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

Historical Ammunition Levels

94 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

117
[VOP]
Members
402 posts
8,642 battles
16 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

Read what I wrote, carefully...

Your statement: It was done to make DD"s playable:  - Yes, I buy that, no argument here.

All BB's and most CA's and a few CL's didn't actually carry enough ammo to be fully expended over a 20 minute match, but DD's did. So it was possible to run out of torps (duh) but Main Battery as well.  - This is not the case for main battery ammo.

So it was done to make them functional... a lot of things were altered historically to make DD's functional in this game's context. - No argument with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,100 posts
9,864 battles
16 hours ago, daVinci761st said:

 

Aye SavageTactical.

The largest destroyer class ships of WW2 were likely the German Zerstörer 1936A "Mob" and "Narvik", which, fully loaded, displaced between 3,600-3,800 tons. The IJN Akizuki class DDs also displace up to 3,700 tons fully loaded. The largest USN DDs of the war was the Allen M. Sumner class displacing approximately 3,500 tons fully loaded, and towards the end of the war in 1945, the Gearing class, which displaced between 3,400-3,500 tons fully loaded.

As far as the largest cruisers of WW2, not counting battlecruisers, would be the USN heavy cruiser, Baltimore class, which displaced 17,000 tons fully loaded and the German Admiral Hipper class of heavy cruisers, which displaced around 18,500 tons fully loaded.

I looked up the info in my Jane's Fighting Ships of WW2; so, if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. :Smile_teethhappy:

 

Hence my use of the word, “most.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,527
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,953 posts
4,333 battles

I  mean sure you can remove torp reloads but then you encounter a whole new set of issues. 

1. No more torpedo indicator or spotting labels. Just white streaks under water and depending on the propellant used (oxygen for IJN or Navol for USN) you would not see anything. 

2. Large torpedo warhead hits would be quite devastating. Your DD's would be knocked out for the match, pretty much the same for Cruisers, your BB's would prob loose most of their effectiveness due to damage. Most british and USN torpex warheads or any of the late war IJN long lances would be pretty much result in combat ineffective for the rest of the match.  Especially the Aluminum oxide in the torpex warheads that would prolong the shock wave under the keel of the ship causing extreme damage. 

 

concessions were made when torpedoes were given reloads, in the sense that yes you have torpedo reloads.. But you also have GUI and alerts that appear for red spreads, or that the level of damage is not exactly representative of how much damage a torpedo would do in real life.  Its a two way street, you can't just say "Torpedo's dint have reloads in RL" without discussing the other side of that subject. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,480
[5BS]
Members
7,884 posts
40 minutes ago, Airjellyfish said:

All BB's and most CA's and a few CL's didn't actually carry enough ammo to be fully expended over a 20 minute match, but DD's did. So it was possible to run out of torps (duh) but Main Battery as well.  - This is not the case for main battery ammo.

As a few people in this thread have shown, it is in fact possible for DD main battieries to run out of ammo, seemingly averaging out to ~18 minutes of constant firing which, while not practical, is 100% possible in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,767
[SYN]
Members
5,270 posts
12,584 battles
21 hours ago, C_D said:

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

Battles are no longer than 20 minutes, and are often a lot shorter.  Limited ammunition loadouts for naval warships would be pointless.

And yes, you're right:  This isn't a sim.  Far from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
717
[BWC]
Beta Testers
1,478 posts
6,358 battles

 

2 hours ago, Quaffer said:


Well I see no reason that the application of history should be limited to ammunition. Let's make a little list:

  1.     Remove torpedo reloads from the game.  In with the exception of the IJN ships the battle would be over before they can be reloaded.
  2.     Remove turret repair from the game. When a turret is taken out, it's out. Nothing but a shipyard can repair it.
  3.     Same with secondaries.  We should add gun jams too. Of course we could treat killed sailors crewing the gun as jams. Lots of sailors on a naval ship.
  4.     Remove 20% repair parties from the game.  Repair parties can repair 0.2% not 20%.  Buoyancy should be considered as a separate mechanic.
  5.     Use historical data for firing accuracy. Of course your hit percentage will drop like a wrench dropped into the Mariana Trench, but it will be more in keeping with history. If radar or range finders are damaged your shells dispersion triples in size.  Oh they will still cluster together, But the center of the pattern will move about the area of an imaginary ellipse. Annie Oakley we are not.
  6.     Remove engine repair from the game.  It takes hours to repair a boiler and a shipyard to repair a turbine.  An up and downer (reciprocating steam engine), well is it a cylinder and piston or the crank shaft?  Either way you won't get it fixed before the battle is over. Fairs fair. Losing an engine only reduces your power to reflect the number of engine rooms you have left. We could be nice and ignore the drag of the non rotating prop. Don't know how many engine rooms your ship has? Count the props. The navy loves redundant systems. Don't worry, the reds will try to take them all out. One at a time.
  7.     Remove rudder repair from the game.  You're not getting that fixed in time either. Fixing your rudder will only give you 1/4 of your rudder travel.  Battle repairs are kluges. You're not swapping out a light bulb. If we were nasty we could randomize which 1/4 of the full arc you have to work with.
  8.     Carriers had to be moving at full speed to launch and recover aircraft.  Into the wind by the way.
  9.     Ships could make smoke pretty much anytime and as long as they want.  Let's have that.
  10.     Game time is way too compressed.  The game plays like speed boats and machine guns more than Naval Warfare.

