Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
GoldDust2015

Better Turret Control

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
224 posts
6,093 battles

One thing I would like to see is better gun turret control. There are times when we find ourselves sailing past an island and need to use our forward guns to shoot at a target but it would be nice to get our rear guns headed the other way so when we come out from behind the island they will be ready to shoot. There are also times when we are sailing away from the enemy to turn around and want to fight them with our aft guns while having the forward guns start swinging around to the other side. Why not allow us manual turret control to preposition guns we are not using at the moment?

Edited by GoldDust2015
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,535
[SYN]
Members
8,236 posts
13,957 battles

It would be nice, just the ability to lock the front/back independently, don't expect to see that ever implemented though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
365
[BTLST]
Members
632 posts
9,639 battles

Totally agree and it was a real tactic often used, especially on ships maneuvering while in battle.   I do understand it would difficult issue to address technically but not insurmountable and would certainly make our game far more realistic.   Personally I'd prefer to see this added to our game before many other things.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,409
[SALVO]
Members
25,033 posts
26,378 battles
1 hour ago, Kapitan_Wuff said:

It would be nice, just the ability to lock the front/back independently, don't expect to see that ever implemented though.

Heck, there are times when I wish that I could just lock my turrets in the neutral position.

There's also the issue that in WW1 era designs, turrets were simply fore and aft turrets.  You also had wing and waist turrets.  (Wing turrets are turrets that aren't on the ship's center line.  And waist turrets are centerline mounted turrets that are amidships, oft times between the fore and aft smoke stacks.)  I'd think that trying to manage those turrets would make a difficult problem even more difficult.  Also, think of the Amagi and the Kii.  For argument's sake, let's call their turret layout ABXYZ.  Is the X turret an aft turret or a waist turret?  Personally, I'd call it an aft turret though it can't fire directly aft, because the Y turret blocks its line of fire directly astern.  But I could see how some might call it waist turret.  I guess that I'd call it an aft turret because there's no super structure between the X and Y turrets.

For what it's worth, with the option of neutral position locking, one doesn't have to worry about whether the turrets are fore or aft or something in-between.   It could be a single key stroke combo and all the turrets would turn to and be locked in the neutral position.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,535
[SYN]
Members
8,236 posts
13,957 battles
46 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Heck, there are times when I wish that I could just lock my turrets in the neutral position.

There's also the issue that in WW1 era designs, turrets were simply fore and aft turrets.  You also had wing and waist turrets.  (Wing turrets are turrets that aren't on the ship's center line.  And waist turrets are centerline mounted turrets that are amidships, oft times between the fore and aft smoke stacks.)  I'd think that trying to manage those turrets would make a difficult problem even more difficult.  Also, think of the Amagi and the Kii.  For argument's sake, let's call their turret layout ABXYZ.  Is the X turret an aft turret or a waist turret?  Personally, I'd call it an aft turret though it can't fire directly aft, because the Y turret blocks its line of fire directly astern.  But I could see how some might call it waist turret.  I guess that I'd call it an aft turret because there's no super structure between the X and Y turrets.

For what it's worth, with the option of neutral position locking, one doesn't have to worry about whether the turrets are fore or aft or something in-between.   It could be a single key stroke combo and all the turrets would turn to and be locked in the neutral position.

 

 

It's already in the game on some level, bots turn their guns back to default when they have no target. But us players will likely never be able to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[O_S_D]
Members
117 posts
11,380 battles

Just focus on the MAIN turrets....Forward and Aft. Just deal with the turrets that you can jump to with the "C" key. Would be nice to Somehow control those. Or maybe when you move to a new turret position, let the turret you just LEFT stay in the position it was in when focus was lost. Just an idea. Let is be an "Advanced" option to do that, BUT if newer players do not WANT all that control, let them leave it alone and it plays as it does at present. No harm no foul. Needs to be 2 settings. 1. for ALL turrets to move or 2. Split mode where the turrets can move independent when said turrets have the focus. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,399 posts
6,846 battles

I don't see why this turret aim control is so difficult. Any ship with guns and torpedoes has two set of aim controls in which you can lock with ctrl-x or shift-x.   Actually this is a subject that pops up every now and then. I has put a survey up about this very thing in which asked HOW do you want the turret controls would be to your liking. The choices were 2 zone control so that you can lock up and aim the fronts and the backs.   Then there is the 4 zone - if your ship has 4 guns. You can aim them/lock them in any position.  and so forth. The survey results were most wanted 2 zone - front and rear as well as option for total auto control as it is now.   Some complained that its too complex..well then choose AUTO.  Some said it takes too much micro mangament..if your in a Battleship you have 30 seconds doing nothing - why not devide the shots at 15 sec each zone and  plan your aims on two targets.  Asking the DEVS this question resulted in that it was too complex and confuse the players....YOU think thats true?    I leave those thoughts up to you to decide.   This was like a couple of years ago when the forum had a survey thread but later got canned.  

BB-turrets1.jpeg

Edited by dionkraft
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[SOCOM]
[SOCOM]
Members
643 posts
22,028 battles

actually firing big guns   in the manner in the photo puts a lot of stress on the decks due to harder recoil. The side sliding of a ship after firing helps with the recoil.  But the picture is great.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,399 posts
6,846 battles
On 1/27/2020 at 7:54 PM, Chief_SeaDog said:

along with turret control why cant  one battery be AP and the other HE

I diddn't even think of THAT one but thats a GREAT IDEA in my book.  As for the guns stressing out the super structure - this is just a game and not a simulation. If we had such scenarios we can include  gun missfires, engine break downs, Captains being killed and then a lesser point captain would take their place..etc etc. But as a game we only choose selective realism to have FUN! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[SOCOM]
[SOCOM]
Members
643 posts
22,028 battles
2 hours ago, dionkraft said:

I diddn't even think of THAT one but thats a GREAT IDEA in my book.  As for the guns stressing out the super structure - this is just a game and not a simulation. If we had such scenarios we can include  gun missfires, engine break downs, Captains being killed and then a lesser point captain would take their place..etc etc. But as a game we only choose selective realism to have FUN! 

the stress thing was just something I learned while serving, I actually got to see the New Jersey do a broadside at night after refueling her.

 

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.

×