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

THICKNESS..the BEAM should determine dispersion And Sigma

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

162
[JEEP]
Beta Testers
470 posts
10,456 battles

The thicker the ship...LIKE CALIFORNIA the better dispersion and SIGMA...ACCURACY should be....now i know WG like to come in.... model a ship.... and then without any thought to historical accuracy just slap stats on it for balalnce...I HATE BALANCE...what i like is arcade style play with historical accuracy........ CALIFORNIA IS WIDE...ALL ships should have a base sigma of 2.0 at a certain beam size.....the widtht of the ship.....say use bismarck as the base.....anything thicker than bismark has a higher sigma anything thing narrower has less sigma....THEn you take the Americans and you ADD.5 sigma for their FIRE CONTROL RADAR.....BUT WG they just come in and ranbdomaly asign sigmas randomly asign dos[persions...SO u get these ships....which i would like to be more ARCADE play historicaly accurate...RATHER than balanced....when i saw how fat the California was i imediatly thought this thing should be near the most accurate BB in the game...because it wouldn't ROCK on recoil as much after fireing....ALL THICK ships should be more accurate than their national counterparts....NO single american BB should have less sigma and dispersion THAN ANY OTHER BB IN THE GAME from Germany or japan or russia due to fire control radar and this goes for cruisers and dds..  CAlifornia seems like it should have  a 55% =torpedo reduction too.

 

finaly i want to KNow what historical accuracy  that the 127MM secondary ...on the alabama have less range than those on massachutsess......i eman they seem to be the exact same gun...for that mater the georgia and ohio.,... SAME GUN...i understand for arcade play you limit their range....to around 12km......BUT if one ship can shoot to 11.3 and the other ships have that GUn then YES they should ALL shoot that far...BUT LOOK OUT her come genisis they can do it er i mean wargaming thay can switch stats in 1 minute this ship with the same gun shoots 5km this other one 8km....

 

i used to play a pirate game.. a 2 lb cannon bal was a 2 pound cannon ball wether a level 50 ship or a l;evel 1 ship fired it....everythign was consistent....I want this to be consistent....ALL american seondariers with the 127 should be THE SAME....alabama is the red headed stepchild that should get a secondary boost like the TIRPUTZ got

 

 

Im sick of WG coming in slappin a name on something then saying THIS exact same thing is differennt from that one even tho its THE SAME

 

AND REMEBER THICKNESS IS KEY!

  • Cool 3
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,059 posts
4,376 battles

Your claims and ideas have no validity here. It's an arcade game, not a simulator. If you want that accuracy based on thiccness, go somewhere else.

( And someone file this under pointless ideas- Ed)

:SerB:

 

Edited by Shrayes_Bhagavatula
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
342
[TF16B]
Modder
652 posts
799 battles

Some folks like  thicker ships, others prefer slimmer profiles. :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,059 posts
4,376 battles
17 minutes ago, Snarky_Wombat said:

ENGLISH mthfer.... DO.. you SPEAK... IT.....  :D

Samuel L. Jackson quote.

Nice

:SerB:

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORCH]
Members
594 posts
14,854 battles

How much  ship rocks, pitches, and heals in turns, and how quickly it recovers, depends on a LOT more than it's beam measurement.  Draft, hull shape, displacement, and weight distribution all figure into it.

As to the California's characteristics, that would depend very heavily on the year in question.  As I recall, she received some pretty major SHIPALTS shortly before Pearl Harbor.  I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that's when her cage masts were replace with tripods, among other things.  And of course she got a major rebuild AFTER Pearl Harbor.  As built, she had neither search radar nor fire control radar.  Post-Pearl Harbor, she got a near-total rebuild.  Her 5"/51 secondaries and 5"/25 AA battery were all removed, and were replaced with 5"/38s, among other things.

I'll grant you that there's no logic to identical guns with identical fire control systems having different ranges just because they are on different ships.  Likewise, there's no sense to a 5"/38 secondary on a BB or cruiser having different range or dispersion from the 5"/38 on a DD, just because one's a main battery and the other's a secondary.  I'm not crazy about it, but that's how the game is.  I like the game enough to play it anyway.  That, however, is something about which reasonable people can easily disagree.

 

EDIT:  I take it back.  Just looked at a pic of California right after Pearl Harbor, and she still had her cage masts.  They were apparently removed as part of the post-Pearl Harbor rebuilt.  At my age, I should never rely on my memory.

Edited by Midshipman_Hornblower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,092 posts

I have often thought the Main guns on some DD's @ 127mm shoot 11.3 km but the exact same gun mounted on a BB as a secondary battery only get 5.4 km range. But hey this is a game and games to be fun you get Russian fairness. Bad for everybody except Russia.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,375
[R-F]
Members
1,787 posts
10,858 battles
2 hours ago, Arthur_Dayne said:

I HATE BALANCE...

stopped reading there.  Balance is what makes a competitive multiplayer game worth playing.  WoWS's problems all come down to insufficient balance - see the homogeneity of many of the top clan battle teams lineups as an example.  While the playerbase often has significant disagreements over whether ship X balanced, overpowered, or underpowered, the basic covenant between game creator and player is that balance should exist and be as well tuned as possible.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,138
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,648 posts
5,000 battles
2 hours ago, Arthur_Dayne said:

THEn you take the Americans and you ADD.5 sigma for their FIRE CONTROL RADAR

You know the British had that fire control radar as well, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
402
Members
925 posts
5,110 battles
22 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

You know the British had that fire control radar as well, yes?

