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

Game design vs real design

42 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,179
[PISD]
Members
1,921 posts
6,308 battles

First: it is not to ask for more realism, but more to point out the different divergence between real ships design and what design works in the game. It is more an open discussion and the following list is just some case that comes to mind, not all the case that are present.

Armor: all or nothing vs Incremental

In reality, the majority of Navy adopted the All or nothing by the late 1910's . This armor layout is self explaining: all the protection is centered around the vital of the ships (citadel) and the rest have no noticeable protection. That way ships get better overall protection for the same weight and cost. 

But in WOWS, the opposite applies. Ships with all or nothing aren't those performing the best. 2 reasons for that:

1: ships of the same class tends to not be bothered by the belt withing their functional range. The penetration value of those guns makes a main belt of 400mm not really better than one of 300mm.

2: since it is all about angling, having weird pieces of armor (ice breaking bow, extended belt, more armor upper hull) end up being more useful to make shell bounce and HE not penetrate.

 

Freeboard: high vs low

This one is mainly base on the area where those ships will sail, and how far they shall go. A ship designed to stay in the black sea will not need huge accommodation, nor high freeboard, while one made to operate in the North sea will need such. We saw it in RN ships in game: ships like London have very high free board for instance.

But in game high free board is only negative. The lower the profile, the hard it is to hit. We see it in Petropavlosk: and heavy cruiser that, if sailing in reality, would be close to a submarine in heavy sea due to its Gearing level of free board.

 

Superstructure

In the same sense, navy tended to go toward bigger superstructure for obvious reasons: range finder were bigger and bigger, and more numerous, radar, radio and all other type of equipment tended to use quickly the available space. But in the game, less is better: the smaller it is, the harder it get farmed.

 

Any other idea of actual concept that worked well in reality, but fair poorly in the game?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,754
[WOLFG]
Members
33,555 posts
10,430 battles
4 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

Any other idea of actual concept that worked well in reality, but fair poorly in the game?

Crossing the T.

Although it made less of a dramatic difference than in the age of sail, it was still a desired thing, due to the combination of all guns firing, and ballistics making broadside ships harder to hit, vs. The easier to hit bow/stern on enemy, who could respond with fewer guns.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,179
[PISD]
Members
1,921 posts
6,308 battles
5 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Crossing the T.

Although it made less of a dramatic difference than in the age of sail, it was still a desired thing, due to the combination of all guns firing, and ballistics making broadside ships harder to hit, vs. The easier to hit bow/stern on enemy, who could respond with fewer guns.

yep. An effect of both the way bounce works (in reality you wouldn't bounce a BB caliber shell with no real armor). Also an effect of the map style: you can barely move with BB in such fashion for long and many map encourage the ''bow in in a channel'' kind of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
62
[YOU]
Beta Testers
402 posts
6,349 battles

I notable reson we have this discrepancy between real ship design and in game has to do with the engagement ranges we're at, as at the relative short ranges we can spot and fire are so much shorter than in real life the main belt on BBs are meaningless unless angled for the increased effective thickness as the raw value is ineffective unless at the absolute edge of the firing range, least without ballooning the thick slabs of metal to ludercious values.

 

And again, due to the short range and that we can reliably aim the guns to hit in the first salvo or two, the smaller profile is critical to take less damage from the volumes of shells coming in.

 

It isn't exactly a bad thing as it is an arcade game after all, and if I recall, the alpha was supposed to have more realistic ranges but that lack of anyone able to score hit made for a dull experience in the tester's minds. So as a game, fun trumps realism in a lot of ways if they ever conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[WG-CC]
Wiki Editor, Members
9,099 posts
7,995 battles

Plunging fire:

There were a few navies that based their shells around the idea of having them dunk through horizontal armor. The Americans being the most notable case here. The amazing thing with this being that even at very long battle ranges the shells have an effective means of damaging an opponent, and no increase in range can make the raw penetration part fail (though hit ratios will drop)

This game for the most part doesn't have plunging fire. I tested Yamato at 35km, no chance, the shells would bounce from the decks in all cases. Only belt pen matters (which of course benefits certain high velocity guns).

