Accuracy once MB is ranged...

[gabeeg]

OK, After a few dozen games under my belt I have few complaints. My one concern is the accuracy of the main battery after a hit or straddle of the target. IMO, the PK might be a tiny bit low for subsequent shots. In reading accounts of Naval battles both WWI and WWII, in a lot of cases once a target was ranged and MB salvos started connecting, subsequent MB salvos rained in with much better accuracy. In WCNAW once I have a ranged shot connect subsequent ranged shots (ignoring range) seem barely more accurate and switching to spotted or full less so. Seems I should (and the enemy) be getting a bit more benefit of ranging my opponent.

Along the same lines ships that are steaming under 10knots (and obviously not evasive) seem a tad harder to hit than they might have been historically.

I have ignored range in the above...knowing that at long, edge of MB ranged shots are much more difficult.

I maybe off base, and I am only suggesting a small change in PK, but I wanted to start a discussion to see what others including the devs think.

[Warship NWS]

To gabeeg,

It is not all that simple.. and historical battles often do not give a lot of details regarding "PKs", number of hits per salvoes fired, number of shells fired per salvo (incomplete vs complete broadsides), exact battle ranges when hits were scored, target aspect and exact maneuvers, etc.. Point being, we cannot go just with often vague and incomplete "eye witness" reports especially considering the fact that in questionable visibility levels you could not easily determine the number of hits scored per salvo with extreme accuracy. Naval gunnery research is based a lot on analyzing the weapons, ordnance, fire control systems, combat dynamics, etc.. based on information we can extrapolate from best known information.

Examples, the average hit rate for the KGV/Rodney vs Bismarck was no better then ~14% and the Bismarck was moving at 6 knots in a circle. Naval gunnery at Jutland was no better then 2-4%. DoY vs Scharnhorst (using radar) fired ~450 shells at an initial range of 11kyds and it still took 3 hours of dogging the Scharnhorst along with DDs/CRs to sink her - estimated number of 14" hits was around 14 IIRC. Washington fired 75 shells for 9 hits on Kirishima using FC radar for ~12% accuracy at less then 10kyd.

Ok.. now stating the above, I would need much more detailed information. Also note, that even the best "solution" regarding firing guns at a target was far from perfect and it did not take much to break that "target lock" - remember we are talking archaic technologies compared to today's standards of target tracking and motion analysis that is updated by digital fire control weapons using high resolution radar and rapidly updated fire control solution systems. Even the Mk45 5" gun on the AEGIS ships won't hit a 20-30+ knot moving and maneuvering surface combatant 100% of the time even at point blank ranges, just as one example.

As to a target sailing below 10 knots, speed is taken into account but ALSO range and bearing changes - which are often more critical then just "speed" of target.

Thanks.

[gabeeg]

The main thing that I noticed is that at mid-long ranges with no aggresive maneuvering on my or the AI's part, I would get ranged hits and the follow up spotted or full rated salvos would miss...the vast majority of time. This was just a general observation...not scientific at all. That said, I decided to put my money where my mouth was and get the stats from a few games collected. Of course the first game, is entirely contrary to my argument. I have the Nelson BB and a Exeter CA launching accurate salvo after accurate salvo at a Conte di Cavour BC that is doing little maneuvering due to steering damage. Visibility is 9800yards so range has been all mid-short range for the Main batteries. So...I put my argument on hold...I am at work now so I do not have the exact numbers but the Nelson is seems to be hitting at at least 30-40%...I cannot complain.

[Warship NWS]

Let me know if you see anything in a pattern. Side note; another level of "straddle/hit" detail is in the process of being added to the gunnery calculations, possibly by v1.07. Thanks.

[KJ_A]

I am glad you respond to this because it is a question I to had as well. I was thinking about how, to my knowledge, Bismark hit Hood consistently after she ranged her on the third salvo.

