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

Please explain why

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
224 posts
10,009 battles

So I got the Fredrick GermanT9 BB. Did full secondary build:trollface: However I am at a loss to understand why this is happening constantly, not randomly as "Random" Number generator would imply. I was pushing B cap with a CA and a DD on trap. my secondaries where lighting it up as usual. Then this happened. A T8 cruiser the expensive hipper (Prinz Eugen) was fully broadside to me at 7km I bet he was puckering his nether regions at least I would. I fired my 2 front turrets and you guessed it 2 shells went high and 2 shells went low and split the Cruiser. He turned away and the other side of his ship was now broadside. I could not believe it!! I thought you idiot why did you do that. so I fired the front turrets again. guess what? same thing at just over 8km. much salty grumbling after even 30 minutes later I was raging to my div mates. then I realised that this is not a "random" thing its happening a lot. This is with the heavier 17inch upgrade.. Why is this thing happening. My usual hit rate is 30% according to my profile. and I have 5 T10's so I don't think its my aim.  So should I try the dispersion Module instead of the secondary upgrades or is this something other people have been experiencing. FRUSTRATED!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,971 posts
13,729 battles

So I got the Fredrick GermanT9 BB. Did full secondary build:trollface: However I am at a loss to understand why this is happening constantly, not randomly as "Random" Number generator would imply. I was pushing B cap with a CA and a DD on trap. my secondaries where lighting it up as usual. Then this happened. A T8 cruiser the expensive hipper (Prinz Eugen) was fully broadside to me at 7km I bet he was puckering his nether regions at least I would. I fired my 2 front turrets and you guessed it 2 shells went high and 2 shells went low and split the Cruiser. He turned away and the other side of his ship was now broadside. I could not believe it!! I thought you idiot why did you do that. so I fired the front turrets again. guess what? same thing at just over 8km. much salty grumbling after even 30 minutes later I was raging to my div mates. then I realised that this is not a "random" thing its happening a lot. This is with the heavier 17inch upgrade.. Why is this thing happening. My usual hit rate is 30% according to my profile. and I have 5 T10's so I don't think its my aim.  So should I try the dispersion Module instead of the secondary upgrades or is this something other people have been experiencing. FRUSTRATED!!!!

 

 

Oh no brother you have it right. It is called vertical dispersion and yes, it is completely messed up in this game. You see, the devs know that low arcing battleship shots would hit almost every single time if they didn't completely hose vertical dispersion. It is simply the way that shells work. They are falling objects, so, they tend to be rather predictable otherwise. At close range, nothing would stop a battleship if it could hit all of its shots. So, this game completely fabricates vertical dispersion. As well, they want everyone to slug it out in this game in stupid boxing ring fashion. Apparently they don't know that warships like to be at maximum range when shooting things, as the entirely of WW2 demonstrates.

 

It is one of those cases of a game subject being contradictory to the play style desired by the people creating the game. They want, tanks on water, what players want, are ships on water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

 

Oh no brother you have it right. It is called vertical dispersion and yes, it is completely messed up in this game. You see, the devs know that low arcing battleship shots would hit almost every single time if they didn't completely hose vertical dispersion. It is simply the way that shells work. They are falling objects, so, they tend to be rather predictable otherwise. At close range, nothing would stop a battleship if it could hit all of its shots. So, this game completely fabricates vertical dispersion. As well, they want everyone to slug it out in this game in stupid boxing ring fashion. Apparently they don't know that warships like to be at maximum range when shooting things, as the entirely of WW2 demonstrates.

 

It is one of those cases of a game subject being contradictory to the play style desired by the people creating the game. They want, tanks on water, what players want, are ships on water.