What was not really a realistic up- or downside in history was muzzle velocity (unless we go with logistics, because barrel wear). There were computers that did the fire control, so a longer flight time didn't impact the performance nearly as much as it would in-game. The concept of reaction time that doesn't exist in reality in the way it does in-game adds to this.

 

Subdivision:

A very rare case since only one example exists that really showcases it. But when one compares Leander to Perth it's noticable that latter has two funnels instead of one. This had a reason in reality as the subclass that Perth belonged to adopted an echolon arrangement for the machinery (so from bow to stern it would be boilers, turbines, boilers, turbines instead of boilers, boilers, turbines, turbines). The spacing between the boilers made two funnels necessary. The advantage would be that a single hit would be way less likely to leave the ship immobilized. Unfortunately in-game it means the citadel hitbox is larger, making Perth more vulnerable to AP hits, and subdivision plays no role.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
358 posts
8,149 battles
42 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

There were computers that did the fire control, so a longer flight time didn't impact the performance nearly as much as it would in-game. The concept of reaction time that doesn't exist in reality in the way it does in-game adds to this.

It wasn't so much that that computers did it, as it was that your own maneuvers messed up your firing solutions just as much as the enemies.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,754
[WOLFG]
Members
33,555 posts
10,430 battles
23 minutes ago, Nicoli_Voldkif said:

It wasn't so much that that computers did it, as it was that your own maneuvers messed up your firing solutions just as much as the enemies.

Yes, to be honest, the way we target things here is potentially better than even modern systems, (assuming you can shoot well) because of your predictive capability. You can get an accurate target solution against a maneuvering ship, because you often have a pretty good idea what a target will do.

Imagine a radar FC trying to hit a slow-moving ship coming out from behind an island. Radar figures the ship will continue at that course and speed. You know better, it's going to back up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
358 posts
8,149 battles
2 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Yes, to be honest, the way we target things here is potentially better than even modern systems, (assuming you can shoot well) because of your predictive capability. You can get an accurate target solution against a maneuvering ship, because you often have a pretty good idea what a target will do.

Imagine a radar FC trying to hit a slow-moving ship coming out from behind an island. Radar figures the ship will continue at that course and speed. You know better, it's going to back up.

 

It's not even that, our gun barrels are perfectly aligned to the target area and proper elevation at all times. I don't even know if modern guns are capable of firing at any point in the pitch roll movement without adversely effecting the shot. we are massively more accurate then real world, though the shots are also much less damaging in many cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
172
[DRAH]
Members
431 posts
10,731 battles

Dispersion elipses for guns are horizontal in game but were vertical in real life. Another reason why bow tanking was not a real life thing.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,038 posts
4,513 battles

Incremental gun caliber obviously doesn't matter in real life. There are no hard overmatch thresholds. This is why the USN stopped at 16" superheavy shells. There was nothing they couldn't penetrate and too many tradeoffs for making them bigger for said lack of gain.

Pinpoint shooting and autobounce don't exist either so exact positioning isn't that important. The American Standards are built to shoulder in with that boxy citadel and not care about bow penetration; the bow might as well not be there. 

Re: certain obnoxious cruisers vs. BB guns - well there is no such thing as having a shell go harmlessly through the engine room even if it doesn't explode. It's possible it won't arm and will do less damage but its doing damage. 

Torps are both nerfed and buffed. Nerfed in that there is no prospect of not getting flooded if hit by a torpedo outside TDS; water is unforgiving and anything approaching a keel hit will kill a ship outright. Buffed in that there was no such thing as quicky quickly reloading them so the use would be much stalkier and more strategic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,773
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
30,867 posts
25,982 battles
3 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Plunging fire:

There were a few navies that based their shells around the idea of having them dunk through horizontal armor. The Americans being the most notable case here. The amazing thing with this being that even at very long battle ranges the shells have an effective means of damaging an opponent, and no increase in range can make the raw penetration part fail (though hit ratios will drop)

This game for the most part doesn't have plunging fire. I tested Yamato at 35km, no chance, the shells would bounce from the decks in all cases. Only belt pen matters (which of course benefits certain high velocity guns).