And Germans, and Japanese, and French, and Italians etc..etc...

 

Technically the US had the most advanced radar fire control systems of the time but the Japanese and Germans had much better optical fire control and since all we use is optical fire control the mod is clearly on the wrong nation.

 

By the way OP, the amount a BB might roll after firing a full salvo is negligible. The movement of the ship in general would have more effect.

Edited by ksix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,138
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,648 posts
5,000 battles
21 minutes ago, ksix said:

And Germans, and Japanese, and French, and Italians etc..etc...

 

Technically the US had the most advanced radar fire control systems of the time but the Japanese and Germans had much better optical fire control and since all we use is optical fire control the mod is clearly on the wrong nation.

 

By the way OP, the amount a BB might roll after firing a full salvo is negligible. The movement of the ship in general would have more effect.

No, only the US and British had full radar controlled main battery fire control during WWII.  They others (except perhaps the Italians who seemed to have been caught completely unawares by the British multiple times) had surface radar to detect enemy ships.  The Germans may have had a less capable system to direct fire solely with radar, but the American/British system was much superior.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,763
[SALVO]
Members
2,026 posts
6,201 battles

Drachinifel was recently remarking on the great accuracy of Italian BBs. He says its mostly due to the many  optical range finders on them.    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
497
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,475 posts
5,088 battles
1 hour ago, Helstrem said:

You know the British had that fire control radar as well, yes?

It wasnt bad, but it wasnt the Mk8/Mk 13 and the Mk38 GFCS, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
497
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,475 posts
5,088 battles

OP...you do realize that the beam of a ship has NOTHING to do with dispersion, right?

A beamier ship might have better FC solutions and is theoretically a better gun platform, but dispersion is determined by powder quality, rate of powder burn/muzzle velocity, winds aloft, atmospheric density, rotation of the earth, and a host of other factors. Shells fired in salvo from the same turret also contributed. Depending on the alignment of the guns, the number of guns,  and spacing, the pressure wave of the shells in flight often pushed the shells away form one another. Thats why multi-gun turrets normally had a delay coil that staggered the firing of each gun by tenths of a second--to minimize to the extent possible mutual interference in flight. 

A ship's beam is NOT one of the contributors.

Edit: Beam is not a contributor when firing in normal ops it what I should have said. The FCS cancels out ships motion as part of the FC solution. In local control (from the mount), or in the days prior to fc computers/director control, beam would factor in as the pitch and roll of the ship COULD throw off the aim of inexperienced gunners. Ooops :Smile_honoring:

Edited by BBsquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[NMKJT]
Members
2,682 posts
7,508 battles
4 hours ago, Arthur_Dayne said:

then without any thought to historical accuracy just slap stats on it for balalnce...I HATE BALANCE...

You're exactly the kind of person I enjoy watching not get what they want.

Because you won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,138
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,648 posts
5,000 battles
28 minutes ago, BBsquid said:

It wasnt bad, but it wasnt the Mk8/Mk 13 and the Mk38 GFCS, either.

Well, from what I've read the best fire control system ever put on a BB was on HMS Vanguard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
497
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,475 posts
5,088 battles
2 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

Well, from what I've read the best fire control system ever put on a BB was on HMS Vanguard.

Hmmmm. Never heard that. Everything Ive ever seen and read, and having worked with it, says the Mk38 GFCS was universally regarded as the best FCS..at least in WWII. It was still pretty damn good in the '80s...so good the USN didnt see the need to replace it as they didnt have anything better. It was great with the Mk13...and even better with the A/N SPQ-9 FC radar added.

AS the RN added a lot of components from the USN FCS's to their ships mid to late war, I can see Vanguard benefitting in hindsight. Its a shame they fitted the Royal Yacht with a high-tech FCS and married them to guns that were WWI relics.

If you don't mind...what was your source on Vanguard's FCS? Or a good one on Vanguard in general? Dont know enough about her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,138
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,648 posts
5,000 battles
11 minutes ago, BBsquid said:

Hmmmm. Never heard that. Everything Ive ever seen and read, and having worked with it, says the Mk38 GFCS was universally regarded as the best FCS..at least in WWII. It was still pretty damn good in the '80s...so good the USN didnt see the need to replace it as they didnt have anything better. It was great with the Mk13...and even better with the A/N SPQ-9 FC radar added.

AS the RN added a lot of components from the USN FCS's to their ships mid to late war, I can see Vanguard benefitting in hindsight. Its a shame they fitted the Royal Yacht with a high-tech FCS and married them to guns that were WWI relics.