On another note I noticed that you quoted the account of the Washington's engagement with Kirishima from Morision. Were you aware that there has been some new info brought to light that paints a somewhat different picture of Kirishima demise?

Take a look at this.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/index_lundgren.htm

[Warship NWS]

Hi KJ,

I was not commenting based on "Morrisons" account. However, we have read over R. Lundgren's account of the battle. Remember, his report may be based on added information interpreted from AARs (which were not 100% accurate - human "witness" imperfection factor in battle needs to be taken into account here) and underwater wreckage, however, there is still no conclusive method of knowing *exactly* what happened to the Kirishima.

When modeling a naval wargame understanding the dynamics of the combat environment and weapon systems, IMHO, is far more critical then basing your design on battle reports, doctrines, or how navies trained. Combat itself has a way of changing the "rules" of what was expected and what would actually happen and interpretation of the results on a per battle basis. Weapon systems can be verified based on schematics, specifications, and their designs. The dynamic combat environment can be modeled to a variable, but reasonable, degree. Battle results are based on some measure of understanding the chaos of combat based on records and eye witness accounts in the heat of battle. In the end, a combat engine should allow for the "potential" of historical battle results - but - should not be based entirely on human interpreted battle accounts.

Example, could the Kirishima had been hit 20 times by 16" shells? It is not impossible - however - based on the fact that the report is not compiled entirely with 100% verifiable evidence and the statistical probability of hitting a ship 20 times based on the number of shells fired is unlikely. IMHO, it mattered little.. even just 9 x 16" 2450lb hits on a moderately armored BC at around ~8.4kds could cause devastating damage. This is just based on the knowledge of the weapon systems. I will note, this is not a matter of questioning the integrity of the report - just reminder that it is nearly impossible to have 100% accurate information to base a battle report on. I have been researching naval battles for years.. and yes, sometimes better information is found, compiled, or analyzed but absolute certainty is virtually impossible to achieve.

The only absolute certainty in battle is that men and machines will die.

Thanks.

[KJ_A]

Thanks for the reply. I had not seen the report mentioned when I entered "Kirishima" in the forum search engine so I thought I should mention it.

[Warship NWS]

Thanks for the reply. I had not seen the report mentioned when I entered "Kirishima" in the forum search engine so I thought I should mention it.

We noted it a few days ago.

I think in short - this covers a topic asked about before in other threads, forums, etc. - if you go based only on "AARs" then your combat mechanics will be on scripted results rather then the researched dynamics of weapon system capabilities. Make sense? ;)

We are in the process of adding another level of detail to the gunnery mechanics in WCNAW this week that will enhance the combat results covering combat effective ROF, damage per hit, range effects, hit/straddles, etc.. with a higher resolution of equations. This directive was already planned on at the time WCNAW was released as part of the advanced combat mechanics we compiled based on extensive research and analysis.

In the end.. what is "under the hood" is being upgraded in phases to higher levels of sophisticated accuracy, resolution, and authenticity. Should prove interesting..;)

Oh and BTW.. the USN WW1 database will be included in v1.07. :D

Thanks.

[Saffron]

In the end.. what is "under the hood" is being upgraded in phases to higher levels of sophisticated accuracy, resolution, and authenticity. Should prove interesting..

Ooh, I'm looking forward to this. :D

[Akmatov]

just reminder that it is nearly impossible to have 100% accurate information to base a battle report on.However, the actual events in battles need to be within the range of likely outcomes of the analysis. Otherwise, the analysis is an artificial and sterile construct disconnected from the outcomes which actually occurred or might have occurred.

I lack the detailed knowledge of actual encounters to have a valid opinion on the 'reality' of WCNAW; however, nothing has struck me as 'odd'. To gain such an opinion, I suppose one could select a well documented encounter and run a rather large number of 'runs' following as closely as possible the courses and actions of the actual units. Then one could see where within the range of the WCNAW 'runs' the actual outcome was. I would be very surprised if the actual outcome was outside the range of WCNAW outcomes and it would be kinda time consuming.


the USN WW1 database will be included in v1.07.Yaaaaaaaaaaaa :) :) :)

Would it be possible to stick in a couple or three merchant ships? Maybe a smallish and a mediumish freighter and a large liner/transport?

