Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
twoodall

realism, visual range

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
6 posts
1,876 battles

If this game is meant to be realistic, why then cant I see a destroyer at 10km, which is the standard range for torpedoes?

I was in the Navy, and on a clear day on the lee, I could see clearly, from the bridge of a battleship, the USS Alabama at port to be specific,  fishing boats at 12 nautical miles. That's almost 24 km. A destroyer is 2 to 4 times the size of a fishing boat. The crows nest is usually twice the altitude above the main deck as the bridge, which would extent visual range to at least 16 to 17 NM, or 32 to 35 km, haze not withstanding. In an aircraft, on a clear day, visibility of 10 NM is standard, at any altitude, which is still 20km.

I am tired of getting torped by destroyers I never see. This is [edited], because there's NO WAY YOU CANT SEE A SHIP OF ANY SIZE AT 10KM. That's 5 miles. 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,305
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,250 battles

the game is time/distance/speed scaled and there is a simulated horizon that makes ships appear and disappear from sight. If you want simulator realism you are in the wrong place.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,247
[-RNG-]
Supertester
2,906 posts
3,946 battles
2 minutes ago, twoodall said:

If this game is meant to be realistic

It's not. It was never was intended to be realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29,146
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,478 posts
16,267 battles

This game was never meant to be realistic, but the concealment system is on of the more realistic nods. The earth is curved and horizon is a concept that exists, the ship concealment system is an attempt to simulate that on a flat plane.

  • Cool 2
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,247
[-RNG-]
Supertester
2,906 posts
3,946 battles
29 minutes ago, twoodall said:

They try awful hard to make everything else realistic. 

1150798058_image(38).thumb.jpg.2a46bf065b85408419c30723ebca2d48.jpg

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,630
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
12,500 posts
18,037 battles
52 minutes ago, twoodall said:

If this game is meant to be realistic

It would be very different, but it's not. Deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6 posts
1,876 battles
2 hours ago, Lert said:

This game was never meant to be realistic, but the concealment system is on of the more realistic nods. The earth is curved and horizon is a concept that exists, the ship concealment system is an attempt to simulate that on a flat plane.

An object with an altitude of 5 feet disappears at 5 miles over the horizon. So, a bridge, like on a battleship, at roughly 150 ft above sea level, would have a horizon at 17 nautical miles. about 33 km., but an object with an altitude at 50 ft above sea level, like a destroyer,  can, theoretically, be seen by the bridge of the battleship at 25 nautical miles, about 50 km. You can see a periscope from the bridge of a destroyer at 7 to 8 nautical miles. The concealment system you speak of, is the most unrealistic of any game I have ever played.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29,146
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,478 posts
16,267 battles
2 minutes ago, twoodall said:

An object with an altitude of 5 feet disappears at 5 miles over the horizon. So, a bridge, like on a battleship, at roughly 150 ft above sea level, would have a horizon at 17 nautical miles. about 33 km., but an object with an altitude at 50 ft above sea level, like a destroyer,  can, theoretically, be seen by the bridge of the battleship at 25 nautical miles, about 50 km. You can see a periscope from the bridge of a destroyer at 7 to 8 nautical miles. The concealment system you speak of, is the most unrealistic of any game I have ever played.

More unrealistic than set hitpoints, magic all-fires-are-now-out buttons, radar through islands, etc. No, something being scaled differently from RL in a game where everything is scaled differently from RL is the most unrealistic of any game ever? Wow. I mean - .... Wow. I know people like to exaggerate for emphasis, but this is just on a whole new level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29,146
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,478 posts
16,267 battles
3 minutes ago, twoodall said:

So, what exactly do you think I exaggerated on?

That the simple act of distance scaling for gameplay pacing is 'the most unrealistic of any game I have ever played'. I mean, have you never played a game before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6 posts
1,876 battles

I wasn't commenting on distance scaling. Just the lack of realism in how they do it. I can shoot over the horizon and hit my target, that I can easily see, but I cant see a ship that's well within my ability to do so, IRL. That's my gripe. In many ways they have taken great pains to make this game realistic, except in certain mannerisms with certain ships. As is my complaint where destroyers are concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[KAPPA]
Members
2,341 posts
7,178 battles

I forget the specifics, but ships move at some multiplier of the stated speed, and are all much larger than they should be, and this is what you raise a fuss about? How about that the only reason the US standard BBs feel super slow is because so many other lines get fantasy speed buffs? Then there's gun accuracy, silly inaccurate reworked representations of CV play, and so much more. Heck, how about radar from stealth, rather than radar spotting the user, too, and not working through islands at all?

