WCNAW SPECIAL REQUESTS THREAD

[Akmatov]

This may be a crazy idea, but at the end of an engagement could a printable plot be a part of the AAR?

Just a plot of the division's line of advance would be sweet, but given that the info is in the AAR could it be marked to indicate every five or ten turns and really going for something pretty could it indicate when which division fired on which other division?

Just something to thing about now that WCNAW is out the door and you have nothing else to thing about. :)

[theonlyone]

I like the idea too, it would be really cool to be able to see how the battle developed. On the map afterwards.

[Veinless]

Less off the wall request :) - when looking at ship details, would it be possible to have the turret range circles display on the map?

[Warship NWS]

a) I turned this into a "special request" thread.. not a wish list mind you, but items that would have a potentialy direct effect on improved enjoyment of the WCNAW interface and game play design.

b) As to an AAR somehow tied to the TacMap, I would have to think on this one as it is easier said then done as a LOT of data would have to be saved and then either replayed or displayed in some format that would be reasonably easy to understand and not overly clutter the AAR.

c) Range circles on the TacMap during the ship display interface.. I like that one, along with torp, radar, and visibility range circles right? ;)

[Akmatov]

Just a quick unthoughful reaction:

B) I might have come across as over complicating what I was thinking; just a line chart of the track of the different divisions, with periodic time hacks and an arrow from one navy's line to the other to indicate that at this time this division fired on this enemy division. The AAR reports:

(A1) CA GRAF SPEE FIRING MAIN BATTERY: 11" RANGING CM
TARGET: (A1) CA EXETER
RNG: 24400 BRG: 305 ASP: 351 HIT/STRD-PK: 11/16 B/D-PK: 100/0
*** STRADDLED ***If this could somehow be translated into a chart, it would be incredibly excellent. But just the lines of advance with time hacks would be very very cool, and we could manually add the exchange of fire data off the AAR if we wanted to.

c) Yes, yes, niceness. Although there are currently two range circle, red for gunnery range and blue for something I've been too busy to dig out of the manual - visibility I'm guessing.

I'm not quite sure about the difference between a special request and a wish list item, but I'm sure you can take care of that. :)

[Warship NWS]

Again, on the chart/AAR thing.. I will have to think on that one. ;)

Range circles are explained here;
http://navalwarfare.info/files/WC/WC-Manual.htm#Tactical Map

[Mikekiller16]

I great improvement in the gameplay would be the possibility to set the divisions speed :eek:

[Saffron]

I like the chart idea for the AAR, so I second that idea.

[Warship NWS]

I great improvement in the gameplay would be the possibility to set the divisions speed :eek:

See our WCNAW FAQ here ; http://forums.navalwarfare.org/showthread.php?t=1533

[Warship NWS]

Some updated FAQ stuff for you guys to chew on;

http://forums.navalwarfare.org/showthread.php?t=1533

Thanks! :)

[Saffron]

One of the things I found a bit tedious in WCDB was adjusting the ROF of each type of gun on every ship every turn. For instance, once a certain ship had another ship firmly ranged (with the red diamond), I might ramp up the ROF to full. But if I lost the range, I would adjust it back down to spotting fire to conserve ammo.

This meant checking each ship to ensure the right ship was firing at the right target with the right ROF.

What I propose is that the dashed lines to indicate which ship is firing at which target remain visible. Now granted, I totally understand that this can get messy if you have large fleets with main/secondary/tertiary guns all firing (3 lines per ship), but the AI dashed lines wouldn't have to be shown all the time (just when the AI ship fires). In fact, perhaps the 'show firing lines' could be toggle-able during gameplay to only show them when needed. Three different colored lines could represent main/sec/tert guns and they could flash when that gun fires.

Just a thought, since then I could see at a glance which ships need to change their ROF.

[Warship NWS]

To Saffron.. good points, I had thought about this topic before. However, I have a better plan that will coincide with a plan of action for a future update anyway - especially when larger battles are added to the engine.

Auto-doctrinal firing procedures. Instead of picking a specific ROF select, possibly even on a divisional level, a doctrine. Example; if the target is ranged, but not hitting it yet, auto-switch to spotted; if hitting the target auto-switch to full. This would keep YOU in command of the ROF selections but allow for a LOT less ship to ship command changes for ROF options.