If you don't mind...what was your source on Vanguard's FCS? Or a good one on Vanguard in general? Dont know enough about her.

I'm afraid I don't recall.  It was definitely because she was so late to be built though.  And yes, while the BL 15 MK 1 was likely the finest BB gun of WWI it was very, very long in the tooth by the end of WWII.  Still functional, but just that.

Edited by Helstrem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,892
[SYN]
Members
15,862 posts
12,803 battles

Why do you constantly make these stupid as crapthreads that have no basis in reality or game balance?

It's literally "I suck at playing BBs, so give me a really OP BB so I can feel like I am a better player"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,059 posts
4,376 battles
20 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

I'm afraid I don't recall.  It was definitely because she was so late to be built though.  And yes, while the BL 15 MK 1 was likely the finest BB gun of WWI it was very, very long in the tooth by the end of WWII.  Still functional, but just that.

The BL 15 Mk 1 was likely the finest 15 inch gun ever created. It is possible that the Mk III variant created for the KG V Preliminary ( the one we see on the Monarch in-game), could have surpassed it, but since it was never fully implemented ( as far as my ( limited) knowledge goes ), we won't ever know. 

Speaking of which, the FCS for the Vanguard's primary armament was the Type 274 15-inch Fire Control Radar, and she carried two of them. 

-Shrayes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
497
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,475 posts
5,088 battles
35 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

I'm afraid I don't recall.  It was definitely because she was so late to be built though.  And yes, while the BL 15 MK 1 was likely the finest BB gun of WWI it was very, very long in the tooth by the end of WWII.  Still functional, but just that.

Thanks, Hel. I agree about MK 1, although I do belive it was the finest gun of WWI, all things considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
402
Members
925 posts
5,110 battles
13 hours ago, Helstrem said:

No, only the US and British had full radar controlled main battery fire control during WWII.  They others (except perhaps the Italians who seemed to have been caught completely unawares by the British multiple times) had surface radar to detect enemy ships.  The Germans may have had a less capable system to direct fire solely with radar, but the American/British system was much superior.

 

You're actually wrong. The British didn't adopt a truly centralized remote powered fire control system (the system the US used) until Vanguard. In practice their FCS for the main guns really weren't any better than German or Italian systems. 

Edited by ksix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,761 posts
23,384 battles
21 hours ago, Arthur_Dayne said:

The thicker the ship...LIKE CALIFORNIA the better dispersion and SIGMA...ACCURACY should be....now i know WG like to come in.... model a ship.... and then without any thought to historical accuracy just slap stats on it for balalnce...I HATE BALANCE...what i like is arcade style play with historical accuracy........ CALIFORNIA IS WIDE...ALL ships should have a base sigma of 2.0 at a certain beam size.....the widtht of the ship.....say use bismarck as the base.....anything thicker than bismark has a higher sigma anything thing narrower has less sigma....THEn you take the Americans and you ADD.5 sigma for their FIRE CONTROL RADAR.....BUT WG they just come in and ranbdomaly asign sigmas randomly asign dos[persions...SO u get these ships....which i would like to be more ARCADE play historicaly accurate...RATHER than balanced....when i saw how fat the California was i imediatly thought this thing should be near the most accurate BB in the game...because it wouldn't ROCK on recoil as much after fireing....ALL THICK ships should be more accurate than their national counterparts....NO single american BB should have less sigma and dispersion THAN ANY OTHER BB IN THE GAME from Germany or japan or russia due to fire control radar and this goes for cruisers and dds..  CAlifornia seems like it should have  a 55% =torpedo reduction too.

 

finaly i want to KNow what historical accuracy  that the 127MM secondary ...on the alabama have less range than those on massachutsess......i eman they seem to be the exact same gun...for that mater the georgia and ohio.,... SAME GUN...i understand for arcade play you limit their range....to around 12km......BUT if one ship can shoot to 11.3 and the other ships have that GUn then YES they should ALL shoot that far...BUT LOOK OUT her come genisis they can do it er i mean wargaming thay can switch stats in 1 minute this ship with the same gun shoots 5km this other one 8km....

 

i used to play a pirate game.. a 2 lb cannon bal was a 2 pound cannon ball wether a level 50 ship or a l;evel 1 ship fired it....everythign was consistent....I want this to be consistent....ALL american seondariers with the 127 should be THE SAME....alabama is the red headed stepchild that should get a secondary boost like the TIRPUTZ got

 

 

Im sick of WG coming in slappin a name on something then saying THIS exact same thing is differennt from that one even tho its THE SAME

 

AND REMEBER THICKNESS IS KEY!

Are you saying fat bottom girls make the rockin' world go 'round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
698
[UFFA]
Members
2,112 posts
75 battles

Is he trying to talk about metacentric height?

 

Otherwise as others have said. Arcade, balans™, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
578
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
868 posts
2,737 battles
23 hours ago, Shrayes_Bhagavatula said:

Samuel L. Jackson quote.

Nice

:SerB:

I guess that quote was a bit too much for a precious forumite, pity I thought it was funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×