Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
EA375

Sea conditions vs sight movement

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

22
Members
42 posts

Perhaps WG should factor sea conditions into aiming ability. A rolling or choppy sea would make it more difficult to hit enemy ships. Ship size would also be a factor in apparent movement of the sight . This might cause ships to close quicker, as shorter ranges would be affected less, thus speeding up the game somewhat without changing the maps. Captains would have a new skill to master, and flags could minimize the bounce of the sight.

Edited by EA375
spelling
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[RUST]
Beta Testers
992 posts
11,167 battles

This would make the game not fun and in real ships there are fire control computers to assist with aiming in rough seas anyways

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,614
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,399 posts
10,935 battles

Even in a more simulation focused game the sea state is probably too much detail let alone in an arcade game like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,695
Members
22,445 posts
5,792 battles
2 minutes ago, NCC81701 said:

This would make the game not fun and in real ships there are fire control computers to assist with aiming in rough seas anyways

Don't even need a computer. Just a tilt sensor in the firing circuit, so the guns won't fire until the ship is level.

I wouldn't be surprised if WW1-era ships had some kind of omnidirectional bubble level, and the gunnery officer only gave the order to fire when the bubble was centred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
[JKSDF]
[JKSDF]
Members
1,603 posts
2,491 battles

What would be the point of it though? Just to make aiming harder and giving us a skill mandatory for us to learn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,695
Members
22,445 posts
5,792 battles
11 minutes ago, Submarine_Albacore said:

What would be the point of it though? Just to make aiming harder and giving us a skill mandatory for us to learn?

That's just it. "Fire on the uproll" is an Age of Sail thing.

However they did it, they didn't typically try to compensate for ship movement, just delayed firing a few seconds, until the ship was level.

I realise it's fiction, but the Destroyermen describes that being done on a Wickes-class DD.

All it would do is just lag your firing 0-3 seconds after you hit the button.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
692
[WOLF4]
Members
1,427 posts
3,234 battles

I would love to see the boats get rocked by waves but that would require a lot of people to give up their toasters. It would need to be a newer physics engine. It would be cool though. Maybe in the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,614
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,399 posts
10,935 battles
1 hour ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Operations....

Hermes Storm Effects

In game now and loving it.

Yeah but that is more visibility and how long it lasts after firing

3 minutes ago, xalmgrey said:

I would love to see the boats get rocked by waves but that would require a lot of people to give up their toasters. It would need to be a newer physics engine. It would be cool though. Maybe in the future?

Yeah but that was why the real hit rates were in the low single digits even at relatively short ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,073
[XBRTC]
Members
2,724 posts
8,695 battles

This kind of crap is already pretty much accounted for by the game as it is. You notice how T3 ships have really terrible accuracy and ranges, but things improve dramatically as time goes on? That's why. It's not so much that the guns were incapable of accurately firing at longer ranges, it's that the ship didn't have the ability to control it any more accurately.

Also, that whole sigma thing that people keep talking about? Vertical dispersion, and how it decreases as the ships get more advanced? That's the effect of the ship pitching and rolling, and it gets smaller as gyro-stabilized gun directors and electrical controls get better and better to counteract it.

 

 

 

Edited by LT_Rusty_SWO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,620
[WOLF7]
Members
11,420 posts
1 hour ago, EA375 said:

Perhaps WG should factor sea conditions into aiming ability. A rolling or choppy sea would make it more difficult to hit enemy ships. Ship size would also be a factor in apparent movement of the sight . This might cause ships to close quicker, as shorter ranges would be affected less, thus speeding up the game somewhat without changing the maps. Captains would have a new skill to master, and flags could minimize the bounce of the sight.

Trolling for responses? Don't understand who plays the game? :Smile_smile:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
2,171 posts
9,234 battles

The problem with this is that with the amount of things that can already make aiming hard enough (slow shell speeds or fast moving/juking targets, etc), adding this whole new element to the game suddenly with make things even more complicated. Its just unnecessary for the game. Its a game, not a simulator. 
On top of that, larger ships will be more resistant to waves that might prove difficult for a destroyer or even some cruisers to handle, overall making this a nerf bat to CLs and DDs. Before saying "Just make it effect all ships the same," just think of the BBaby cries about how they're getting thrown off by the slightest waves and then bring out the whole "realism" argument that they just love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,614
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
19,399 posts
10,935 battles
50 minutes ago, Destroyer_ShimakazeChan said:

The problem with this is that with the amount of things that can already make aiming hard enough (slow shell speeds or fast moving/juking targets, etc), adding this whole new element to the game suddenly with make things even more complicated. Its just unnecessary for the game. Its a game, not a simulator. 
On top of that, larger ships will be more resistant to waves that might prove difficult for a destroyer or even some cruisers to handle, overall making this a nerf bat to CLs and DDs. Before saying "Just make it effect all ships the same," just think of the BBaby cries about how they're getting thrown off by the slightest waves and then bring out the whole "realism" argument that they just love.

 

Like I said above, too much detail and would only work if we took the player out of aiming completely where they simply select their target and the computer handles all the details. Although I would probably enjoy a game like that if it was done well but I have been playing tabletop wargames since I was young and CRT's (Combat Results Tables) are normal and I am used to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[HEROS]
Supertester
1,455 posts
5,754 battles

The thing is, this would really only be a "thing" for ships from about T5 (at the highest) and below...  By the time the vertical stable came into play for fire control and automatic control of the gun mounts from a CIC became the norm, the sea state only mattered in extremely rough seas.  Ships with a "Pointer->Follower" system where a gun trainer in the actual gun house had to manually train or elevate the gun to a pointer given to him by the fire control computer had an additional feedback loop that would cause inaccuracy, but ships built in the 1930's and later pretty much went away from this, especially in the USN where everything was basically automated.  It's part of the reason why Taffy 3 was as successful as it was... firing in and out of rain squalls kept the tin cans alive long enough to let the carriers escape and they were apparently very accurate while doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[RNCS]
Members
10 posts
215 battles

Even Ships at Jutland (1916) are firing salvo patterns of 100~200 yars pattern at a range of ~15k yards with the help of non-stabilised director with pointer-the-follower (FTP). To avoid FTP error, director simply stop adjusting a few seconds before firing, let everyone catch up, and wait for the roll to bring the sight on target (then the guns are fired by a gyro (by the end of WW1) or manually (jutland))

With regards to action of Samar, the US DDs have a great combination of radar, Mk 37 director and Mk 1 computer. Allowing constant fire in intermittent visibility. While in the IJN side, only the Yamato have FC radar, which was sitting way back but still engage and hit multiple targets. (The rest of the fleet's performance sucks)

The point is... the greatest difficult of naval gunnery is not the sea state, but the difficulty of getting range by optical range finder. Even automation is less significant than the sheer power of radar to see through smoke and haze. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×