CD fire issues

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
Kereguelen
Posts: 1454
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:08 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Kereguelen »

ORIGINAL: freeboy

?, did patch three alter the cd/ship equation in the bombard rutine
This is a fair ? to ask an dI am not lookin got break into the hiden mystery fileslol
Thanks

This really should be an area of concern as both players need to advance into areas, japs in 42, allies the rest of the war, that are potentially heavily armed cd death  traps as the code now stands... to argue that the game works in this one specific element... is absurd... no 5 6 7 8 inch guns are going to probably even hit my BBs at 22k yards, at night, under fire , in the open sea.. seriously this is really obvious... now. if we are talking gunships at 5k supporting an invasion, totally different issue.. but we are not

True enough, if I remember correctly, we are talking about battleships at 2,000 yards supporting an invasion[:'(].
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


The guns may be older models, but the fire control was FAR superior to your "superdreadnoughts". Monter got it right..., the fire control of a fixed Coast Defense Installation is much more accurate than anything carried on ships.

This is only true within certain assumptions.

Long-base-line shore FC has superior range-finding, yes. That's it. This is often compromised by less effective communications between widely-separated stations than are avaialble in a ship environment. But rangefinding is only one aspect of fire-control.


I believe the telephone was around in 1890, and telegraphic communications 50 years earlier. So the communications "problem" you mention doesn't exist. And accurate range-finding is the "key" to accurate target plotting and fire control. Guns in static emplacements suffer no problems from the rolling or pitching of ships at sea. And they are in the same place for years on end, meaning all the local "variables" (tide state, wind velocity and direction, barrel wear, etc.) are included in pre-prepared tables.

All this means that the accurate position and movement of a target can be plotted to a few yards, and the guns themselves can drop their shells exactly on those few yards. "No sailor but a fool" takes his ship into such a position. Situations like Wake and Tarawa and such are totally different..., these are at least semi-mobile guns emplaced in a relatively short period and equipped with plain naval-style fire control and range-finders. They are not in the same league with pre-war built fortifications.

OK, since you persist in ignoring the rest of my logical points, I'll make this my last post on this with you.

Telephones in 1890 were, to be kind, primitive. I posted eyewitness accounts that the FC wiring at Saipan was shot away by ship bombardment. OTOH, shipboard FC is by local sound-powered phone, or even in the same compartment within earshot. Also, installations like Ft. Story and Ft. Monroe (I grew up in Va. Beach BTW, and have been to both locations many times) are separated by about forty miles and open water. To say there were phone lines between each in 1890? Uh, OK. And telegraphs? You must be joking. Real-time targetting by telegraph? Whatever.

As for your obsession with rangefinding, I posted the counter to that. Rangefinding is NOT the "key" to FC. It's one component. To get accurate fire with rangefinding, one must assume that the target cooperates in the other components of the solution--speed and course--in order to track to the plotted curve predicted with range as only ONE component. If the target maneuvers radically, as ships can do, then range is not determinative. Shells have a time-of-flight. You can SEE 16-in. shells in the air. The shooters cannot know what the target is doing re speed and course changes at the time they pull the trigger. Even in 2010, with digital FC systems operating at the speed of light, a maneuvering target MUST be shot at with homing weapons to have any sort of high PK. Straight-running weapons only work when the target sits there and says "Kill Me."

The truth, re the game, is that there is one CD routine that must work for PH as well as Mili, and those two situations are as unlike each other as assaulting with a Marine Division and an Indian Army artillery unit.
The Moose
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Even in 2010, with digital FC systems operating at the speed of light, a maneuvering target MUST be shot at with homing weapons to have any sort of high PK. Straight-running weapons only work when the target sits there and says "Kill Me."

Classic. [:D]


User avatar
AcePylut
Posts: 1487
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:01 am

RE: CD fire issues

Post by AcePylut »

CD guns have the advantage of being bore-sighted. That gives them far more accuracy than a rolling ship.

The only real issue I see here is that the Japanese ships "stayed in range until sinking"... and that makes me wonder... what was the aggression rating of the TF commander? 
 
 
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: CD fire issues

Post by freeboy »

regarding bb at range.. a bombard mission, not part of a tf invasion, should not get theese results.. so, are we really talkin gabout the same thing? a BB ca at close range is going t obe hit, heck, even a morter batery would have a chance at 2k yards.. but what navy in the world sends a bb in to 2k in suppor tof an invasion? ok.. anyway
 
again
 
did the patch three changethe rutine? perhaps we need to split up this thread into micro threads? micro fiber? I crack myself up
"Tanks forward"
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: CD fire issues

Post by John Lansford »

I think the latest patch has affected the ships vs CD routines somehow, giving the shore based weapons more accuracy and perhaps more damaging potential.  I've certainly not seen BB's take as much damage bombarding a defended target as mine did vs Mili just a few days ago (well after the last patch was installed), and from my continuous recon flights, there's only the one CD unit on that island.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: CD fire issues

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Even in 2010, with digital FC systems operating at the speed of light, a maneuvering target MUST be shot at with homing weapons to have any sort of high PK. Straight-running weapons only work when the target sits there and says "Kill Me."