 

Sounds like fun.  Let's do it.

 

Paraphrased from an earlier post.

 

You forgot the chance to capsize if the ship turns too hard. Have to have realism, after all, and ballast was one of those pesky things to go once a ship had a hole or two where it wasn't built to have them.

 

Edited by Jakob_Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,703
Supertester, Alpha Tester
6,051 posts

Yes well, when the metacentric height gets too small, bad things happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,171
[HINON]
Supertester, Alpha Tester
2,562 posts
4,805 battles
20 hours ago, YeOldeTraveller said:

Air Operations are conducted facing into the wind and with significant way on.

You gain margin which is important at all times.

Also, even if the catapults negate the need for launch, you need to the into the wind for recovery.

agreed, for in game carriers.

To my knowledge, only one carrier type has never cared about wind direction and that was the british carriers in the Falklands with Sea Harriers..  however even then they preferred "into the wind launches and landings" as it cut down on the amount of fuel used if they could "ski-jump" off rather than go vertical and "bounce" land rather than vertical.  However if tactical considerations made an "into-wind" operation unadvisable, then they "could" steam in any direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[VOP]
Members
402 posts
8,642 battles
1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

As a few people in this thread have shown, it is in fact possible for DD main battieries to run out of ammo, seemingly averaging out to ~18 minutes of constant firing which, while not practical, is 100% possible in game.

 

Your statement:

All BB's and most CA's and a few CL's didn't actually carry enough ammo to be fully expended over a 20 minute match, but DD's did. So it was possible to run out of torps (duh) but Main Battery as well.

 

I agree for the DD part, not what you said about the BBs and cruisers. Maybe a slight rephrasing to clarify your point:

All BB's and most CA's and a few CL's did actually carry enough ammo which would not be fully expended over a 20 minute match, but DD's didn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,323 posts
13,078 battles

BB would have to stop or at least slow down to have their catapult planes picked up from the ocean, and with the crew on deck doing this you could not fire its main guns.

If using AA guns you would not be able to be on deck while firing your main guns in a BB

If DD torps were subject to only 1 reload, then no torpedo indicators to show in the water, other than a trail of bubbles, or later on there was nothing. lead indicator to be removed as well from the DD.

If a BB is torpedoed, make it so it would list, and therefore her guns couldn't fire due to the amount of angle the ship might be at.

Smoke times should be the same regardless of nation, there should be a slider indicator like the horn that tells you your duration of smoke that you have put out so you can vary the amount of time your smoke lasts

There are so many things in this game that are not real life, and to make it work they make changes, or add or subtract from a ship for balance, if they didn't do this we wouldn't have a game at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,007
[TDRB]
Members
3,069 posts
9,302 battles
Quote

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

The last battleships built carried 100-120 rounds per main gun. I read somewhere there was 250 to 300 rounds for the main guns on US DD's & DE's. I could not find that site. I saw where it is claim IJN DD's carried one reload per tube. So a ship with 10 tubes would have 20 torpedoes. One thing for sure is they couldn't spam torpedoes as we see many do in this game.