The reason this is part of my action plan is because I am already planning on auto-targeting for SB/TB guns at a later stage thus allowing the player to concentrate on the MB guns and TT during large naval actions.

Sound good to you?

[theonlyone]

I've noticed at the end of a battle, if a ship has moved off the map & out of the battle already before the end, you can't do the F4 ship display and see the data of that ship. On WCDB, you could view it with even ships that had already left the battle. Is there a way to bring that back?

Also, I know it may be early. But, I'm reminding you again about the no sound option for V1.1. :p

[jsom]

I've noticed at the end of a battle, if a ship has moved off the map & out of the battle already before the end, you can't do the F4 ship display and see the data of that ship. On WCDB, you could view it with even ships that had already left the battle. Is there a way to bring that back?


A second request for this.

[Akmatov]

Sound good to you?

Sounds very good to me

[Akmatov]

I've noticed at the end of a battle, if a ship has moved off the map & out of the battle already before the end, you can't do the F4 ship display and see the data of that ship. On WCDB, you could view it with even ships that had already left the battle. Is there a way to bring that back?
A third vote for this

[Warship NWS]

I've noticed at the end of a battle, if a ship has moved off the map & out of the battle already before the end, you can't do the F4 ship display and see the data of that ship. On WCDB, you could view it with even ships that had already left the battle. Is there a way to bring that back?

Also, I know it may be early. But, I'm reminding you again about the no sound option for V1.1. :p

Thanks.. on my "to do" list on both counts..;)

[Akmatov]

Somehow I had completely missed or forgotten about the restrictions on map edge exiting and I can only say I don't like it - really, really don't like it.

Although I greatly enjoy setting up hypothetical matches between selected ships to see how they do against each other, my main interest is recreating/studying historical encounters. The current map exit boundaries really messes with this. I've been thinking about various naval engagements and the current artificial exit requirements are just awful.

Surely there must be a way to make it possible to set in a scenario which map edges are exit edges for the different fleets! This is important!

Note: Just now saw your comments in the other thread

[Warship NWS]

To AK already working on selectable map edges for "exit points" - it simply did not make it into v1.0. For the majority of situations, including random battles, its not a critical issue but it will become more important with "mission parameters" - similiar to what your mentioning, which I do have planned for a future update. I have moved selectable exit points the priority list to be done prior to v1.1 - possibly by v1.02 or v1.03. I am looking into the coding requirements today to see if I can add additional text lines to TXT scenarios to note "exit" edges of the map. Just need to make sure this will all tie into the AI thought processes as well.

[Akmatov]

Thank you so so much!

For many situations it is not critical, but if you are recreating a historical situation or using WCNAW to fight out a battle generated by another more strategic simulation it does become very important.

Thank you for being so responsive. :)

[Akmatov]

Auto-doctrinal firing procedures
Is it possible to set the range at which the AI opens fire? I'm seeing it waste a lot of ammo at PKs of like 7%.

If not, could it become so?

[Veinless]

Seeing as I tend to waste a lot of ammo at 7% PKs, would it be possible to have the PK% listed when choosing targets, perhaps when fog of war is turned off?

I think this would help me to more quickly learn when/under what situations I should be shooting/holding fire.

[Warship NWS]

To Ak and V.. something to consider, with all the firing at Jutland historically the average PK was 2-4%. The Warspite hit the Guilio Cesare at 26,000+ yards with a PK chance of likely less then 1-2%. This is why "ranging" fire existed, to reduce ammunition expenditure while guns were being ranged for their targets. If a ship had a viable target in range it was not likely going to sit around and wait for the prime shot as even a single shell hit could change the course of a naval battle very quickly. So the answer is no, I will not force the AI not to shoot if it feels it has a viable target. If you want to "hold" fire you can, the option is there to do so.

As to having some idea of when you might have a good shot.. do you think any naval commander had a "PK analyzer" in front of him to figure out the chances of a hit? The systems on board a battleship, which would seem terribly archaic by todays standards of digital fire control systems, were extremely complex and required many crewmen to operate in several stations on board a warship.