Classic. [:D]

He exaggerates - they don't have to actually say "Kill Me." [:'(]
User avatar
Monter_Trismegistos
Posts: 1359
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:58 pm
Location: Gdansk

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Monter_Trismegistos »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
This is only true within certain assumptions.

Long-base-line shore FC has superior range-finding, yes. That's it. This is often compromised by less effective communications between widely-separated stations than are avaialble in a ship environment. But rangefinding is only one aspect of fire-control.
Well it is you who made a hell of an assumption. So you are saying that aiming at ship, seen as small line on water is hard - OK. But you completely ignore the fact that this ship doesn't even see the guns firing at him? What gives better FC if you don't see the target? Destroying randomly trees in closer or further vincinity of enemy battery won't win you a battle.
Many of these shore FC systems were designed in an era where line-of-battle ships cruised in formation past shore targets and fired and maneuvered in tight central control by the flag. Analog FC systems (I've actually operated one) are great at predicting along a curve--they're just elegant gear trains after all.
I see you problem. You probably visited to often some ancient California forts, built around 1905, which in 1941 should serve as military museums, not military forts. You are confusing very heavy, slowly trimming and firing guns and mortars with modern, built mid-30s rapid firing installations.
So, in a shore-based FC system, if the targets are not behaving and cruising along in lines to their doom, the long-base-line rangefinding is nice, but hardly determinative.
But let's you get XXX (sorry doesn't know english term for a single salvo falling on different sides of a ship), even before ship decides on which tree should she aim.
As for ships being less accurate, yes, they are, because they pitch, roll, and yaw. But their targets ashore do not move, and, in daylight, they can do 2-3 crossed-beairng fixes in under a minute and know exactly where they are in relation to the target.
You again assuming they exactly know when their target is. It is ship which is clearly visible, while battery is not. Once again - fioring to the flashlight or smoke is not accurate, but even those appear only after battery decides to open fire.


And to those who say BB is safe beacuse their armour would not be penetrated - armour of Bismarck also wasn't penetrated, and still was changed into piece of junk.




Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: CD fire issues

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

(sorry doesn't know english term for a single salvo falling on different sides of a ship)

"straddle" as in to straddle a target or straddling a target.
User avatar
PresterJohn001
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:45 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by PresterJohn001 »

I don't think in this case the Russians had superior range-finding. The russians seem to be using a 6m rangefinder as used on their cruisers (see reference on Russian Coastal Forts), the Battleship Mutsu was fitted with 10m rangefinders 20 Nov 1933.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Mutsu.html

not that its really relevant to how the game models the CD forts.
memento mori
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: freeboy

regarding bb at range.. a bombard mission, not part of a tf invasion, should not get theese results.. so, are we really talkin gabout the same thing? a BB ca at close range is going t obe hit, heck, even a morter batery would have a chance at 2k yards.. but what navy in the world sends a bb in to 2k in suppor tof an invasion? ok.. anyway

I believe it was John Lansford (?) who, in the thread about my Saipan invasion, cited two old PH BBs (Tennessee and ?) which anchored the end of the line of departure and conducted point-blank fire-support for the initial landings. Both took hits and damage, including loss of some 5-inch mounts, but neither was in danger of sinking.
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Even in 2010, with digital FC systems operating at the speed of light, a maneuvering target MUST be shot at with homing weapons to have any sort of high PK. Straight-running weapons only work when the target sits there and says "Kill Me."

Classic. [:D]

He exaggerates - they don't have to actually say "Kill Me." [:'(]

Well, no flags or nothin', but they ARE walking in a dark alley with $10 bills hanging out of their pockets.[:)]
The Moose
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: CD fire issues

Post by witpqs »

The code/database doesn't have any way to distinguish one from the other.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

In respect to WWII, the USN DID know where the shore instalations were, both from pre-war intel and aerial photography.

The word I think you're looking for is "straddle." Even a hidden battery, and nations did NOT hide these batteries in the 1920s and 1930s--they were proud of them--is known after the first salvo.

As to FC, no, I'm not talking about a 1940s system. I'm talking about a front-line SSBN system deployed in the 1980s that I operated at sea, with my own little pinkies, whirling gears and all. That's why I can say that the core of analog FC is to fire at where the target WILL BE, not where he is, unless you have guided weapons (we of course did--the Mk 48 is a sweet torpedo; the ADCAP even better.) Large caliber guns have time-of-flight measured in seconds at the engagement ranges we're talking about. Do the math and figure out what arc error a BB at 30 knots turning at circa two degrees a second with a full rudder can impart to a fixed analog firing solution at 20,000 yards now fifteen or more seconds old.
The Moose
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Nikademus




Classic. [:D]

He exaggerates - they don't have to actually say "Kill Me." [:'(]

Well, no flags or nothin', but they ARE walking in a dark alley with $10 bills hanging out of their pockets.[:)]

Having explored the Puget Sound Triangle of Fire I do know for a fact that in case of enemy bombardment/invasion, part of the procedure involved an officer rowing out to the enemy battlefleet in order to assign them their proper positions in the anchorage. That way all the effort put into those pre-arranged fire lanes woudn't go to waste. Chivalry in War is not dead after all.

