivery fire to ships where point blank range was still measured in miles were many and varied. Range is obviously a key one, and is reflected in game. The shape of the dispersion ellipse is another, though it's poorly understood.

In addition to these factors rangefinders, orientation and conditions would all vary accuracy. Some examples are shown below:

9iK0m6n.jpg

In this (extreme) example we see the British designed Gadjah Mada's arrangement. She has a single rangefinder aft of the bridge, immediately behind it is the tripod mast, and then the funnel. Originally the JKN class had the aftermost turret pointed forward with a blind arc astern - no point in being able to point the gun that way if the director can barely see there, and will be full of smoke even if it can - plus we're the Royal Navy, we do the chasing!

YXaMxd3.jpg

Even in this example with a ship equipped with fore and aft rangefinders the primary system is higher (and in some cases is wider so has better resolution) so shooting astern would potentially be less accurate.

To summarize:

  • Rangefinders/Directors may not be historically capable of ranging in certain zones
  • Secondary rangefinders may be used in some angles
  • Smoke and hot gasses will typically trail behind a ship moving forward at 30kts - it takes a good chunk of wind to clear
  • Your own gun smoke may impede your vision behind the ship
  • Rangefinders on turrets may be unimpeded, but are lower, potentially inferior and subject to spray
  • Radar isn't universal or a cure-all

 

Point the Second - Kiting is Incredibly Strong

Kiting - moving away from a target, encouraging them to pursue you and having an easier time shooting them is nothing new to gaming, however, World of Warships exacerbates this by having extraordinarily long flight times for shells (for a game) and also plays with ship and game speed a fair amount.

For instance, ships travel approximately 5.25 times faster in-game than the indicated speed in knots - look at your end of battle screen and it's typical to note 100km traveled in 20 minutes - clearly you're not doing 30kt!

In addition shell flight times are compressed too. For instance, in-game Des Moines can put a shell on a target 15km away with a 10s flight time, a 'theoretical' average speed of 1,500ms. Given that the projectile leaves the gun at only 823m/s and will both slow down and take a longer ballistic route than the crow flies, there is clearly some factor. Navweaps has a shell flight time to 9,140m of 14.7s, in game that's more like 5.1s - therefore it seems that the shell flight times are approximately 3x shorter (or the shells fly 3x faster) than you'd expect.

Because shell flight times in-game are comparatively long (allowing dodging) and because the shell flight time is accelerated by less than the ship speed the retiring ship has a greater advantage than historically and a huge one in game.

kZNkgCy.png

In the example above of a pair of Des Moines, each doing 30kt in a straight the fleeing ship will move approximately (at an in-game speed of 30kt x 5.25 = 81m/s) 810m and a total range of about 16km will be required (during the extra 1s of flight time the ship will again move another 80m or so - I can't be bothered to do the math properly. Flight time will total about 11.2s.

The chasing ship will move closer to the fleeing ship in the same period, by about 810m, and a shell flight time to 14.2km will be about 9.4s. The pursuing ship has to account for an extra 20% longer flight times compared to the fleeing ship, giving the fleeing ship 20% longer to dodge and also changing the dispersion coefficient - because he's shooting an extra 2km dispersion which increases linearly with range will suffer.

Now for context historically in the same example in 10s the ships would only be moving at 15ms, and during the historic shell flight time for a DM to 15km of about 30s the target would only move about half as far in the game.

Thus kiting is stronger.

Pursuing disadvantages you.

Pushing disadvantages you.

Battleships camp at the back (who am I kidding, we will anyway...)

Brawling is discouraged.

 

Conclusion

Given that the community generally seems to be supporting of pushing and advancing, and given the endless complaints of camping, static T10 gameplay etc. etc. maybe we could nudge people in the right direction with some (historically justifiable) changes. Change your sigma relative to the orientation you're firing your guns in, perhaps like so:

ywTI8ep.jpg

In this case any ship headed forwards (toward the enemy) has a slight advantage, and any ship moving away a slight disadvantage (I selected slight 0.1 shifts to sigma as a baseline, either a sigma or dispersion buff of some kind is suggested, the exact limits would require testing). You will be discouraged from kiting. Also note that a ship moving astern will count it's physical bow arcs as it's stern director arcs - so a bow camping Yamato/Iowa etc will be disadvantaged - you can see the smoke streaming forward when the ship reverses.

I should also note that this would be a balance change, it would for instance favor Gearing over Shimakaze (and IJN DD's with their rearward concentrated firepower maybe in general) however, kiting would still be strong and the Gearing might be encouraged to push when maybe he shouldn't - that said, a 0.2 shift in sigma on DD's which have tight dispersion, shoot at close range and have native 2.0 isn't necessarily a big deal). French cruisers which spend the whole time running would be encouraged to maneuver more dynamically or ultimately slightly disadvantaged, then again all cruisers have 2.0 or 2.05 native sigma.

Small poll attached - is this idea, or a modification of it something which might be worth including in-game?

Edited by mofton
Pics
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,882
[HINON]
Privateers, Privateers
6,798 posts
4,869 battles

It sounds interesting, though a lot of vessels have aft rangefinders and most stand alone guns/superfiring guns have rangefinders on the turrets themselves.

 

I dunno....I don't dislike this idea...but it also doesn't make too much in the sense of game mechanics. I guess I am ambivalent on this idea.

 

Fair winds and following seas Mofton! :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
Members
343 posts
6,782 battles

While I think you make some very valid points, I don't see either of them being implemented by WG.

 

Now, if you had a gimmick like DWTs for the next "national flavor", that would be another story! :Smile_child:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,759
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

I'm not qualified to answer this question. Kiting isn't a thing in CoOp. ;)

 

What you're saying, though, sounds reasonable enough. I'm picking up what you're putting down, so to speak.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,650
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,453 posts

Even in WWII, ships of the destroyer class and larger had fire-control computers. Several factors were programmed in, including projectile weight and powder charge, surface and high altitude temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, wind direction and velocity, ship speed and heading, as well as the heading, range, and speed of the target.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,281 posts
6,153 battles

Ships, relative to the time compression, enter turns slower than they historically did. Yamato, IIRC, took 45 seconds to enter a hard-over turn, while in the game she takes 23 seconds for rudder shift, probably a bit more to actually enter the turn, more than half compared to the 1/3 reduction in flight times. So they're not really dodgier than they were historically.

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.

×