 

So, aside from your other points, what makes you think that vertical dispersion isn't a thing in real life, and what makes you think that BBs shouldn't have it? I mean, in some cases it goes entirely overboard (*cough cough* Mikasa cough*), but generally, it's totally fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,490
[---]
Banned
6,739 posts
10,145 battles

 

Oh no brother you have it right. It is called vertical dispersion and yes, it is completely messed up in this game. You see, the devs know that low arcing battleship shots would hit almost every single time if they didn't completely hose vertical dispersion. It is simply the way that shells work. They are falling objects, so, they tend to be rather predictable otherwise. At close range, nothing would stop a battleship if it could hit all of its shots. So, this game completely fabricates vertical dispersion. As well, they want everyone to slug it out in this game in stupid boxing ring fashion. Apparently they don't know that warships like to be at maximum range when shooting things, as the entirely of WW2 demonstrates.

 

It is one of those cases of a game subject being contradictory to the play style desired by the people creating the game. They want, tanks on water, what players want, are ships on water.

 

HAHAHAHAAHAHA, ignorance is your best trait isn't it? Historically crossing the T of a warship was done for 2 reasons: 1: you take out the rear guns of your enemy. 2: shells splashes were vertical elipses more often than horizontal as it is in the game so hitting a ship that was bow on to you was easier than it was a ship that was sailing parallel to you. Learn this fact and shut the [edited]up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,043
[SALTY]
Members
8,930 posts
18,130 battles

As great as your secondaries are, I'd still recommend the accuracy module as your main guns are still your biggest damage dealers.  This may be part of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,046 posts
2,264 battles

Now I'm probably wrong about this as I don't know projectile physics IRL well enough to even THINK I'm probably right...

 

but... doesn't the actual "dispersion" of real life cannons on ships come from either A: imperfections on the individual shells causing slight changes midair or B: the affect of wind changes on the individual shells, again midair

 

In other words what I'm asking is... doesn't dispersion come primarily irl from things that happen mid air- that take TIME and DISTANCE to happen, rather than from slight differences when they leave the barrel itself? That's at least how I'd imagine it. yes I'm sure the differences when leaving the barrel have at least some impact; but if those differences were more than absolutely negligible, then at those ranges the shells would miss by a country mile in my mind, so I just end up coming back to thinking it really is stuff that goes on mid air.

 

And if that's indeed the case... then the current dispersion mechanic could probably benefit from a change. If my thoughts are true to how things really work in real life- then point blank (3km) a ship would have basically no way of missing like it does in WoWs as long as the dispersion value is high enough. TL;DR If it is the case that dispersion comes primarily from changes in flight of the shells mid-air over time/distance, then changing in game dispersion to "start" after a certain distance could benefit ships that like to brawl at close ranges that suffer from imbalance due to wonky dispersion.

 

 

Ofc again that's all under the idea that my thoughts are correct, which I have no way of knowing they are. I'd appreciate some education from anyone who knows the actual answer- especially with references/sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
224 posts
10,009 battles

As great as your secondaries are, I'd still recommend the accuracy module as your main guns are still your biggest damage dealers.  This may be part of the issue

​Yup I spent the 4mill cr and went and tested it in coop. 6 cits  still good secondary damage against bots I know but dispersion was better ty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[2GOOD]
Members
941 posts
23,000 battles

I fired my 2 front turrets and you guessed it 2 shells went high and 2 shells went low and split the Cruiser.

 

I've had this happen occasionally and much salt has ensued.. especially since cruisers don't seem to have the same issue. WG can call it what they like, but when it happens in the 4 - 6 km or less area it's nonsense.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
516
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,462 posts
5,897 battles

In real life ballistics, environment at the muzzle is far more important than downrange conditions because small changes at the muzzle make big changes at distance. That is about 75% of your ballistics equation and in long range shooting of small arms, it is where you begin with wind calls,etc. 

 

In terms of dispersion, in an ideal world with ideal conditions, weather plays little role after the initial calculation. Then internal ballistics becomes the biggest factor and the biggest internal variable is velocity. Consistent powder charge weight, compression, burn rate, etc all factor into it. Velocity contributes primarily to vertical dispersion.  Horizontal would be barrel condition and shell concentricity to the bore for a minor variation in horizontal.  Horizontal is mostly environmental conditions for naval gunnery purposes. 

