Check & Balance Thread ~ Before & After WoWs Release

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

As we continue to engage the developers in a healthy exchange with questions for answers, my Access database has bloated to epic proportions.  On the topic of data, there are patterns that were being stored without a baseline to compare them with.  Shortly before my vacation, comparing random answers with historical archives, the data is relatively the same--but without declination.

 

Let me defer for a moment to the scope of the Q&A and FAQ threads, that they provide data purported by WG as their take on historical data.  This bakes the question, 'What is this source?'  And as we have all experienced vivid representations of tanks & airplanes, now we have eye-candy for warships.  Yet, there is still the consideration of the authenticity of said data.  This is not to say that the source is untrusted, or not peer-reviewed, since WG has clearly stated this is not a simulation, nonetheless, WG maintains the creativity to forge the game along an 'arcade' style game model.  We got that.

 

However, a large cross section of the questions illicit the same rhetoric from KGB, that algorithms will reflect 'historical data'.  So, this bakes the question that without the stated source, the fans might want to weigh in--post their own peer-reviewed sources.

 

Keep in mind that this thread is not a debate, or rant of the answers provided by WG, not at all.  It is a thread where the fans may post what they suspect are historical sources for various aspects of the game, that by the measure WG has purported to value, we can look back at this thread and do a 'check & balance', to evaluate the consistency of the baseline with the actual game algorithms.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

My first concern regarding the initial fleets being developed, that of the IJN and USN, is the data whereby suicide bombers will be reflected by WG.  [Reference begins below this]

 

Chapter III

Enemy Tactics

http://www.history.n...cattack-4-7.jpg

High Altitude attack

It is difficult to describe a "typical" suicide attack. No two are exactly alike, the only thing each has in common being either the plane's crash into a ship or its "splash" as a result of AA. or interception by friendly fighters.

 

To analyze enemy suicide tactics, attacks, as described in action reports, are given here in their various component parts:

 

The Approach

 

The approach of suicide planes is characterized by tactics designed to take advantage of the weaknesses of our search radar equipment. These tactics are in general as follows:

• Flying at altitudes exceeding 20,000 feet to make best use of radar null areas, or flying very low over water to avoid early detection.

• Making a series of dives and climbs, rarely flying a straight course when within 40 miles of the target ships.

• Approaching from over the nearest land. Nearly all approaches except those against fast carrier task groups have been of this nature.

• Trailing in the shadow of the IFF of friendly planes returning to their bases.

• Using a variety of IFF of their own.

• Approaching in small groups from different bearings and at different altitudes to increase the radar interception problem.

Besides avoiding radar, suicide planes make every effort to evade CAP. They use independent evasive tactics, employing cloud cover whenever possible and making every effort to fly over or under friendly fighter patrols.

 

It is believed that suicide planes are accompanied by radar-equipped control planes, which vector the suicide pilots to our ships from a long range.

 

When the high altitude approach is used, suicide pilots select their targets from a long range, and show no hesitancy in making the attack after reaching the push-over point.

 

Maximum speed is employed frequently by suicide pilots, using a power glide from long distances when approaching at high altitudes; however, instances are on record where dive flaps have been used to restrict speed and increase accuracy.

 

http://www.history.n...attack-4-17.jpg

Japanese suicide plane hit while diving on USS Natoma Bay (CVE-62)

http://www.history.n...attack-4-18.jpg

suicide plane trying to crash USS Natoma Bay (CVE-62) after being hit.

http://www.history.n...attack-4-19.jpg

suicide plane crashing in water just aft of USS Natoma Bay (CVE-62)

Reference: Navy Department Library Special Collections, COMINCH P-009, [DECLASSIFIED] SECRET, Antiaircraft Action Summary

[madmanthan21]

no suicide bombers, KGB said so ( think)

[Crag_r]

madmanthan21, on 27 December 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

no suicide bombers, KGB said so ( think)

Yep it was said no kamikazes, mostly because they were a land based force so have little place in game.

Mind you i don't actually mind having them in game once i get a British Aircraft Carrier
"When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of 'Sweepers, man your brooms.'”  :Smile_trollface:

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

My concern is the null zone above 20,000 feet.  Will WG model radar along established historical data, whereby aerial patrols and/or bombers may operate without being detected.  The second concern is the low approach detection ranges for aerial torpedo attacks.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

"The inability of antiaircraft guns to hit high flying planes or at least to down them with any degree of success was proved in tests before the war. With the development of electronics, electronic fire control systems, and the perfection of the proximity fuse early in World War II, the picture reversed and anti-aircraft gun fire became a very effective weapon and added new life to the battleship."