The RN doctrine, in an attempt to score hits fast and dirty, would be to close first, and a sense, ask questions later - a Nelson tradition of bringing guns to bear and hammering the enemy. One could argue the HMS Hood paid a horrific price for such a daring doctrine as you had to hope you did not get punished in the process of closing the range.

A rule of thumb could be.. attempt to close to ~50% of the maximum main gun battery range (use your range circles).. possibly closer if your firing at a fast moving and smaller target. Warships typically had a maximum gun battery range, effective range (around 40-60% max range), and decisive range (<40% max range). There is where the tactics come in - plus some calculated risk assessment and pray for some good luck. The closer you get the more risk you put your ships in of being hit back.

From there.. practice, practice, practice.. sweat it out guys, that is what they had to do historically, and at least your not risking actual real sailors and ships figuring it out. ;)

Thanks.

[Saffron]

Sound good to you?


It sounds very good to me. Better than my idea.

Thanks!

[Akmatov]

I will not force the AI not to shoot if it feels it has a viable target

I think our difference here is based on the word "viable". I quite realize that real world admirals of the past did not have a constantly running PK estimate available and that in fact hits did occur at very low odds from time to time.

However, they were not operating in ignorance of a general understanding of good vs. bad odds for a hit. In the early years of the 20th century there were efforts in both the American and the British navies, at least, to improve and quantify gunnery. So the current AI behavior, as my casual observations seem to suggest, of opening fire at the most extreme possible range represents the hard coded implementation of a gunnery doctrine that contemporary officers might have seen as less than optimal.

Given that ammunition is not limitless, this could place the AI at a distinct disadvantage as it could run out of ammunition after it enters ranges more likely to result in hits.

As the human player, I can implement a doctrine of not opening fire until I have a reasonable chance of hitting successfully. What I am suggesting is that I be able to afford the AI the same advantage in deciding what targets are 'viable'.


The RN doctrine, in an attempt to score hits fast and dirty, would be to close first, and a sense, ask questions later - a Nelson tradition of bringing guns to bear and hammering the enemy. One could argue the HMS Hood paid a horrific price for such a daring doctrine as you had to hope you did not get punished in the process of closing the range.
This is an example of a national doctrine that currently can not be followed by the AI and is an example of just what I would like to adjust. If the RN traditionally charges in and opens fire at closer range than some other navies, let us adjust either the AI PK or Range required to trigger opening fire.


A rule of thumb could be.. attempt to close to ~50% of the maximum main gun battery range
Good advise, but advise the AI can not attempt to follow.

Does this make sense? I have no idea about whether this would be easy or hard to code, even if you decided you liked it.

[Warship NWS]

You might have misunderstood me,


This is an example of a national doctrine that currently can not be followed by the AI and is an example of just what I would like to adjust. If the RN traditionally charges in and opens fire at closer range than some other navies, let us adjust either the AI PK or Range required to trigger opening fire.

The RN would start firing as soon as they had a good solution depending on the FC system they were using - but they would also still close during the process to try and score more hits, but at the risk of being damaged themselves. ;)


However, I follow what your getting at Ak.. let me think on it after other priorities are handled first. Thanks.

[Akmatov]

Just glad I managed to explain what I was thinking. :)

[Warship NWS]

Quick update.. v1.03 will include an interface refresh rate speed reduction. The coding engine is very efficient and fast -- in this case it was overkill. However, the interface will have no problem keeping up to speed with input from the player but it reduces CPU overhead by ~2/3 making mutli-tasking more feasible. I just tested it out while running multiple Windows apps with no problems at all. I already posted it for internal beta testing, and if no problems are reported, then we may just post this update as a v1.03 and move the division speed change feature to v1.04 - no change in release schedule for sometime around this weekend.

Thanks.

[Akmatov]

Glad to see the improvement and also glad the division speed change is coming also soon, but the map exit edges was very important and glad you took care of that so quickly. Now I have a couple of scenarios I'm going to look at writing, hope not to botch them too badly. :)

[Warship NWS]

Glad to see the improvement and also glad the division speed change is coming also soon, but the map exit edges was very important and glad you took care of that so quickly. Now I have a couple of scenarios I'm going to look at writing, hope not to botch them too badly. :)

No problem.. thanks for the support.