Or, most silly of all, aerial spotting. A DD can spot a plane from 10km out, but said plane can spot the DD from about 3km out.

This is not a simulation, plain and simple. It's meant to be an enjoyable rendition.

Edit: As for why spotting works the way it does, the maps are simply too small to support that, and if the maps were bigger and able to, good luck actually hitting ships further out. Ships have a fraction of their max range on guns, so it's reasonable that other things would be divided similarly.

Not only that, but the problem isn't with detection per se, but that you can buff said detection by up to around 20% outside of maybe Gearing, which does have no basis in reality. What, did the ship lose 20% of its height? Did it gain invisibility on the top 20%?

Simply put, don't overthink the reality behind the game too much. I'm pretty sure there isn't a single factor that's not either divided, multiplied or otherwise altered for balance.

Edited by Shoggoth_pinup
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,727
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,612 posts
10,852 battles
1 hour ago, twoodall said:

They try awful hard to make everything else realistic. Except for a few of the novelty bits.

The only 100% "realistic" things in this game are the premium ships... except Kaga which I've been fighting them on since the rework. These are made to have an exact configuration the ship had. Tech tree ships they try and stay close, but they fudge numbers, some are other ships, some have non-existent upgrades, etc. Gameplay however while they try to have some realism, Gameplay>History is the motto, even though in some areas that doesn't have to be the case. 

Think of it like the majority of war movies - for the most part details and basic things are accurate to history, buuut they take some creative liberties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6 posts
1,876 battles
1 hour ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

I forget the specifics, but ships move at some multiplier of the stated speed, and are all much larger than they should be, and this is what you raise a fuss about? How about that the only reason the US standard BBs feel super slow is because so many other lines get fantasy speed buffs? Then there's gun accuracy, silly inaccurate reworked representations of CV play, and so much more. Heck, how about radar from stealth, rather than radar spotting the user, too, and not working through islands at all?

Or, most silly of all, aerial spotting. A DD can spot a plane from 10km out, but said plane can spot the DD from about 3km out.

This is not a simulation, plain and simple.

I haven't seen a lot of what you are talking about, because I don't usually play destroyers, or higher tier cruisers to have those upgrades. But I agree with you about the accuracy thing. I was griping about what I hate about the game. My gripes are mine, and the other problems pale in comparison to what makes the game unplayable for me. The accuracy thing comes in a close second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[KAPPA]
Members
2,341 posts
7,178 battles
2 minutes ago, twoodall said:

I haven't seen a lot of what you are talking about, because I don't usually play destroyers, or higher tier cruisers to have those upgrades. But I agree with you about the accuracy thing. I was griping about what I hate about the game. My gripes are mine, and the other problems pale in comparison to what makes the game unplayable for me. The accuracy thing comes in a close second.

Honestly, it just sounds like you want this game to be something it isn't and never will be. Maybe try [edited] or Cold Waters? Only other naval games I can think of, not that I've actually played either. Former focuses on smaller scale naval battle, and latter is a sub game I think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29,146
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
22,478 posts
16,267 battles
18 minutes ago, twoodall said:

I wasn't commenting on distance scaling. Just the lack of realism in how they do it. I can shoot over the horizon and hit my target, that I can easily see, but I cant see a ship that's well within my ability to do so, IRL. That's my gripe. In many ways they have taken great pains to make this game realistic, except in certain mannerisms with certain ships. As is my complaint where destroyers are concerned. 

It's all scaled though. You already agreed that something of a certain height has a certain distance where it goes over the horizon and becomes not visible. I'm sure you also agree that something that's taller, has to be further away for the same effect. That's what's happening in the game, but scaled. Everything in this game is scaled. Or have you never realised that a ship 0.5 km away from your 270m long Iowa is actually closer than a ship's length? Or that a 30 knot ship takes mere minutes to cross 20km, instead of 20+? Or that my Yamato's shells take 13-ish seconds to reach 23km, with their 780 m/s muzzle velocity?

They've not 'taken great pains' to make this game realistic. There is literally nothing about this game that is realistic, except how the ships look. Not the ships' behaviour. Not shell behaviour. Not airplanes behaviour. Not island behaviour. Not torpedo behaviour. Nothing is even close to realistic. If you're looking for realism, you're in the wrong game.

Everything is compromised and scaled to promote gameplay pacing. Ships are larger by about a factor of two, so they're easier to hit. Ranges are cut down, to prevent long range sniping. Speeds are increased by like a factor of five to encourage faster maneuver play instead of static position play. Concealment ranges are cut in half-ish to fit on the maps and encourage flanking play. Imagine destroyers always being visible from 10+km out, half the size they are now, with shell flight times twice what they are now. Battles would take hours and hours instead of like 15 minutes ish.