 

Reference: Navy Department Library Special Collections, The Naval Bombing Experiments Off the Virginia Capes June and July 1921, By Vice Admiral Alfred W. Johnson, Ret. 1959

[NagatoroHayase]

I assume things will be close to historically true, at least until they add the Russian tree  :Smile_trollface:

 

Joking, all things considered I would like to see how things turn out too once the game is released. Because I see KGB deflect that everything will "reflect historical data," which to me seems nothing more than saying "I can't say" or "I have no idea."

[nixxxie]

C'mon, it's a game, don't count on reality. One example from WoT: have you ever seen track repaired from inside of the tank? And in 30seconds?

[redivan]

nixxxie, on 27 December 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

C'mon, it's a game, don't count on reality. One example from WoT: have you ever seen track repaired from inside of the tank? And in 30seconds?

but those are two aspects that have to be different because if it was accurate the game would be so much slower. Could you imagine waiting for people to get out of the tank unpack their tools start working and disassembling components and then repairing or replacing parts and eventually reassembling the tracks? People would qq whenever they got tracked. Features like that do not bother me because they are minor and being accurate or historical is pointless. For me as long as the weapons, speeds, and damage are relatively accurate I'm happy.

[ForcestormX]

t42592, on 27 December 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

"The inability of antiaircraft guns to hit high flying planes or at least to down them with any degree of success was proved in tests before the war. With the development of electronics, electronic fire control systems, and the perfection of the proximity fuse early in World War II, the picture reversed and anti-aircraft gun fire became a very effective weapon and added new life to the battleship."

Reference: Navy Department Library Special Collections, The Naval Bombing Experiments Off the Virginia Capes June and July 1921, By Vice Admiral Alfred W. Johnson, Ret. 1959

The question is, how much of that will we see

[sgtpepper500]

ForcestormX, on 27 December 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

The question is, how much of that will we see

Guess we will have to wait and see.

[nixxxie]

redivan, on 27 December 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

but those are two aspects that have to be different because if it was accurate the game would be so much slower. Could you imagine waiting for people to get out of the tank unpack their tools start working and disassembling components and then repairing or replacing parts and eventually reassembling the tracks? People would qq whenever they got tracked. Features like that do not bother me because they are minor and being accurate or historical is pointless. For me as long as the weapons, speeds, and damage are relatively accurate I'm happy.

That's what i said. And it wasn't "minor" - can you imagine that being tracked in ww2 battlefield IRL didn't conclude in "unpacking tools"? That it was a major screwup, like "next hit and we are all gone", and that next hit was coming in a few seconds, because they were already successfully targeted and hit once? Nobody thought of repairing that track under fire - which is a piece of heavy work in safe conditions anyway, especially if driver hadn't been extra proficient and drove of said track.
And that's only one example.
So, reality should not bother you in any case, including historical data and parameters of ships (as it is with tanks too).

[International_Barfighter]

I agree, I think that worrying about radar intercept ranges for the planes is akin to worrying about the accuracy of arty in WoT.  Yeah, they may not be historically accurate, but it makes it more playable.  Also, since weather will not likely be a true factor concerning visibility, aircraft would be OP if they couldn't be detected at altitude.  A huge factor in the war was that any type of weather required lower flight in order to find the ships, which exposed the aircraft.  Think of a lack of altitude-limited AA as compensation for permanently clear weather.

[Sampsonite]

I want some historical accuracy, the same as all of you but, This game will DRAG if there is too much of it.  Some of this stuff takes a long time to happen. Shells at max ranges took as much as 1.5 min to get to their targets. Bombs falling from 20,000 ft take more than 2 min to hit the ground. Reload times for battleships are in the 30 sec range which made this time the fastest. I'm wondering how all of this will be balanced out and not have a game that takes 2 hrs to fight one engagement between 2 ships. Also the navies of the world were NOT equal so some will be way OP over others. To make it fair you may actually have to take some of that historical accuracy away.(did i just support nerfing?)

[Super_Dreadnought]

You didn't support nerfing imho. You supported balance and not letting the mighty soviet fleet roflstomp everyone for the glory of mother russia.

[Wunderwaffen1945]

They need to stick to reallity but also ad some things that would maybe make game better

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

Another consideration will be the field of fire for each and every gun mount, and how WG will develop these limitations.  Being historically accurate will give warship captains and aerial combat squadrons that edge to exploit.  Certain guns will be applicable depending on the enemy threat, while other guns will not be able to engage, unless that threat moves into that field of fire.