What was not really a realistic up- or downside in history was muzzle velocity (unless we go with logistics, because barrel wear). There were computers that did the fire control, so a longer flight time didn't impact the performance nearly as much as it would in-game. The concept of reaction time that doesn't exist in reality in the way it does in-game adds to this.

I remember your post and I bookmarked it for whenever people try to say plunging fire is a thing in WoWS, when clearly it isn't.

On 4/23/2020 at 12:37 AM, SireneRacker said:

Plunging fire in this game is not really a thing. This is an image of a Yamato firing at a GK at long range:

image.thumb.png.da97759653768f256d24575e0e142baa.png

A protractor on my screen gives me an angle of 30° between the shell tracer on the left and the horizon. Now guess the range~

Answer:

  Reveal hidden contents

Almost 34km

image.thumb.png.f0b48110648b7a5d819fafb63b5ba0fb.png

Not that absurd to hit the torpedo defense when the shells still hit at a relatively shallow angle, and would be more likely to bounce from the deck than penetrate it (can even see one bounce from the turret roof).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,431
[SALVO]
Members
3,500 posts
7,388 battles
2 hours ago, Nicoli_Voldkif said:

It wasn't so much that that computers did it, as it was that your own maneuvers messed up your firing solutions just as much as the enemies.

 

2 hours ago, Skpstr said:

Yes, to be honest, the way we target things here is potentially better than even modern systems, (assuming you can shoot well) because of your predictive capability. You can get an accurate target solution against a maneuvering ship, because you often have a pretty good idea what a target will do.

Imagine a radar FC trying to hit a slow-moving ship coming out from behind an island. Radar figures the ship will continue at that course and speed. You know better, it's going to back up.

 

You know its really instructive to play "the game that shall not be named here", in order to see just how massively aiming and ballistics are simplified in WoWs.  Im sure in that game there is also shortcuts  like what skippy mentioned here, where the ships roll  and wave action isn't  being taken into account.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,773
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
30,867 posts
25,982 battles

Also, IRL, the larger and more expensive the ship, they generally became rarer.

Generally, from most common to most rare:  DD > Light Cruisers > Heavy Cruisers > Battleships & Carriers

 

Capital ships were a rare, very expensive thing that was jealously guarded assets.  Even Heavy Cruisers were not expended casually, i.e. the IJN in the Pacific almost held onto their CAs as tightly as they did their Battleships, while they casually threw their CLs and DDs into harm's way.

 

Regardless, Destroyers are the most common ships and Capital Ships and to a lesser extent, Heavy Cruisers were markedly rarer.

In WoWS, basically, the heavier the ship the more common it is.

 

An example is the USN in the Pacific.  It's not only that the USN was getting all these fancy Clevelands, Baltimores, NCs, SoDak-class, Iowas, Essex, etc.  The USN had a monstrous Destroyer Screen.  There was quite a bit of dirty fighting in the Pacific that was done solely by Destroyers of either side.

 

In the battle where Kirishima, South Dakota, Washington fought each other, people around here only talk about the 3 Battleships.  They always forget to mention that both sides were a mixed force of ships.  They fail to mention the sacrifice of the USN DD screen where the Japanese unloaded all their torpedoes against them and not at the USN Battleships.  Their torpedoes would not be a factor again until way late in the battle when Washington & South Dakota broke contact, and Kirishima was a fatally wounded hulk.

======

Also, Radar was pretty common for certain navies.  Most especially USN & RN, and the Germans were fond of equipping them also.  The IJN were absolutely terrible in issuing them to the fleet.  One of the big reasons of American success at Midway was that there were zero ships in the Kido Butai that had Radar, and didn't not spot the American aircraft coming in until it was too late.  During the bitter fighting for Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands in 1942-43, the IJN had no DDs equipped with Radar until Hamakaze arrived there with a set... In 1943.