User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I think the latest patch has affected the ships vs CD routines somehow, giving the shore based weapons more accuracy and perhaps more damaging potential.  I've certainly not seen BB's take as much damage bombarding a defended target as mine did vs Mili just a few days ago (well after the last patch was installed), and from my continuous recon flights, there's only the one CD unit on that island.

a loophole was closed. Nothing else. No "tweaks"


Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Dili »

Russians employed derived Italian rangefiders in newer ships so they were made for very long range, the coastals depend.
There wasn't an 8" gun in the world that would penetrate a USN BB's armor (talking belt and main turret/control areas here) even at short range.

Italian 8" at Muzzle over 400mm, American 8" 381mm, British 8" 356mm. Of course it will degrade just after that. But even if not penetrated any big number of hits will destroy a BB. You just have to look at at ship armor diagram and see where they are armored and where they are not.

Either way, in real life the ships would have simply stayed outside the effective range of the guns.
I am sorry, but an admiral would have to be a real moron to set there and allow his ships to be sandpapered to death.
Perhaps I should send the Yamato in the next task force. I'd bet those light cruiser caliber guns would find a way to sink her also with the way the routine is written.

If you put the BB's in Bombardment TF's and when you do that say the escorts don't bombard you will get your BB bombarding at distance. Now if you put them in invasion TF they can get close.
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: CD fire issues

Post by John Lansford »

Dili,
 
My BB's had "escorts don't bombard" when they shelled Miri and got 20+ system damage for their troubles.  Unless that base had 14" guns firing back at them I don't see how they got hit if they were standing offshore out of range.  As for your cruiser 8" guns' penetration values, what are they at 2000 yds?
 
Bullwinkle
 
Yes, it was me talking about USS Tennessee.  Was hit by 6" shells off of Saipan (I think) and lost a secondary turret, but also silenced the battery in less than a minute after that.
User avatar
Panther Bait
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by Panther Bait »

Regarding the all-or-nothing armor format of most BBs, the "all" was around the important parts and the "nothing" was around the non-important areas typically the extreme ends. I am reasonably comfortable stating that the designers probably assumed that the "nothing" areas were flooded in their bouyancy calculations. So getting hit in the unarmored areas wasn't going to sink the BB, although it's performance might very well be impacted (reduced speed, steerage problems, etc.).

Mike
When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard
mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: CD fire issues

Post by mike scholl 1 »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

OK, since you persist in ignoring the rest of my logical points, I'll make this my last post on this with you.

Telephones in 1890 were, to be kind, primitive. (And of course you assume that they would never have been updated in the intervening 50 years) I posted eyewitness accounts that the FC wiring at Saipan was shot away by ship bombardment. (And as I have mentioned several times, Saipan was NOT a pre-war Coast Defense Installation..., but a set of guns placed on the coast during the war. In a real Coast Defense Installation such as the original example, communications are buried and protected.) OTOH, shipboard FC is by local sound-powered phone, or even in the same compartment within earshot. Also, installations like Ft. Story and Ft. Monroe (I grew up in Va. Beach BTW, and have been to both locations many times) are separated by about forty miles and open water. To say there were phone lines between each in 1890? (I didn't say that..., you did. And if you ARE familiar with those forts, you must have certainly seen some of the "base end spotting stations" located up and down the coasts near the forts. And those WERE connected electronically to the plotting rooms of the forts.) Uh, OK. And telegraphs? You must be joking. Real-time targetting by telegraph? Whatever.

As for your obsession with rangefinding, I posted the counter to that. Rangefinding is NOT the "key" to FC. It's one component. To get accurate fire with rangefinding, one must assume that the target cooperates in the other components of the solution--speed and course--in order to track to the plotted curve predicted with range as only ONE component. If the target maneuvers radically, as ships can do, then range is not determinative. Shells have a time-of-flight. You can SEE 16-in. shells in the air. The shooters cannot know what the target is doing re speed and course changes at the time they pull the trigger. Even in 2010, with digital FC systems operating at the speed of light, a maneuvering target MUST be shot at with homing weapons to have any sort of high PK. Straight-running weapons only work when the target sits there and says "Kill Me." Right! But if the attacking ship is to have ANY chance of hitting it's own targets, it can't be out there maneuvering like a sports car doing "doughnuts" in the parking lot. It has to give it's own plotting team some consistancy of course and speed for them to do their jobs.

The truth, re the game, is that there is one CD routine that must work for PH as well as Mili, and those two situations are as unlike each other as assaulting with a Marine Division and an Indian Army artillery unit. (For once we are in agreement. One of the game's most regrettable failings is the failure to differentiate between real Coast Defense Installations and just guns mounted on the coast.)
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”