[Saffron]

Any chance of someday being able to animate the ship fires and smoke? Just a thought for immersion.

Thanks. :D

[Warship NWS]

Any chance of someday being able to animate the ship fires and smoke? Just a thought for immersion.

Thanks. :D

Hmm.. possibly.. we shall see. ;)

[Warship NWS]

Updated news regarding v1.04,

http://forums.navalwarfare.org/showpost.php?p=33606&postcount=2

[Warship NWS]

2 new warship classes to be added plus a 3rd screenshot of the division deployment updated interface,

http://forums.navalwarfare.org/showpost.php?p=33606&postcount=2

[Akmatov]

Looking good

[Cougar_DK]

I would like the option to click on F4, F8 and F12 with the mouse since the game is mostly mouse driven instead of moving the hand to the keyboard and press the respective keys?

What do you think?

[buffedub]

I agree. Pushing buttons is counter-intuitive since most of the game is mouse driven.

[Cougar_DK]

And I would like the option to turn off the click sound when clicking around the UI - its just not me :D

[Mikekiller16]

This is maybe a too special request, now we have a very detailed AAR with every move, shot, hit and so on, very detailed but difficult to read it and make you a mental picture of the battle... What a about a replay battle viewer using this file? The viewer could be the same interface....:rolleyes:

[Cougar_DK]

I have another.... When selecting ammo types and I only have HE ammo, why not remove the text for AP and CM ammo types?

I haven't played enough to know if auto selecting HE ammo when its all I have would be a greater option, i.e. not sure how to cancel attack etc if you don't have the option :)

[Warship NWS]

I am looking at ways to improve the "end of battle" information. CDK.. your request is added to my list. ;)

[Akmatov]

Ah, my AAR Map?

[Warship NWS]

Ah, my AAR Map?

I will be considering different options.. more news soon. ;)

[Manie_de]

Another two suggestions:

1) After Battle Report:

In the normal battle report window a scrollable list of all involved ships and their status at the end of the battle (incl. sunken, disengaged, etc.) can be shown.
When you select a ship via left mouse button the normal F4 informations can be displayed.
Offboard ships have a little clue like "left tactical map", while the other ships/divisions on the tacmap are being highlighted.
Sunken ships maybe show an extra information about the reason of their sinking (e.g. flooding, magazin explosion, etc.)

2) Auto-Deployment Option:

Adding a new "Only AI" option.

"Auto-deployment on" is selected => both fleets are placed by the AI;
"Auto-deployment off" is selected => both fleets had to be deployed by the player (player knows then where to expect the enemy).
"Only AI" => only the enemy AI ships/divisions will be deployed and the player ships can be deployed manually (player don't know where the enemy is and has the flexibility to place his ships where he wants to).

Another feature would be, that WC-NAW would autodeploy the remaining ships from the manual deployment (e.g. I have 5 divisions to deploy and the AI has 4 divisions -> now I deploy only 3 of my divisions and go to the next step with the RMB -> all yet undeployed divisions will be deployed automatically).

Martin

[Warship NWS]

Hi MD,

1) I am considering a direction similiar to what your refering to. My preferable canidate would be a "battle report" type interface, similiar to you see at the end of each combat phase but "clickable".

2) I would have to think on that one. The auto-deploy works on the concept of the fleets having a chance to "find each other". If divisions are scattered about the map they may just sail right by enemy divisions without detecting each other, especially in low visibility conditions. This was a problem I had when playing the old SSI GNB series random scenarios.. often it would take 3-5 runs to get a battle going as the fleets would sail about the map and never find anything.

The auto-deploy option is intended for two uses,

a) Custom scenarios, or customizing saved scenarios, with preset positions.

b) Random battles where neither side have "known" positions. In this case the auto-deploy sets the exit map edges and uses random - near entry map edge - starting positions. Division courses are set in such a way so as to offer a good chance for the divisions to detect each other and initiate combat.

Like I said however, I will think on it.