Maybe I'm understanding you wrong. That's entirely possible. Has happened before, will happen again I'm sure.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,144
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,171 posts
17,696 battles
47 minutes ago, twoodall said:

An object with an altitude of 5 feet disappears at 5 miles over the horizon. So, a bridge, like on a battleship, at roughly 150 ft above sea level, would have a horizon at 17 nautical miles. about 33 km., but an object with an altitude at 50 ft above sea level, like a destroyer,  can, theoretically, be seen by the bridge of the battleship at 25 nautical miles, about 50 km. You can see a periscope from the bridge of a destroyer at 7 to 8 nautical miles. The concealment system you speak of, is the most unrealistic of any game I have ever played.

The guns of an Iowa class BB would also shoot of the map and into the next map if this was realistic.

The models are as real as can be.

The stats of the ships are tweaked for game balance. 

The vision system is a compressed version of real life. After all we dont want to play a 5 day 100km simulator. 

......

AND NOW TO REALLY BLOW YOUR MIND.... radar and sonar go through islands too.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,417
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,490 posts
12,942 battles
1 hour ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

Arcade shoot-em-up....

With historical roots.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[D-H-O]
[D-H-O]
Beta Testers
145 posts
5,247 battles
18 hours ago, twoodall said:

I wasn't commenting on distance scaling. Just the lack of realism in how they do it. I can shoot over the horizon and hit my target, that I can easily see, but I cant see a ship that's well within my ability to do so, IRL. That's my gripe. In many ways they have taken great pains to make this game realistic, except in certain mannerisms with certain ships. As is my complaint where destroyers are concerned. 

I am not understanding why you think WG are trying to make this game realistic. Apart from the ships float, thats where it ends. Accuracy, vision, "hitpoints", speed, "bow tanking", maneuverability, ammo replenishment (torps), damage control, repair, paper ships, fantasy upgrades, radar through objects, lack of radar on most ships that had it,......... on and on...... this is an arcade shoot-em-up based on pretty models of ships... this has nothing to do with any realistic naval warfare.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
822
[CVA16]
Members
4,233 posts
13,230 battles
18 hours ago, twoodall said:

I can shoot over the horizon and hit my target, that I can easily see, but I cant see a ship that's well within my ability to do so, IRL.

Have you also noticed that you have no trouble shooting at moving targets that YOU cannot see as long as somebody on your team can? Never happened for ship to ship combat IRL for the time period of the game.

Lots of departures from reality. Balance between the ship types would be the primary reason. Small ships need some advantage to keep from being blapped before they ever get in range or the ability to disengage. This somewhat compensates for guns being unrealistically accurate (except for my French BBs).

In game the taller your ship is, the more visible to the enemy. IRL, as you mentioned, the taller ship (gun director height) should see farther while being largely immune to counterfire by ships that can only see the top of the superstructure. You need to spot shot fall to adjust your aim. Game is NOT a simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,305
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,250 battles
18 hours ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

 

 

 

18 hours ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

The vision system is a compressed version of real life. After all we dont want to play a 5 day 100km simulator. 

@dEsTurbed1 Some of us would like to play real time with no scaling for hours but not so much for days. 

After all some play several matches for hours at a stretch why not hours for one battle?

Have a couple of buddies over and take turns at the controls for latrine and food breaks or beer runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
822
[CVA16]
Members
4,233 posts
13,230 battles
16 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

Some of us would like to play real time with no scaling for hours but not so much for days. 

After all some play several matches for hours at a stretch why not hours for one battle?

Have a couple of buddies over and take turns at the controls for latrine and food breaks or beer runs.

Some would, but the market would be pretty small. Overall the games would be relatively boring if made fully realistic. Imagine if you only commanded one ship instead of a fleet like in the old wargames (SEAPOWER). Your ship takes a torp early and suffers realistic damage, ( dead in the water, flooding, rudder jammed (Bismarck)) and you will likely stay that way for the hours (repairs are slow) it takes to finish the game unless  a red ship takes notice and sinks you.

I too think it would be cool to have a realistic mode (only shoot what YOU can see, turning sends your accuracy into the toilet, damage is often permanent, single shells likely cause more damage BUT overall accuracy is lower so you are  less likely to get hit, "crossing the T" is a good thing...) but I don't think even I would play it that often over the arcade version WG has provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,305
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,250 battles

@Sabot_100 that's why you have buddies over for the weekend. Form a team and play together. Take a bad hit one could take you under tow. The others keep fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×