 

In game, welcome to BB's.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
777
[BARF]
Beta Testers
5,816 posts
5,484 battles

Here is how I see it:

 

The Sigma in the Freddy is awful, but if you are in that kind of range, having secondaries firing 20% faster being guaranteed to hit is more ideal than slightly less odds of your Sigma and dispersion ruining your 32 seconds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,632 posts
10,276 battles

Now I'm probably wrong about this as I don't know projectile physics IRL well enough to even THINK I'm probably right...

 

but... doesn't the actual "dispersion" of real life cannons on ships come from either A: imperfections on the individual shells causing slight changes midair or B: the affect of wind changes on the individual shells, again midair

 

In other words what I'm asking is... doesn't dispersion come primarily irl from things that happen mid air- that take TIME and DISTANCE to happen, rather than from slight differences when they leave the barrel itself? That's at least how I'd imagine it. yes I'm sure the differences when leaving the barrel have at least some impact; but if those differences were more than absolutely negligible, then at those ranges the shells would miss by a country mile in my mind, so I just end up coming back to thinking it really is stuff that goes on mid air.

 

And if that's indeed the case... then the current dispersion mechanic could probably benefit from a change. If my thoughts are true to how things really work in real life- then point blank (3km) a ship would have basically no way of missing like it does in WoWs as long as the dispersion value is high enough. TL;DR If it is the case that dispersion comes primarily from changes in flight of the shells mid-air over time/distance, then changing in game dispersion to "start" after a certain distance could benefit ships that like to brawl at close ranges that suffer from imbalance due to wonky dispersion.

 

 

Ofc again that's all under the idea that my thoughts are correct, which I have no way of knowing they are. I'd appreciate some education from anyone who knows the actual answer- especially with references/sources.

 

UrPeaceKeeper beat me to it, but you actually have it backwards: wind was negligible, and the major factor was the environment around the muzzle and inherent characteristics of the gun and shell.

 

It's a super long read, most of which is irrelevant for dispersion, but I have a two-part article on US naval gunnery history from Navweaps for you. The germane points are quickly made in Part 1 about halfway down (Ctrl+F for "Many of the older battleships were equipped with guns in single slides" and read the next 3 paragraphs):

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p2.htm

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,046 posts
2,264 battles

 

UrPeaceKeeper beat me to it, but you actually have it backwards: wind was negligible, and the major factor was the environment around the muzzle and inherent characteristics of the gun and shell.

 

It's a super long read, most of which is irrelevant for dispersion, but I have a two-part article on US naval gunnery history from Navweaps for you. The germane points are quickly made in Part 1 about halfway down (Ctrl+F for "Many of the older battleships were equipped with guns in single slides" and read the next 3 paragraphs):

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p2.htm

 

Thx for the info+source. Guess current ballistics are on par.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,148
[NDA]
Supertester
3,926 posts
2,676 battles

... this game completely fabricates vertical dispersion. ...

 

You do realize that this very thing happened so much in real life gunnery that they actually had a name for it?  It's called 'bracketing' the target, and if you read action reports it happened *all the time*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[TWICE]
Members
265 posts
7,597 battles

 

Sooo, im thinking, if we increase vertical dispersion and decrease the horizontal dispersion about the samw factor, would that mean an end to the Bow on Meta?:unsure:

Just a thought, i dont claim expert knowlege.

 

 

Edited by Volga1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43
[JKSDF]
Beta Testers
360 posts
3,681 battles

You do realize that this very thing happened so much in real life gunnery that they actually had a name for it?  It's called 'bracketing' the target, and if you read action reports it happened *all the time*.

 

Bracketing occured because it was difficult to measure the range of the targets precisely. That's why at the start of the engagement, ships fire several single shots spaced by certain distance covering the estimated range made by rangefinders. Once the correct range and range change rate is established (ships didn't maneuver as much in real life), you cease to do bracketing shot and start full on-target salvo (of course shell landing spot is still spotted, registered and corrected). The only thing affecting range dispersion (i.o.w. "vertical" dispersion) on each salvo was mainly because of differences in propelling charges. Slight variation in weights, temperature, humidity or even how packed each bag was could amount to several hundred meters of dispersion. Not to mention imperfect muzzle crown on each gunbarrel affecting each shell exit attitude.