[Warship NWS]

Generic merchants are on the list but not for v1.07, already have a full plate for the next update. ;)

[KJ_A]

Something else that I was wondering. When torpedo spreads are launched it says how many spreads and how many torpedoes were in the spread as well as number of individual hits.

Would it be possible in the future for the number of salvos fired in a turn, shells per salvo, and hits her salvo to be displayed? I am talking about with "Fog of War" turned off of course. With "Fog of War" on game play should be much the way it is now. I just wonder some times if I fired +/-54 shells in a turn and it say a hit was scored was it only one shell out of say six salvos or was it three shells?

[jhdeerslayer]

To gabeeg,

It is not all that simple.. and historical battles often do not give a lot of details regarding "PKs", number of hits per salvoes fired, number of shells fired per salvo (incomplete vs complete broadsides), exact battle ranges when hits were scored, target aspect and exact maneuvers, etc.. Point being, we cannot go just with often vague and incomplete "eye witness" reports especially considering the fact that in questionable visibility levels you could not easily determine the number of hits scored per salvo with extreme accuracy. Naval gunnery research is based a lot on analyzing the weapons, ordnance, fire control systems, combat dynamics, etc.. based on information we can extrapolate from best known information.

Examples, the average hit rate for the KGV/Rodney vs Bismarck was no better then ~14% and the Bismarck was moving at 6 knots in a circle. Naval gunnery at Jutland was no better then 2-4%. DoY vs Scharnhorst (using radar) fired ~450 shells at an initial range of 11kyds and it still took 3 hours of dogging the Scharnhorst along with DDs/CRs to sink her - estimated number of 14" hits was around 14 IIRC. Washington fired 75 shells for 9 hits on Kirishima using FC radar for ~12% accuracy at less then 10kyd.

Ok.. now stating the above, I would need much more detailed information. Also note, that even the best "solution" regarding firing guns at a target was far from perfect and it did not take much to break that "target lock" - remember we are talking archaic technologies compared to today's standards of target tracking and motion analysis that is updated by digital fire control weapons using high resolution radar and rapidly updated fire control solution systems. Even the Mk45 5" gun on the AEGIS ships won't hit a 20-30+ knot moving and maneuvering surface combatant 100% of the time even at point blank ranges, just as one example.

As to a target sailing below 10 knots, speed is taken into account but ALSO range and bearing changes - which are often more critical then just "speed" of target.

Thanks.

So tactically speaking, is there a benefit to switching to Spotted and then maybe Full after a target is Ranged? This is what I have been doing in general but rarely, if ever, see that Spotted or Full salvo hit after the target is Ranged. Am I expecting too much?

Enjoy the game by the way as I am a noobie and lose much more than I win.

[JMS]

So tactically speaking, is there a benefit to switching to Spotted and then maybe Full after a target is Ranged? This is what I have been doing in general but rarely, if ever, see that Spotted or Full salvo hit after the target is Ranged. Am I expecting too much?

Enjoy the game by the way as I am a noobie and lose much more than I win.

In my experience it's better to shoot Ranging most of the time except at short range - specially with destroyers and secondaries. At knife fight range the additional damage may make the difference. At very long range (>25.000 yds) I prefer to fire HE rather than AP since it has enough hoomph to penetrate decks and does more damage.

[Warship NWS]

Something else that I was wondering. When torpedo spreads are launched it says how many spreads and how many torpedoes were in the spread as well as number of individual hits.

Would it be possible in the future for the number of salvos fired in a turn, shells per salvo, and hits her salvo to be displayed? I am talking about with "Fog of War" turned off of course. With "Fog of War" on game play should be much the way it is now. I just wonder some times if I fired +/-54 shells in a turn and it say a hit was scored was it only one shell out of say six salvos or was it three shells?

