WCDB first impressions

[Antonin]

I downloaded the demo the other day and really love it. It will probably buy the game even though version 2.0 is just around the corner.

I'm wondering, though, why more ship information is not provided. Why is speed not expressed in knots? Why, when you F4 for ship information, don't you see things like number of rounds available (in actual rounds), complement, etc?

I like the game, especially the WW1 scenarios. I've spent many an evening over the years curled up in my favorite chair with Jane's Fighting Ships of World War I. I'm attracted not only by the beauty of the ships, but I love to study and compare the data.

I don't want WCDB to become a 3-D arcade game, but I really would love to have more data about my ships.

[Warship NWS]

Hi Antonin,

First off thank you for your support. The problem with providing more ship details is a) screen real estate and b) what is pertinent to the player. WCDB works on a 1024 resolution screen size and I already pack a lot of details into a small space as it is.

Actuall numbers of shell rounds and speed in knots might be a feature in a future update but I will note, seldom would any commander know exactly how many rounds of ammo, especially by type, a ship will have per turret/mount. Rates of fire could vary widely based on maneuvers, targeting solutions, spotting fire, etc.. so number of rounds used per turn would also vary widely. WCDB presently offers numbers of turns of rounds available. As to speed in knots, again, on a per 3 minute turn basis this can also vary widely based on sea state, wind, maneuvers, engine maintenance, displacement, formation doctrines, etc. Part of my point is that gamers are often spoiled by information that was not as accurate as many commanders were provided in combat. ;)

Thanks.

[jsom]

Part of my point is that gamers are often spoiled by information that was not as accurate as many commanders were provided in combat. ;)
Thanks.


And, as I have been reading on Jutland, even when commanders do have accurate info things don't always go as planned.

I am enjoying WCDB as is but I am patiently waiting for 2.0:) It will be nice to have the mapping system.


John

[Antonin]

... As to speed in knots, again, on a per 3 minute turn basis this can also vary widely based on sea state, wind, maneuvers, engine maintenance, displacement, formation doctrines, etc. Part of my point is that gamers are often spoiled by information that was not as accurate as many commanders were provided in combat. ;)


As a student of naval history, though, I always think in knots. I think serious naval warfare sims should express speed the same way.

I don't necessarily want more information than the real-life sommander would have, but part of the reason I am interested in naval simulations is the history behind them. That history includes information about the ships I am playing with. Actual ship names instead of class names, number of crew the ship carries, current speed in knots, etc.

[Saffron]

Antonin,

As for ship names, when you create a scenario, you can choose between ship and class names. If you pick "ship name," the game will prompt you to name your ships as you select them. The only downside to this is you need a separate list of ship names (no way I can memorize the names of 1,000 different destroyers). The upside, though is you can name the ships whatever you want, so you're not limited to only the historical ships.

For instance, if you decide to have a slugfest with three Yamatos, you can name the third one Shinano, for example, and have 3 unique ship names.

[Warship NWS]

Actual ship names instead of class names, number of crew the ship carries, current speed in knots, etc.


I understand what your asking for and I have nothing against it. The point I was trying to make however is the more specific you get with your numbers the more debatable they can be. Example, the Duestchlands were supposedly, on paper, capable of 28 knots according to most sources however the Graf Spee could not go over around 26 knots due to a buildup of barnacles on her hull during her final engagement. Other examples include written speeds higher then combat speeds due to war load displacements - the Italian WW2 DDs and CRs were notoriously overrated in many cases. So if you have a stated speed in knots is it truly accurate or based on someones opinion? Numbers of shells is another question.. did the ship start out every battle fully loaded or some shells missing for whatever reason? Crew numbers.. this could vary widely in combat conditions due to illnesses, injuries during transit, dockyard workers on board doing repairs/refits (Example; Prince of Wales, Yorktown) ship damage causing problems for crews doing their jobs, crew shortages at port, etc... again, how ahistorical do we possibly get by trying to be more specific with "historical" specific figures? How specific do we need the numbers to be to play the wargame effectively? Most naval gamers have books at hand, or are we supplying another resource research material and not just a naval wargame and how much information should be provided in such specific numbers within the space allotted?