Edited by Cruiser_Haguro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,148
[NDA]
Supertester
3,926 posts
2,676 battles

Slight variation in weights, temperature, humidity or even how packed each bag was could amount to several hundred meters of dispersion.

This is a large part of the cause of vertical dispersion, in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
390
[WOLFD]
Members
976 posts

 

So, aside from your other points, what makes you think that vertical dispersion isn't a thing in real life, and what makes you think that BBs shouldn't have it? I mean, in some cases it goes entirely overboard (*cough cough* Mikasa cough*), but generally, it's totally fine. 

You o viously have never done ballistic calculations.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,494 posts
12,756 battles

If you think that vertical dispersion isn't real, just check out this video of the USS Wisconsin firing her main guns for the last time.  Two things I found interesting:

 

1) guns in each turret were fired individually, not all at once, so I can only imagine the ramifications to dispersion for the third gun fired in succession;

 

2) check out the vertical fluctuation of the gun barrels after being fired.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,258
[WIB]
Alpha Tester
3,978 posts
2,472 battles

 

So, aside from your other points, what makes you think that vertical dispersion isn't a thing in real life, and what makes you think that BBs shouldn't have it? I mean, in some cases it goes entirely overboard (*cough cough* Mikasa cough*), but generally, it's totally fine. 

 

They shouldn't have it to the degree that they do have it.  The guns are all fired levelly and all have similar ballistic characteristics so it should take quite a bit of distance before vertical dispersion starts to significantly matter.  However in game it isn't uncommon to have several hundred feet of vertical dispersion at 4-5km and that is a bit excessive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

You o viously have never done ballistic calculations.  

 

Ballistic calculations give no room for vertical dispersion? That's news to me. The so called "vertical dispersion" can be effected easily by the aerodynamic imperfections of the shells, the imprecise synchronization of gun barrel angles, imprecise synchronization of separate turrets, and many other factors i'm sure i have not mentioned. So where does it say that vertical dispersion is not predicted with ballistics? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,829 posts
6,653 battles

 

Ballistic calculations give no room for vertical dispersion? That's news to me. The so called "vertical dispersion" can be effected easily by the aerodynamic imperfections of the shells, the imprecise synchronization of gun barrel angles, imprecise synchronization of separate turrets, and many other factors i'm sure i have not mentioned. So where does it say that vertical dispersion is not predicted with ballistics? 

 

Ballistic calculations are generally done with an ideal situation.  Perfectly formed shell, perfectly rifled barrels, exact amounts of gunpowder...

 

I think the only factor that's really accounted for is wind direction.  And that's generally assumed to be constant along the entire path of the shell.

 

...so in a sense, the guy is right.  Ballistic calculations do not seriously consider vertical dispersion because knowing the exact flight characteristics of the shell in the chamber isn't going to make the next shell that much more accurate.

 

That said, in real life...these factors will make shells slow down quicker / fly farther than expected.  And if someone knows how to make a calculation and seriously believes that they know exactly where the shell will land, they can be laughed at.  It's a model and a guideline only.

Edited by Misniso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,363
[HYD]
Members
7,105 posts
5,289 battles

 

Ballistic calculations are generally done with an ideal situation.  Perfectly formed shell, perfectly rifled barrels, exact amounts of gunpowder...

 

I think the only factor that's really accounted for is wind direction.  And that's generally assumed to be constant along the entire path of the shell.

 

...so in a sense, the guy is right.  Ballistic calculations will probably dismiss vertical dispersion as a margin of error.

 

That said, in real life...these factors will make shells slow down quicker / fly farther than expected.

 

Well ballistic calculations are supposed to calculate the trajectories of the object, therefore they should include all factors, including the imperfections of the shells and guns. Also, dispersion exists because of those factors, so it makes no sense to take them out of the picture just for calculating vertical dispersion. If we had perfect shells and perfect guns, all shells would travel parallel to each other, and won't make any sort of unpredictable motions. So in order to calculate ballistics without taking those factors into account would be to not have dispersion at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,829 posts
6,653 battles

 

Well ballistic calculations are supposed to calculate the trajectories of the object, therefore they should include all factors, including the imperfections of the shells and guns. Also, dispersion exists because of those factors, so it makes no sense to take them out of the picture just for calculating vertical dispersion. If we had perfect shells and perfect guns, all shells would travel parallel to each other, and won't make any sort of unpredictable motions. So in order to calculate ballistics without taking those factors into account would be to not have dispersion at all. 