I have something along these lines planned for a future update. Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

So tactically speaking, is there a benefit to switching to Spotted and then maybe Full after a target is Ranged? This is what I have been doing in general but rarely, if ever, see that Spotted or Full salvo hit after the target is Ranged. Am I expecting too much?

Enjoy the game by the way as I am a noobie and lose much more than I win.

A lot depends the gunnery PKs.. example, if you getting very low hit PKs then it may be best to stick with ranging to conserve ammunition until you close the range or use other tactics to increase your PKs before using a faster ROF. In simple form, the faster your ROF the better the chances of scoring higher damage per hit but the lower the chances of scoring hits.

I will note the following information: Ranging fire greatly decreases your FP while only slightly increasing the hit PKs. Ranging fire, by most naval doctrines, involved firing partial salvos until a target was reasonably "ranged", or straddled. Ranging fire should be used more for conserving ammunition then trying to avoid lower PKs. Spotted fire - the typical historical gunnery ROF doctrine - was normaly used after a target was "ranged". Full salvos are fired, "spotted and adjusted", and take into account shell flight time, reloading cycles, and procedures for updating the firing solutions. Full rate of fire should only be used from lower point blank to no greater then decisive gunnery engagement ranges when at least fairly good hit PKs are possible. Full ROF does increase your firepower slightly as it is based on firing the guns as fast as they can be reloaded and maintained on target but at a significantly higher ammunition expenditure and a reduced hit PK as salvos cannot be adjusted as accurately as spotted or ranging fire.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

Enjoy the game by the way as I am a noobie and lose much more than I win.


Try setting up some smaller battles .. 1 vs 1 ship is a good way to try out different types of ammuntion, rates of fire, range dictation, and other related tactics. Then try 2 vs 2 ships, and so on. A good starter battle would be a single battleship vs a cruiser just for practice. If you win, try fighting 2 cruisers or a battlecruiser. Another good tactical excersize is 2-4 DDs vs 1-2 DDs. For a new player turning off the battle options rate of fire, shell selections, and duds would be a good start just so you can focus on fire and maneuver tactics with guns and possibly torpedoes. After some practice turn the options back on one at a time to let yourself adjust to the added tactical options.

Let me know if that helps any.

[Christian Schwietzke]

Try setting up some smaller battles .. 1 vs 1 ship is a good way to try out different types of ammuntion, rates of fire, range dictation, and other related tactics. Then try 2 vs 2 ships, and so on. A good starter battle would be a single battleship vs a cruiser just for practice. If you win, try fighting 2 cruisers or a battlecruiser. Another good tactical excersize is 2-4 DDs vs 1-2 DDs. For a new player turning off the battle options rate of fire, shell selections, and duds would be a good start just so you can focus on fire and maneuver tactics with guns and possibly torpedoes. After some practice turn the options back on one at a time to let yourself adjust to the added tactical options.

Let me know if that helps any.

Another good training exercise would be using a modern BB (such as the Iowa) versus an old, slow BB like the Japanese Ise or Fuso, or French Bretagne or Courbet.

Or use identical ships on both sides, but give your own ships the best crew rating, and the opposing ships the worst.

[jhdeerslayer]

All good stuff guys. Thanks!

[Akmatov]

Just chiming in as in favor of knowing how many shells are fired. No way to calc hit percentage without it

[Warship NWS]

Just chiming in as in favor of knowing how many shells are fired. No way to calc hit percentage without it

Being a naval wargamer for 30+ years I can tell you that statement is not true at all. Many naval wargames have been published throughout the years (board, miniature, PC) that did not display "exact numbers of shell". That is where the complex math under the hood comes into play and the use of combat "factors" or "indicators". WCNAW uses a very complex set of calculations to determine shell hit PKs and damage inflicted on a target. The combat resolution calculations take into account the potential damage caused by each "hit" within a 3 minute scale which is directly scaled by the number of rounds a battery of guns could fire per turn and the number of potential shells that would hit a ship within a series of salvos. (Note, this part of the combat mechanics will actually be even more detailed in v1.07) Let me know if this makes sense to you. ;)