[Saffron]

I second the extra information in the AAR about the reason for a sinking. It would be nice to know if a ship succumbed to progressive flooding, conflagration fires, torpedo hits, shell damage, magazine explosions, etc.

Also, I know the subject of land has been asked to death, but I'm still unclear: Will there eventually be actual land targets? Would be nice to have shore bombardment missions with actual targets like bunkers, artillery emplacements, fortifications, various buildings, troop/tank concentrations, runways/airfields, etc. It would also be interesting to have naval base facilities with ships at port to attack.

So much potential with this game ... and for the record, I'm really enjoying the new tac map. It's added a wonderful new dimension to playability.

I think someone else mentioned having a zoom-able map, and I definitely agree. It would be fantastic to zoom in to see individual ships, especially when the range is short. Perhaps at that zoom level, some labels could be added to the map (ala Fighting Steel).

I did notice a bug though. I noticed in the manual that it said divisions will keep around 900 yards from each other so they don't occupy the same spot on the map. Well I had two divisions occupy the same spot on the map. In fact, when I selected one of the divisions, two of the ships were actually superimposed over each other in the division display window and I could only select the one on top. I should've taken a screenshot of it, but alas I didn't think about it at the time.

[Warship NWS]

To Saffron,

a) Your not seeing 2 divisions overlap, its a known issue with the disengaging ships somtimes causing overlaps. This is being addressed with v1.05. All ships/divisions are supposed to retain a space of at least 400 yards from each other.

b) You would not see individual ships with a "zoom" feature, only divisions and individual disengaging/disabled ships. Divisions are always shown as one icon on the TacMap.

c) Plans are already in the works for an expanded in-game final battle report. More news on this soon.

Thanks.

[Saffron]

I have another little suggestion:

When it comes time to select which ships to fire at which targets, would it be possible to have the targeted enemy division appear in the upper window when you select the firing ship? That would save on having to find and re-select the enemy division on the tac map each turn.

Another helpful feature would be to have the target ship be highlighted when you hover the cursor over your own ship. That's one thing I miss in the old version of WCDB was the highlight feature.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

To Saffron, the first request I could probably do.. the second I would prefer not. The old highlighters proved rather difficult to work with so the code for that feature was removed. I will see if I can come up with something else however.

[Kyle Holgate]

You have the Lexington class now - seems only right to provide the her Japanese counterpart - the Amagi class. ;)

[Warship NWS]

You have the Lexington class now - seems only right to provide the her Japanese counterpart - the Amagi class. ;)

On the request list..

[Saffron]

Last night I happened to be browsing Avalanche Press's website and drooling over their World War II at Sea series. If only I had a human partner to play a board game, but alas I don't. It's not easy to find a person interested enough in naval warfare, much less having a place in the house to keep a board up for several days ... especially when there are cats lurking about. (Cats just love dice)

Of partcular interest were their "alternate history" expansions, and it really made me say, "Wow, if only these ships could be included in WCDB-NAW someday ... " I almost wanted to plop down and write a letter to Santa:

Dear Santa,

All I want for Christmas this year is the battlecruiser versions of HMS Furious and HMS Glorious in WCDB. It would also be super cool to see the ships of Stalin's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Five Year Plans or the "what-if" scenarios such as if Austro-Hungarian empire survived WWI and upgraded their dreadnaugts as the British did. Dreadnaugts of the S. American navies would be exciting too, as well as Turkey's.

There is no Santa, of course, but there is a NWS staff, and that's the next best thing! Admittedly, I'm kind of a sucker for "what-if" scenarios and alternate history engagements so I'm wondering just how far you're willing to go with WCDB in thosev terms. I know you still have lots of historical ships to add so I don't really expect anything hypothetical for Christmas, but it sure would be great to see them added eventually.

[Warship NWS]

You do mean WCNAW right? ;) Added to the suggestion box..

[thevanderploegs]

What??? No Santa??? Man...there goes my plasma TV....

Seriously, though, I am also a bit of a sucker for AH engagements. I own Plan Red from Avalanche. My son and I will eventually get to that one... Has Canadian dreadnoughts in it (Canadian Parliament almost authorized paying for 2 QE class fast battleships back then).