WG takes Hollywood style of "adjusting the facts" to balance game play. The Bismark took 3 torpedo hits, the British fired 700 rounds at close range and the Germans scuttled the ship to sink it. This is after the Battle of Denmark Strait. The Yamato took numerous bomb & torpedo hits to sink. These were much improved bombs & torpedoes used at the end of WW2.  The British lost the Royal Oak  while anchored to 3 torpedoes. She was a WW1 BB. The Italian BB were anchored as were the US BB's at Pearl Harbor. My point being a BB at sea is not an easy ship to sink. You do not have a balance in ships in the real world as you must have in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,480
[5BS]
Members
7,884 posts
1 hour ago, Airjellyfish said:

I agree for the DD part, not what you said about the BBs and cruisers. Maybe a slight rephrasing to clarify your point:

Let me put it expressly:

No BB in the game carried so *little* amount of ammunition that it could run out of ammo firing constantly for 20 minutes

No CA in the game carried so *little* amount of ammunition that it could run out of ammo firing constantly for 20 minutes

A *few* CL's (Minotaur for example) did NOT carry enough ammunition to fire constantly for 20 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
287
[A-D-F]
Members
918 posts
7,275 battles
On 5/15/2018 at 10:26 AM, C_D said:

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

Probably dumped early on in conceptualizing. Limited torps make DD's far less powerful/attractive to play.

On 5/15/2018 at 10:29 AM, awiggin said:

Never going to happen. The player base would never tolerate it....

It's a faster(ish) paced video game based on warships, not a sim.

On 5/15/2018 at 10:29 AM, Poharan said:

The torpedo thing alone would absolutely destroy the game's balance.

Basically only the IJN would be able to reload torps, and they'd only do so once.

It would be a totally different game.

true. Not many folks would want to spend an hour in a more simulation style game just getting into position to torp a target, only to get blapped.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[NFW]
Members
49 posts
1,107 battles
On 5/15/2018 at 10:29 AM, MokrieDela said:

you mean it doesnt feel realistic when a 20k ton destroyer shoots 120k tons of torps during a game

 

Would love to see this as a battle option, ranked or otherwise. Base ships only with realistic ammo supply facing each other. Not something I would want as default but as a special battle mode... good fun

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
369
[P-V-E]
Members
1,227 posts

they could limit HE on BB's, as many BB's only carried a token number of HE/HC shells per main gun, unless they were expressly going out doing shore bombardment duties, and there were BB's that carried no HE whatsoever for their main guns for part or most of ww2.

 

this would fix some of the HE spam problems, as HE shells then would be finite.

 

or they could implement a couple of possible shell load-out you can select under consumables or modules.

infinite AP + 5HE shells per main gun.

infinite HE + 5AP shells per main gun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[VOP]
Members
402 posts
8,642 battles
3 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

Let me put it expressly:

No BB in the game carried so *little* amount of ammunition that it could run out of ammo firing constantly for 20 minutes

No CA in the game carried so *little* amount of ammunition that it could run out of ammo firing constantly for 20 minutes

A *few* CL's (Minotaur for example) did NOT carry enough ammunition to fire constantly for 20 minutes.

I do not disagree with your points.  In reference to your earlier post, I agree to try to read more clearly if you also try to write more clearly (initially).  Agreed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,551
[WOLF9]
Privateers
10,657 posts
4,371 battles
3 hours ago, Algraxa said:

Would love to see this as a battle option, ranked or otherwise. Base ships only with realistic ammo supply facing each other. Not something I would want as default but as a special battle mode... good fun

I would like to see it too, but  ... ooo!  Here's an idea!  Have the mode pre-allocate a realistic fleet, like 2 BB, 1 CA, 2 CL, and 8 DD (maybe all from same nation).  Then randomly assign queued players to the ships.  A player might not really want to play a (by current standards) castrated DD, but he stands an equal chance of playing a BB.  And he might get to play a ship he doesn't own (something I enjoy in PT).

This has possibilities!

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[SEOP]
Members
1,529 posts
8,233 battles
22 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

I would like to see it too, but  ... ooo!  Here's an idea!  Have the mode pre-allocate a realistic fleet, like 2 BB, 1 CA, 2 CL, and 8 DD (maybe all from same nation).  Then randomly assign queued players to the ships.  A player might not really want to play a (by current standards) castrated DD, but he stands an equal chance of playing a BB.  And he might get to play a ship he doesn't own (something I enjoy in PT).

This has possibilities!

 

Yeah.  I'd rather see this kind of approach to potential game mode changes.  Or also modes where its all DDs in a match...or all CAs in a matche...or All BB matches in randoms.  Or 4 or 5 CA\CL and the balance is DDs.  That sort of mix up in randoms.

The game mode changes that WG is currently considering -- shrinking repair zone(?) and etc -- all seem a little to odd for my tastes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,529
[WOLF3]
Members
21,668 posts
19,914 battles

You do not want Realism for your Naval Arcade Game, OP.  "Reality" in Naval Warfare is harsh, unfair, and totally unforgiving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×