 

Take notice of the reduced gun trains aft and stern, whereby these area are more advantageous to exploit.  Will WG follow these limitations, or will AA batteries have 'arcade' creativity with gun trains at 180 degrees port and starboard?

 

 

[Reference begins after this]

 

EQUIPMENT AIDS TO TARGET DESIGNATION

 

Some special devices and equipments which have been used to obtain CIC information have been of help. A device recently suggested by DesPac [Destroyers Pacific Fleet] is of help to the gunnery liaison officer in CIC. This disk shows sector coverage of all ship’s guns. When it is rotated to true bearing of the ship’s heading, the gunnery officer can quickly determine in what gun sectors the attack is approaching.

 

This Gun Train Indicator is made with two bearing circles. The inner circle revolves and indicates the arc of train of all guns. With the ship’s head on true bearing and the movable arm on target bearing, the number of guns which can bear is shown by the arm.

 

http://www.history.n...s/cictargp3.jpg

 

Reference: Navy Department Library Special Collections, Target Information, CIC [Combat Information Center] 2, no.6 (June 1945): 1-3

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

My next concern is effective ranges for ship-to-air engagements.  The scope of this consideration will be the maximum effective range of AA gun mounts in regard to maximum elevation and depression.

 

[Reference begins after this]

 

http://www.history.n...attack-4-11.jpg

 

http://www.history.n...attack-4-10.jpg

 

http://www.history.n...attack-4-12.jpg

 

 

Reference: Navy Department Library Special Collections, COMINCH P-009, [DECLASSIFIED] SECRET, Antiaircraft Action Summary

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

Another concern is how WG will conduct radar sweeps for the 'arcade' creativity shema.  Will players have the AI perform 360 degree detection, or will radar use follow USN reference below, whereby search patterns were conducted with regard to a narrow search window.

 

[Reference begins after this]

 

AA. Coordination Plan.

 

Fire Control Radar Search

• Ships may search at discretion, covering their own sectors as thoroughly as practicable and will track contacts in their assigned sector.

• Search with AA. fire control radars will be conducted using 20° antennae elevation with Lobing "On." Main battery radars may be used for low altitude search.

• When searching, the sector should be covered at approximately one minute intervals.

• Contacts will be reported on the AA. coordination circuit, giving call of ship reporting and the bearing, range, and altitude. All bearings will be true bearings. Amplifying reports will be made when further information is available.

Reference: Navy Department Library Special Collections, COMINCH P-009, [DECLASSIFIED] SECRET, Antiaircraft Action Summary, Task Group 58.1 -- (Rear Adm. R. W. Radford, Commander)

[International_Barfighter]

You obviously have researched this well, but if we apply the logic of World of Tanks, I doubt it will be a huge factor.  They built range adjustments into the sights in WoT, so I imagine they will do something like that for WoWS.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) will be my final entry for today.  Consider that the technology available would interrogate every contact equally, it was encumbant upon the CIC to determine IFF so as to communicate to the gunnery verified threats.  And while the game mechanics will undoutedly trump this concern, as in World of Tanks and World of Warplanes, the undeniable fact here is AA fire at a threat in the vicinity of friendly aircraft is conceivable.

 

[Reference begins after this]

 

"By combining the suicide dive with the lessons gained in past actions and a careful analysis of our defensive system, particularly our use of radar, the

Japanese have developed the latest and most threatening problem that has yet confronted the U.S. Navy. The evasive-approach suicide attack shows not only the fanatical mind of the Japanese, but what is far more dangerous, the application by the pilots and operations personnel of a complete understanding of radar and the complexities of air defense and air control. Specifically they have demonstrated an understanding of the following principles:

• That a small group of planes attracts far less attention than a large group on a radar screen.

• That an attack group approaching above or near returning strikes, which invariably straggle all over the skies in small groups, is very difficult to detect.

• That if a bogie is at the same range, but 5 to 10 degrees off in bearing from a friendly, the average operator will have great difficulty in detecting the bogie, and when he checks each of the numerous straggling strike groups so carefully that he can tell a bogie in their midst, the radar is able to do very little searching.

• That a bogie at the same range and bearing but vastly different altitude from a friendly appears as a friendly.

• That multiplicity of small targets is one of the weaknesses of any radar system or, for that matter, of any defense system.

• That altitude has always been a weak point in radar defense, and that although the SM can hold a target and give accurate altitude on it, a number of small targets changing altitude and course are extremely difficult to track and obtain continuous correct altitude.