Now, even stating the above.. I have no major issues with moving from "wargame" factors/figures to real life numbers possibly within a future update that are based on authoritative sources - I am only trying to state some historical points of view within this context here. Actual shell numbers is already under serious consideration along with modeling of individual shell hits. Now I could add numbers as "reference" points that do not effect game play, example, crew numbers but the crew "damage" factor would only take effect.

As Saffron noted, a player can easily add the ship names and there are plenty of references out there - includng on the internet for free. My problem is.. do I spend the better part of several weeks typing in thousands of ship names, example; the DD Fletcher class alone included 175 built hulls, considering there is over 400 ship classes in WCDB already.

Thanks.

[m1shooter]

the more specific you get with your numbers the more debatable they can be. Example, the Duestchlands were supposedly, on paper, capable of 28 knots according to most sources however the Graf Spee could not go over around 26 knots due to a buildup of barnacles on her hull during her final engagement. Other examples include written speeds higher then combat speeds due to war load displacements - the Italian WW2 DDs and CRs were notoriously overrated in many cases. So if you have a stated speed in knots is it truly accurate or based on someones opinion? Numbers of shells is another question.. did the ship start out every battle fully loaded or some shells missing for whatever reason? Crew numbers.. this could vary widely in combat conditions due to illnesses, injuries during transit, dockyard workers on board doing repairs/refits (Example; Prince of Wales, Yorktown) ship damage causing problems for crews doing their jobs, crew shortages at port, etc... again, how ahistorical do we possibly get by trying to be more specific with "historical" specific figures? How specific do we need the numbers to be to play the wargame effectively? Most naval gamers have books at hand, or are we supplying another resource research material and not just a naval wargame and how much information should be provided in such specific numbers within the space allotted?

Now, even stating the above.. I have no major issues with moving from "wargame" factors/figures to real life numbers possibly within a future update that are based on authoritative sources - I am only trying to state some historical points of view within this context here. Actual shell numbers is already under serious consideration along with modeling of individual shell hits. Now I could add numbers as "reference" points that do not effect game play, example, crew numbers but the crew "damage" factor would only take effect.

As Saffron noted, a player can easily add the ship names and there are plenty of references out there - includng on the internet for free. My problem is.. do I spend the better part of several weeks typing in thousands of ship names, example; the DD Fletcher class alone included 175 built hulls, considering there is over 400 ship classes in WCDB already.

Thanks.
Antonin,
The problem with any wargame is being able to balance what may be considered historically accurate and what is realistic. As was mentioned, many points are debatable. Do we model ships as per specs or as how we know they operated? I find myself saying -hey, that shouldn't happen- in many scenarios. (IJN Yahagi out shooting a Cleveland at 24k:eek:). I'm sure the design team has to balance a multitude of factors and still keep the playablity. If we overwhelm ourselves with huge amounts of data/information, we have an interactive reference, not a wargame. Other issues that could come into play could be age of the ship, non-battle mechanical casualties.
If you need some good links to ship names, I'm sure anyone will be happy to give you some on request.
Thanks, Ed

[Ed Rotondaro]

As a student of naval history, though, I always think in knots. I think serious naval warfare sims should express speed the same way.

I don't necessarily want more information than the real-life sommander would have, but part of the reason I am interested in naval simulations is the history behind them. That history includes information about the ships I am playing with. Actual ship names instead of class names, number of crew the ship carries, current speed in knots, etc.

Hi:

Regarding ship names, the historical scenarios have the accurate names for the ships involved and you of course can do this yourself when designing your scenarios. But if you consider that most gamers either have the sim pick ships at random or else pick by class name, it could be a little cumbersome to pick the class, then scroll down a list of available ships in the class. The Fletcher Class of DDs alone had 170+ ships. Chris can probably explain in more detail why ship names are not generated. Also for purposes of the simulation, do you really need the eaxct number of crew present? Currently WCDB portrays crew as a percentage figure and as a ship takes damage, the percentage of the available crew is reduced.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Antonin,

As for ship names, when you create a scenario, you can choose between ship and class names. If you pick "ship name," the game will prompt you to name your ships as you select them. The only downside to this is you need a separate list of ship names (no way I can memorize the names of 1,000 different destroyers). The upside, though is you can name the ships whatever you want, so you're not limited to only the historical ships.