I would like to see, at least, the ships that were cancelled before being completed (ie: US South Dakota 1919 class and contemporaries). I realize with the detail level in the combat mechanics, that ships like the H-44 or similar 'fantasy ships' are difficult to do because design details weren't nailed down and much of them are speculative.

But then again, the NWS team can do anything....:D

Regards,
Gary

[asnrobert]

[QUOTE=Saffron;34473]L
Dear Santa,

All I want for Christmas this year is the battlecruiser versions of HMS Furious and HMS Glorious in WCDB.

Actuallt, the Glorious and Courageous (though not the Furious) are already in WCNAW. Check out my "Second Heligoland" scenario.

[JMS]

On the request list..

What's on the request list? To see if we need to request something else...

Off the top of mu head, I think we have the "wobbly eight" but are missing other classes such as the Swiftsures, Duncans, Londons and Formidables, and a number of German pre-dreadnoughts.

[asnrobert]

What's on the request list? To see if we need to request something else...

Off the top of mu head, I think we have the "wobbly eight" but are missing other classes such as the Swiftsures, Duncans, Londons and Formidables, and a number of German pre-dreadnoughts.

The Duncans are there, along with the King Edward VII ("Wobbly Eight") and the Canopus class.

[Warship NWS]

WCNAW v1.05 due out by around this coming weekend,

http://forums.navalwarfare.org//showthread.php?t=1547

[PDF]

Another one for Santa's list : in scenario files, ability to enter previous ship damage or limited ammo . I mean you could start a game with some malfunctioning turrets, damaged hull or steering etc...

Effect (or rather lack thereof) is really noticeable in Bismarck vs Hood scenario : in the game the Bismarck usually end badly, faced with twice her firepower (more or less), and the Prinz Eugen isn't really up to the task of piercing the BC/BB armor with her feeble 203mm guns...

In reality only the Hood was really effective (until she blew up...), because PoW had non-calibrated guns and defective turrets - former can be simulated by reducing crew quality, but nothing can be done for the latter...
Later, Bismarck's death can't really be simulated ingame, if her steering damage from an air attack isn't in...

[Warship NWS]

Hi PDF, what your asking for is already in my list for a future update. Thanks.

[PDF]

Hi PDF, what your asking for is already in my list for a future update. Thanks.
Nice ! Great minds encounter ! :D

[Saffron]

I remember some time ago when there was talk of opening up the entire range of ships to be played in a scenario ... i.e. mixing WWI and WWII ships in the same game instead of separating them as they are now. What's the status on that?

[Warship NWS]

I remember some time ago when there was talk of opening up the entire range of ships to be played in a scenario ... i.e. mixing WWI and WWII ships in the same game instead of separating them as they are now. What's the status on that?

Its a possibility but no promises at this point as the differences in technologies would have to be covered correctly for all ships - and that is not as simple as it sounds. ;)

[gabeeg]

I Just purchased the game and have briefly gone through the manual, I did not see mention in it or on this forum about plunging fire vs. direct fire. I recall when the bismark and prinz eugen took on the Hood the germans purposefully used a plunging fire trajectory for their main guns to take advantage of the hoods thinner deck armour. Any plans to model plunging fire?

In a an email I sent early I had also asked about the inclusion of naval air and carriers for battles such as leyte. As it is now I would have to let Halsey catch the northern group with is fast BB's...would be nice to have some naval air to slow the Japanese down...then maybe Halsey could get back in time to help out taffy 3 this time :)

Thanks and Kind Regards,

Harry

[Warship NWS]

To Gabeeg,

Plunging fire is most certainly modeled in WCNAW - you have vertical (belt) and horizontal (deck) hits for the hull and the turrets. Every gun also has its own ballistic and firepower calculation based on range to target, shell type being fired, gun calibre, gun design, firing sequence, mount design, etc.