• That we search with one type of radar set and, finding a target, try to coach the Fighter Director Set (SM) onto the target for evaluation, altitude, and tracking if necessary.

• That by approaching very high in fast power glide from long range, the radars are given a particularly difficult problem, both by lack of altitude estimates on the SK-SC and by being continuously in the null area of some sets.

• That the use by the enemy of dull black planes for these attacks makes visual sighting most difficult.

 

"The use by enemy of an IFF that looks like Mark III Code 1, 2, or 3 is definitely established. The possibility of the enemy using planes with the outstanding silhouette characteristics of the F6F should not be overlooked."

 

The problem of search for fighter direction and tactical purposes differs from that of search for AA. requirements. The former requires early detection at the maximum possible range. The AA. problem, however, commences at 15 mile At night, with relatively few planes in the air and reduced fighter direction demands, considerable success has been had in coordinating the two problems. In suicide actions, however, the concentration of friendly planes, the non-cooperative tactics of the Japanese, the frequent proximity to land and the demands of fighter direction result in CIC providing little assistance in establishing fire control contact in a large majority of the cases. Although no single typical case can be presented the experience of TG 77.2 well illustrates the situation:--  

 

"At 1702 the ship went to General Quarters upon receipt of report of bogie, bearing 270 degrees (T), distance 45 miles, closing the formation. The bogie was tracked in from 75 miles to 45 miles, where it was lost in geographic returns from the area. The Army CAP was vectored to intercept and later reported shooting down one twin-engined plane.

 

"At 1715 visual reports were received of enemy planes overhead, in the sun.

 

"At 1716 an enemy plane, believed to have been a twin-engined Lily or Frances, was sighted by this ship's lookouts, coming out of the sun at about 8,000 feet, parallel to the course of the formation. The plane was taken under fire by 40mm. batteries from U.S.S. NEW MEXICO. Less than 5 seconds later the plane had peeled off into a dive on opposite course coming in over the port bow of the Ommaney Bay in a dive of 45 degrees. The plane struck the ship on the starboard side of the flight deck, just aft of the island structure."

 

(NOTE:-At 220 knots this raid would be over the formation at 1715.)

 

Extensive comment has been made on the deficiencies of existing equipment for short range and high angle search. Many specific recommendations have also been received for better utilization of existing equipment, principally in the employment of fire control radar to augment the existing search coverage.

 

 

Reference: Navy Department Library Special Collections, COMINCH P-009, [DECLASSIFIED] SECRET, Antiaircraft Action Summary, Task Force 38 -- (Vice Adm. J. S. McCain, Commander)

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

+1 Agreed.  My concern is the gun elevation/depression, not so much the sighting ranges similar to WoT, and how WG will mirror these limitations with overhead aerial threats.  Consider a patrol aloft above the effective range of ship-born weapons, along with no friendly aircraft umbrella to speak of.  Will these patrols be able to report surface contacts, remain on station circling, or will WG equalize this by extending surface radar capabilities--and AA effective ranges.

 

ADDENDUM:

 

I will be sorely disappointed if WoWs turns into another NF, where any and all aerial targets are stupid enough to patrol at altitudes within range of AA, where visibility is not a factor.

 

International_Barfighter, on 28 December 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

You obviously have researched this well, but if we apply the logic of World of Tanks, I doubt it will be a huge factor.  They built range adjustments into the sights in WoT, so I imagine they will do something like that for WoWS.

[Super_Dreadnought]

t42592, on 28 December 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

I will be sorely disappointed if WoWs turns into another NF, where any and all aerial targets are stupid enough to patrol at altitudes within range of AA, where visibility is not a factor.

So you wish to be turned into swiss cheese by aircraft you cannot shoot down? :Smile_trollface:

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

Patrol aircraft at an altitude such as 10,000 feet, even say 20,000 feet would be hard pressed to drop a bomb and hit anything with accuracy.  The mathmatical probability of hitting a ship, even an aircraft carrier, at these heights is as likely as me tossing a rock from the top of the Empire State Building and hitting a bystander I aimed at.  While it's possible, it isn't likely.  Still, while I can make out that bystander as a speck below, aircraft reporting targets on the surface should not be compromised by WG countering the law of mathmatical probablility of downing aircraft at these heights.  That's the consideration, not the exception, all things being equal.

[nixxxie]

Is this a friend or a foe? Sir, we have problem with identification!

 

http://www.cartooncl...n-Design-04.gif

 

Non-constructive

Warn Issued

 

~Lt_Hunter