For instance, if you decide to have a slugfest with three Yamatos, you can name the third one Shinano, for example, and have 3 unique ship names.

Saffy:

That's why I keep M.J. Whitley's three books on DDs, cruisers and BBs of WWII on the shelf right next to my PC. And even then I sometimes have a pull a copy of Conway's off the shelf for more details.

[Warship NWS]

Currently WCDB portrays crew as a percentage figure and as a ship takes damage, the percentage of the available crew is reduced.

Actually, its a crew effectiveness percentage which figures in inability to function and casualties combined. You can have a bunch of guys on a ship but if the DC equipment is busted, fires are going on, they can't get to their stations due to debris or other damage, etc.. numbers of crew matter little if they cannot function on the ship. Just as a ship can be mission killed.. so can the crew.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Actually, its a crew effectiveness percentage which figures in inability to function and casualties combined. You can have a bunch of guys on a ship but if the DC equipment is busted, fires are going on, they can't get to their stations due to debris or other damage, etc.. numbers of crew matter little if they cannot function on the ship. Just as a ship can be mission killed.. so can the crew.

Chris:

I figured there was more to it than that. I have times where it seems like I could never get a fire under control even though the crew effectiveness percentage was not that badly degraded.

[Warship NWS]

Chris:

I figured there was more to it than that. I have times where it seems like I could never get a fire under control even though the crew effectiveness percentage was not that badly degraded.

Fire DC can vary between the nationality, crew effectiveness, and crew quality - they each have a part in the calculations.

[Saffron]

That's why I keep M.J. Whitley's three books on DDs, cruisers and BBs of WWII on the shelf right next to my PC. And even then I sometimes have a pull a copy of Conway's off the shelf for more details.

With my lack of a naval warfare library (read: non-existent), I simply used the ship list provided in Fighting Steel.

Take it from someone who actually did sit down and type thousands of ship names into a spreadsheet, it's not a fun task. I swear my fingers still haven't recovered.

I like the idea of entering my own ship names into the game. It's not as "convenient" in the sense that you have to type them in every time you play, but I've found it takes less time to do that than to scroll down a list and look for a specific ship.

[Saffron]

(IJN Yahagi out shooting a Cleveland at 24k:eek:).

I love stuff like that. It prevents battles between specific ships from becoming foregone conclusions. I have no idea how the AI does it, but there does seem to be some "randomness" even between the same fights played several times. It's what gives the game a big replayability factor, even if you've somehow managed to experiment with every combination of ship there is.

[Saffron]

Also for purposes of the simulation, do you really need the eaxct number of crew present? Currently WCDB portrays crew as a percentage figure and as a ship takes damage, the percentage of the available crew is reduced.

I think it would be an interesting perk to generate an exact count of casualties -- most descriptions of historical battles have one. But it's a perk and nothing more, so I don't expect anyone to waste time researching the average crew compliment of every ship in the game.

[Warship NWS]

I think it would be an interesting perk to generate an exact count of casualties -- most descriptions of historical battles have one. But it's a perk and nothing more, so I don't expect anyone to waste time researching the average crew compliment of every ship in the game.

Sure.. you can get "100 wounded or killed"... but darn seldom do you get what they did on the ships, what they were cross-trained to do, what equipment they operated that they could still have access to or not, etc..

One example, the fire control tables on some BBs had quite a few men operating them - these were BIG systems that took up sometimes several compartments on a ship.. what if one of the trained crew who operates part of it is injured? Can someone else do his job? Are they as good at it? What about the fire control directors and their communications to the tables?

Point being.. numbers are meaningless unless you know exactly WHAT each historical number does in combat and how those numbers are effected during combat. Even the best and most detailed official AARs cannot always give you a quantitive analysis of every little function and crew person on a ship.

Just some added thoughts to consider for a very complex topic..;)