As to naval air power.. see our SAS-WW2 - and we are looking at plans for developing/publishing a CV/air power tactical/operational combat simulation. ;)

[gabeeg]

In regards to plunging fire, glad to see it is modeled even if abstracted. it might be nice to have it be user selectable as an option for those times you know it is a waste of ammo to have hits on the belt and are willing to sacrifice accuracy and speed for better chance of damaging your opponent. This is really minor...just was thinking about it for some reason. Great game, I am really enjoying it in the very short time I have had it. It has that quality I appreciate in a game where you keep discovering the little things that make it even more enjoyable :)

[Warship NWS]

In regards to plunging fire, glad to see it is modeled even if abstracted. it might be nice to have it be user selectable as an option for those times you know it is a waste of ammo to have hits on the belt and are willing to sacrifice accuracy and speed for better chance of damaging your opponent. This is really minor...just was thinking about it for some reason. Great game, I am really enjoying it in the very short time I have had it. It has that quality I appreciate in a game where you keep discovering the little things that make it even more enjoyable :)

It is not really "abstracted". WCNAW uses a detailed calculation system for determining horizontal and vertical hits. Not sure what you mean by "user selectable" .. you can choose when or when not to fire at a ship anytime you want. You can also select the ammo type and rate of fire if you have the appropriate game options activated. Just asking but you did read over the online manual right? ;)

Thanks for the support. ;)

[William Miller]

In regards to plunging fire, glad to see it is modeled even if abstracted. it might be nice to have it be user selectable as an option for those times you know it is a waste of ammo to have hits on the belt and are willing to sacrifice accuracy and speed for better chance of damaging your opponent. This is really minor...just was thinking about it for some reason. Great game, I am really enjoying it in the very short time I have had it. It has that quality I appreciate in a game where you keep discovering the little things that make it even more enjoyable :)

Hello Gabeeg,

Welcome to the forums! Plunging fire by naval guns is not normally something that can be "set", "turned on or off", or directly controlled by the firing ship other than by virtue of the gun mount/shell properties. Naval guns normally used a set charge weight to propell the shell, and this generated a certain muzzle velocity, which along with the ballistic properties of the shell dictated at what vertical angle the gun had to be fired to strike the target. This in turn generated a certain "angle of fall" for the shell that one can measure or estimate at any range. It is this "angle of fall" that determines if the fire is plunging fire or not. Generally speaking, plunging fire will occur at a range >= to that at which the odds of striking the hortizonal armor (deck, turret tops) of the target exceeds the odds of striking the vertical armor (belt, turret front/side). This range will vary based on the above-mentioned factors for each gun type. As an example, the USN 16"/50 Mk 7 guns mounted on the Iowa class BBs would normally achieve the above definition of "plunging fire" at ranges of > ~ 24000 yards. The USN 6"/47 Mk 16 gun would achieve plunging fire at ranges of > ~15000 yards.

Note that some land guns, such as certain howitzers, could vary the propellant charges so that they could perform both "high-angle" and more normal "direct-angle" fire at a target location. These guns would have "range tables" that would show the ranges achieved with each type of fire considering the number of charges used and the firing angle. Naval guns however always use what would be the equilivent to "direct-angle" fire due both the maximum elevation limits on many naval gun mounts, but more importantly due to serious issues with accuracy at striking a moving target with "high-angle" fire.

[gabeeg]

Thanks for the explanation, The selectable option I was refering to was in reference to the game interface...not real life gunnery...but I was not taking into consideration the limited elavation that most turreted main guns could achieve (which would limit the purposeful use of plunging fire at shorter ranges). I had read somewhere at one time that though the Hood was within range of direct fire from the German main guns that they had instead chose to use plunging fire by elevating thier guns and firing at a higher trajectory to take advantage of the hoods thin deck armour. The downside was the accuracy, and time of flight for the shell suffered. Whether this is a accurate account I do not know...but makes sense.

Boiling it down I was just suggesting or wondering if it was worth while to have a choice within the game of two trajectories for a target at a given range when firing a ships main guns, one high trajectory (less accurate but exposes deck (and superstructure) to a higher likely hood of plunging shell hits) and one direct. It maybe that this not a realistic tactic and/or not worth implementing...which I would totally understand.

[Warship NWS]

To gabeeg,

Adding such an option would not be based on historical evidence. Hitting a moving target at sea was difficult enough even with good fire control systems - far more complex then land artillery hitting a static target or a spot on a map. Naval gunnery did not involve changing out elevation rates or numbers of powder bags for the sake of hitting deck vs belt armor on a moving ship, especially in combat conditions - at least not that I have ever read about in any source material. Direct fire minimal trajectory engagements was the typical doctrine for improved accuracy and time on target for shell salvos - increasing the time on target for gunfire would have complicated the ballistic firing solutions on a nearly geometric scale.