[Akmatov]

Originally Posted by Akmatov http://forums.navalwarfare.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.navalwarfare.org/showthread.php?p=37163#post37163)
Just chiming in as in favor of knowing how many shells are fired. No way to calc hit percentage without it.


that statement is not true at all

We might be talking about different things here. What I'm saying is that if I fire four rounds off at 'Full' and get two hits, I have no way of understanding the relationship (percent) between hits (known=2) and total rounds fired (no info). I'm not getting into the complexities of how the number of hits is determined, you saying if I have no idea how many shells were fired, I have no idea of what percent of fired shells two hits represents.


Many naval wargames have been published throughout the years (board, miniature, PC) that did not display "exact numbers of shell".
Undoubtably true. But I'm playing WCNAW and would like to have some rough idea about percentage of likely hits. This affects things like useful opening ranges and the decision to even use torpedoes or not.

[Warship NWS]

Undoubtably true. But I'm playing WCNAW and would like to have some rough idea about percentage of likely hits. This affects things like useful opening ranges and the decision to even use torpedoes or not.
[/i]

There are 2 parts you need to consider here..

a) The number of salvos that are properly ranged - the chance of the salvo pattern straddling the target.

b) The number of shells within the pattern that have a chance to hit the target.

In short, as I am limited on time right now, it is not just a matter of "how many shells can hit the target within 3 minutes of firing" as both (a) and (b) can be affected by different variables within the combat mechanics which in turn can affect each other before the end result is calculated. Remember, a lot more salvoes of shells are fired per turn then torpedoes so for modelling salvos of shells is considerably more complex and dynamic.

Thanks.

[KG V]

I have to say, the gunnery "to hit" cal seems to work very well in my experiance with this game.

Also, to get a general idea of how any shells are fired you could look up the ship you are firing from. Iowa's 9x 16"/50 had a cycle of 30 or so Seconds so in three minutes, so 54 shells on a full ROF.

[Warship NWS]

I have to say, the gunnery "to hit" cal seems to work very well in my experiance with this game.

Also, to get a general idea of how any shells are fired you could look up the ship you are firing from. Iowa's 9x 16"/50 had a cycle of 30 or so Seconds so in three minutes, so 54 shells on a full ROF.

Remember however, during combat ROF of shells could vary considerably due to a wide range of reasons. Often gamers get "stuck" on the ROF of a gun which was often based on paper figures rather then actual practice. Several factors could cause variations to when guns could fire,

a) Loading cycles - this required often a complex orchestra of mechanical devices and manual intervention (fatigue?) to load heavy shells and propellants.
b) Loading angles
c) Elevation and traverse rates
d) Time on target for shell flight (accuracy adjustments)
e) Target tracking analysis updates
f) Fire control and gun mount communications efficiency
g) Gun mount/barrel reliability (see (a) above)
h) Stabilizers effectiveness - if any.
i) RPC effectiveness.
j) Multi-turret firing synchronization.

Etc..

The above are some of the reasons why I will remind everyone that ROF was *AT BEST* an estimated figure. Remember, the KGV had *AT BEST* a ~65% turret firing efficiency based on combat records, as one example. On average ~65-85% was the typical average for most gunnery systems in combat, sometimes even during training with no pressure on the crew for "rapid fire".

Point being.. don't get stuck on "brochure stats".. combat had a nasty habit of altering the figures.

Thanks.

[KG V]

Well put sir, but as a general idea of the amount of firepower I Unleash with each press of the mouse, that is the system I use, normally I assume less, then even less stil for ranging and sighted ROF options.