 

Isn't Physics 101 great?

 

Now in the real world, unless someone's slapping you with money, you use the average values to calculate the general shell behavior and then leave it at that.  Why can we get away with this?  Better manufacturing techniques and the presence of guidance systems that can help correct any errors that crop up in your calculation.

 

If you really want to model the imperfections, you just take the average numbers and then tack on a +/- x% error due to manufacturing tolerance or something without actually accounting for exactly what's causing it.  Short, simple, saves money.

Edited by Misniso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
224 posts
10,009 battles

Gee guys I was nt after a lesson on ballistics. I am perplexed however than I can miss so badly at such close ranges. WG please fix this [edited]. It happened again today 3 games in a row 1 Atlanta ran aground and started Spamming me with the usual HE rubbish I turned and gave him  full broadside at 6.7km all shells missed except one but you guessed it overpen even though I aimed right at his citadel. Back to sec build and become a floating spammer not even going to do main bat mod 1. doing a FULL secondary build. Now that WG are going to nerf armor once again I don't even think I'm going to play anymore as I find DD's monotonous and cruisers I enjoy (Hindenburg) has pitiful detection, HE etc so unless WG want Zao's every where ill play another game if this happens. I push with my BB's and don't get rewarded, I refuse to be a camper as this is the most boring play type I think exists. WHAT A SHAME WG HAS RUINED THIS GAME WITH NERFS AND BUFFS INSTEAD OF REWARDING GOOD PLAY AND PUNISHING BAD PLAY.IM OUT

Edited by Aussie_Aussie_Aussie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,971 posts
13,729 battles

Gee guys I was nt after a lesson on ballistics. I am perplexed however than I can miss so badly at such close ranges. WG please fix this [edited]. It happened again today 3 games in a row 1 Atlanta ran aground and started Spamming me with the usual HE rubbish I turned and gave him  full broadside at 6.7km all shells missed except one but you guessed it overpen even though I aimed right at his citadel. Back to sec build and become a floating spammer not even going to do main bat mod 1. doing a FULL secondary build. Now that WG are going to nerf armor once again I don't even think I'm going to play anymore as I find DD's monotonous and cruisers I enjoy (Hindenburg) has pitiful detection, HE etc so unless WG want Zao's every where ill play another game if this happens. I push with my BB's and don't get rewarded, I refuse to be a camper as this is the most boring play type I think exists. WHAT A SHAME WG HAS RUINED THIS GAME WITH NERFS AND BUFFS INSTEAD OF REWARDING GOOD PLAY AND PUNISHING BAD PLAY.IM OUT

 

I don't blame you at all. What these posters fail to account for is that fact that the OP was talking about short range fire, just like you are. They have completely exaggerated dispersion mechanics for all ranges, meaning, that you have the same dispersion mechanic over all ranges, which is why sometimes when you fire at a ship right next to you, half your rounds will go into the water at point blank range. And they think that's not total bullcrap. It is friggen pathetic and their horrible attempt to balance overpowered classes.

 

They want BB's to close range and yet they allow for dispersion that puts main battery shots directly into the water at 4k? The physics on those shots is absolutely laughable as the round arks a good 30 degrees from barrel direction right out of the muzzle. It's a pathetic joke is what it is.

 

Then, you have a Japaneese Atago that can hit rounds at any range with almost no dispersion at all, once again, because it is the same dispersion at every range. I love the pathetic cammo mechanic that adds again another 3% dispersion at any range to the enemies shots, which is once again retarded to have at any range. I love how secondary battery guns shoot into the water at less than 1k unless you have a captain skill that buffs it. Completely retarded.

Edited by Rounne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×