 

The USN in contrast issued Radar like it was a free giveaway of candy.  Practically every warship I recall had them, DDs and DDEs.  They were even fitting Radar on patrol aircraft, PT Boats, even Submarines.  An example of a PBY Catalina with Radar. 

G567QURFAFFSTGOJ2UGX2G5OLM.jpeg

"Aviation machinist's mates work on the starboard engine of a VP-31 Consolidated PBY-5A "Catalina" patrol bomber at an East Coast naval air station, circa 1942. Note radar antennas under the plane's wing." (Source)

And a short bit of history of USN experimenting with radar on PT Boats.

 

Radar could be on as long as needed, and they weren't on for only a few seconds.

There was also a case I remember when a DD tried to use smoke to break contact from a Cruiser.  Glowworm (DD) vs Admiral Hipper (CA).  It didn't work because Hipper's radar didn't care about the smoke, so she continued to shell Glowworm with radar directed gunfire.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,073
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,987 posts
9,917 battles

Spawling Damage:

Ingame, we don't have it. In reality, even if your guns can penetrate the armor, the sheer force of a shell at X weight going at Y speed is enough to cause some damage, even if it just weakens an armor plate. This game doesn't model the actual intricate complexities of real-life physics, which would make tier 2 ships capable of severely wounding tier 10 ships should it be modeled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
527
[PUMA]
Members
1,168 posts
10,957 battles

Dodging incoming fire... I don't think that a Cruiser could see the incoming shells from a BB and therefore 'dodge' them.

My guess is that irl that cruiser could see the enemy fire a salvo likely aimed under the assumption the cruiser continues current course and speed. Ergo the cruiser may change course as a result and start counting and praying :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,773
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
30,867 posts
25,982 battles
15 minutes ago, freggo said:

Dodging incoming fire... I don't think that a Cruiser could see the incoming shells from a BB and therefore 'dodge' them.

My guess is that irl that cruiser could see the enemy fire a salvo likely aimed under the assumption the cruiser continues current course and speed. Ergo the cruiser may change course as a result and start counting and praying :-)

What would also happen "IRL" is all those Battleships and Carriers you see in the Matchmaking queues?

That wouldn't happen, because those ships were exceedingly rare.

What would happen would be countless Destroyers and some Light Cruisers filling the queues.

 

People would be keeping their Battleships in port because they cost too much to run.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,038 posts
4,513 battles
6 hours ago, Nicoli_Voldkif said:

It's not even that, our gun barrels are perfectly aligned to the target area and proper elevation at all times. I don't even know if modern guns are capable of firing at any point in the pitch roll movement without adversely effecting the shot. we are massively more accurate then real world, though the shots are also much less damaging in many cases.

Modern Western MBT guns have that kind of point-click stabilization. 

You could do it with a modern BB I suppose but, well, guided ordnance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
991
[TIMT]
Members
1,708 posts
5,591 battles

I don't have any reliable sources, but from my times playing dangerous waters (several years ago) and reading up a lot on current naval development, the current AA and small to medium caliber guns (I think nothing larger than 5" is used anymore) are fully stabilized.

Also, the flight time of large caliber shells is insane, going from 10s of seconds to over a minute at max range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,360 posts
33,889 battles
1 hour ago, freggo said:

Dodging incoming fire... I don't think that a Cruiser could see the incoming shells from a BB and therefore 'dodge' them.

Hm.  Good question.  There's the adage of chasing the shell splashes if you're the target, but that would be for the next salvo launched at you..

But the flight time IRL is 2 to 3 minutes for a BB at long range I think.  Now that's a long time in combat I think.   Someone here probably knows what it is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,754
[WOLFG]
Members
33,555 posts
10,430 battles
4 hours ago, eviltane said:

You know its really instructive to play "the game that shall not be named here", in order to see just how massively aiming and ballistics are simplified in WoWs.   

No argument there, I've tried it. At least the first couple little boats anyway. Not my cup of tea, I don't have the relexes anymore.