I will also add that there is no verifiable evidence, that I have ever read, that Holland, nor Lutjens or Capt. Lud. (who I seriously doubt had Hoods specs on hand), considered the Hood deck armor to be serious liability to her design in combat or that any attempt was made to take advantage, or reduce the threat, in regards to her deck armor. It would be pure speculation to assume otherwise without conclusive or verifiable evidence - in my personal opinion. The only man that could have given such evidence died with the sinking of the Hood.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

v1.05 is live,

http://forums.navalwarfare.org/showthread.php?t=5

v1.06 is underway including the addition of the USN WW1 database.

Thanks.

[JMS]

It occured to me (because I am a bit slow this days...) that the new map removes the limitation to 4 divisions per side since now many more can be displayed. Same happens with the 8 ships per division limit. It would seem that up to 10 may now fit in the screen.

Is it feasible?

[Warship NWS]

It occured to me (because I am a bit slow this days...) that the new map removes the limitation to 4 divisions per side since now many more can be displayed. Same happens with the 8 ships per division limit. It would seem that up to 10 may now fit in the screen.

Is it feasible?

As noted in our WCNAW FAQ (http://forums.navalwarfare.org//showthread.php?t=1533) larger battles are in the works.. 3 of the major planned engine upgrades in the works are USN WW1 (underway), larger battles, and terrain features.

[Saffron]

Do you think it is feasible to one day be able to direct individual turrets on the same ship to fire at different targets? Might come in handy if a ship has enemies both fore and aft.

Can dud shells cause kinetic damage to ships instead of being counted as a complete miss?

Will there ever be a chance for a torpedo spread to hit a non-targeted ship in the same division?

And lastly, there are some abbreviations in the AAR that I'm not sure about:

BR = Bridge, CR = Crew, PR = ?, ST = Steering (?), FC = Fire Control, SL = ?

Thanks.

[asnrobert]

Do you think it is feasible to one day be able to direct individual turrets on the same ship to fire at different targets? Might come in handy if a ship has enemies both fore and aft.

Can dud shells cause kinetic damage to ships instead of being counted as a complete miss?

Will there ever be a chance for a torpedo spread to hit a non-targeted ship in the same division?

And lastly, there are some abbreviations in the AAR that I'm not sure about:

BR = Bridge, CR = Crew, PR = ?, ST = Steering (?), FC = Fire Control, SL = ?

Thanks.

I'll let Chris answer most of these, but regarding the last question, SL is searchlight and I believe PR is power (i.e. the ship's engines).

[Warship NWS]

Do you think it is feasible to one day be able to direct individual turrets on the same ship to fire at different targets? Might come in handy if a ship has enemies both fore and aft.

Split targeting is unlikely as it was only done on extremely rare occassions with poor results. SB/TB starboard/port broadside targeting however will be added soon.


Can dud shells cause kinetic damage to ships instead of being counted as a complete miss?

Dud shell hits are not counted as a "miss".. they are counted as hits that cause less damage.


Will there ever be a chance for a torpedo spread to hit a non-targeted ship in the same division?

Yes.. more on this topic soon.



And lastly, there are some abbreviations in the AAR that I'm not sure about:

BR = Bridge, CR = Crew, PR = ?, ST = Steering (?), FC = Fire Control, SL = ?

Thanks.


PR = propulsion, ST = steering, SL = searchlights.

[Saffron]

During the "Disengage Ships" part of the turn, would it be possible to show ammunition for the ships? Right now, it only shows the ship name, which makes it hard to know if I should disengage a ship due to lack of ammo.

Thanks. ;)

[Warship NWS]

During the "Disengage Ships" part of the turn, would it be possible to show ammunition for the ships? Right now, it only shows the ship name, which makes it hard to know if I should disengage a ship due to lack of ammo.

Thanks. ;)

That can be done by hitting the F4 ship display - you can check all ships this way.