But yeah KG V had trouble with it's quad turrets for most of her career which limited her practical ROF, still my favorite battleship though ;-). As a matter of fact PoW only had it's double turret working for the whole battle of Denmark Straight.

[Warship NWS]

PoWs' twin 14" worked throughout the engagement and the other turrets worked -some- of the time. By the end of the battle both quad turrets were inoperable but working again shortly after. To be fair however the turrets had just been installed and undergoing final tweaking and operating with a completely green crew. The fact the PoW scored any hits at all was pretty remarkable.

Another factor many fail to realize is the "full broadsides" count fired during combat. Often individual barrels would malfunction or fail to fire, or entire mounts - for whatever reason. DoY fired "full broadsides" at an average of ~65% of all salvos fired during her engagement with the Scharnhorst. Still, it was enough to help destroy the S.

[KG V]

PoWs' twin 14" worked throughout the engagement and the other turrets worked -some- of the time. By the end of the battle both quad turrets were inoperable but working again shortly after. To be fair however the turrets had just been installed and undergoing final tweaking and operating with a completely green crew. The fact the PoW scored any hits at all was pretty remarkable.

Another factor many fail to realize is the "full broadsides" count fired during combat. Often individual barrels would malfunction or fail to fire, or entire mounts - for whatever reason. DoY fired "full broadsides" at an average of ~65% of all salvos fired during her engagement with the Scharnhorst. Still, it was enough to help destroy the S.

Well, yeah the twins worked for the whole fight, the quads for some of the fight is what I meant to say. But even through the rest of the Career of the class the quad turrets had trouble; or so I have read.

[Warship NWS]

Well, yeah the twins worked for the whole fight, the quads for some of the fight is what I meant to say. But even through the rest of the Career of the class the quad turrets had trouble; or so I have read.

I think my previous post does support the idea of "trouble" with the quad turrets. ;)

No quad turret design of WW2 ever worked as expected based on historical accounts. The designs were overly complex and prone to failures. The theory was to put 8 heavy calibre barrels into two turrets thus reducing weight for the required protective armor and mounting systems. In practice, however, ships armed with quads ended up with a level of average firepower during combat roughly comparable to contemporary battlecruisers armed with large calibre guns.

Example: During the DoY vs Sh. engagement the average firepower displayed by the DoY was not really any better then the R&R class of BC. The WW1 dated dual 15" mount was extremely reliable in combat so on average the R&R class could fire 8x15" rounds approx. every ~30+ seconds. The KGV class averaged, based on combat records, around ~6-8+ 14" shells every ~30+ seconds, note this includes the more reliable dual 14" mount. Side note: The HMS Hood had the most advanced MkII 15" dual mounts ever designed for a RN warship.

Note: Keep in mind the above is one case example of a single engagement in foul weather conditions - firing cycles varied a few seconds depending on the variables I stated previously.

In the end run..the principle concept of the quad designs ended up a failure in combat and/or in practice, for both the French and the British. The arguably most balanced design (firepower vs weight vs number of heavy calibre barrels) was the triple turrets on the USN 1940s BBs. The newer triple mounts of the SD/Wash/Iowa classes held an average of ~75-85%+ efficiency based on combat records.

Thanks.

[KG V]

I think my previous post does support the idea of "trouble" with the quad turrets. ;)
.

Well yeah, but I HAD to clarify my own jackassery! Allow me that.

Now (OOC) are these variables with KG V and Richelieu (as well as the Dunkerques) battery malfunctions programmed into the firing model?

Also, you have got to be the most involved developers in the history of gaming! You guys are spot on in your replies and VERY fast to respond with knowledgeable comments.

Thank you.

[Warship NWS]

Now (OOC) are these variables with KG V and Richelieu (as well as the Dunkerques) battery malfunctions programmed into the firing model?

What do you think? ;)



Also, you have got to be the most involved developers in the history of gaming! You guys are spot on in your replies and VERY fast to respond with knowledgeable comments.

Thank you.


Thanks for the support, anytime, and take care friend. :)