But I (and many others, maybe you too lol) have always said that shooting is one of the easier things in this game to get decent at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,179
[PISD]
Members
1,921 posts
6,308 battles
7 hours ago, Nicoli_Voldkif said:

It's not even that, our gun barrels are perfectly aligned to the target area and proper elevation at all times. I don't even know if modern guns are capable of firing at any point in the pitch roll movement without adversely effecting the shot.

Drachinifel addressed that point. Basically when they shoots a system will ''delay'' the shot until the ship is at 0 degree. Which is why ships need to roll slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,226 posts
5,930 battles
4 hours ago, Maine_ARC_1 said:

Spawling Damage:

Ingame, we don't have it. In reality, even if your guns can penetrate the armor, the sheer force of a shell at X weight going at Y speed is enough to cause some damage, even if it just weakens an armor plate. This game doesn't model the actual intricate complexities of real-life physics, which would make tier 2 ships capable of severely wounding tier 10 ships should it be modeled. 

This actually used to be in the game before release. From what I understand, basically instead of bouncing for zero damage you would get a percentage of the damage of AP shells instead. It was removed because it basically meant that rapid fire ships like Atalanta would absolutely murder everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
497
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,476 posts
5,181 battles
10 hours ago, Skpstr said:

Yes, to be honest, the way we target things here is potentially better than even modern systems, (assuming you can shoot well) because of your predictive capability. You can get an accurate target solution against a maneuvering ship, because you often have a pretty good idea what a target will do.

Imagine a radar FC trying to hit a slow-moving ship coming out from behind an island. Radar figures the ship will continue at that course and speed. You know better, it's going to back up.

 

wow.

No.

Just No.

The way the muggles play this game, they do not 'target better than modern systems'. You hit if you shoot well through muscle memory--you know roughly how much lead based on your target speed from repetitive experience. 

This game has almost nothing in common with actual early to mid 20th century naval gunnery. In your radar example, radar doesn't predict; radar tracks. Your FC computer predicts. Regardless, yes, the FCS would likely predict continued forward motion. Why? 

BECAUSE UNLESS YOU ARE A MENTALLY DEFICIENT RUSSIAN GAME DESIGNER...SHIPS DONT BACK UP AND PLAY PEEK- A-BOOM. The mechanics in game are a port from that stupid tank ARCADE game. If the goons at WG had half a clue about naval combat they might hit on the fact that it takes considerable time and distance to slow and/or reverse an 1800 ton ship. Multiply that exponentially for ships displacing several thousand tons.

More to the point ...im alarmed that some wander thinks being able to click a mouse in a stupid video game is better than an actual FCS. Sweet Jesus.. this is by far the stupidest thing I have read in all my time on these forums. 

C'mon Skpstr...tell me you were drunk, high, or got hacked. You know better than this. I hope

 

  • Sad 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
991
[TIMT]
Members
1,708 posts
5,591 battles

Also, don't forget that the dispersion on most guns is terrible compared to what could realistically achieved with real guns. Furthermore, the scale of all the objects (ships, islands, etc), distances and speed are scaled by some weird constants to make the game playable as an arcade shooter. My estimation is that ships are about a factor of 9 to 10 enlarged compared to the distances indicated, similarly the speeds are exaggerated. The curvature of the earth is also not included (at 10-30km this becomes a factor when you try to hit a 100m target), as well as the rotation of the earth.

Found this site a while ago, seems interesting:

https://eugeneleeslover.com/FIRE-CONTROL-PAGE.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,226 posts
5,930 battles
11 minutes ago, shinytrashcan said:

Also, don't forget that the dispersion on most guns is terrible compared to what could realistically achieved with real guns. Furthermore, the scale of all the objects (ships, islands, etc), distances and speed are scaled by some weird constants to make the game playable as an arcade shooter. My estimation is that ships are about a factor of 9 to 10 enlarged compared to the distances indicated, similarly the speeds are exaggerated. The curvature of the earth is also not included (at 10-30km this becomes a factor when you try to hit a 100m target), as well as the rotation of the earth.

Found this site a while ago, seems interesting:

https://eugeneleeslover.com/FIRE-CONTROL-PAGE.html

Dispersion might be worse but actual accuracy is leaps and bounds better which is kind of funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×