Naval Gun Combat questions

[Dili]

Some questions i have run across

How should we handle ship armor:

1-Belt armor: it only matters for short distance or also matters for long range fire?

2-Deck armor: related to the first question, it only matter for planes bombs? or for plunging fire too?

3-Torpedo protection? handled by belt armor?

4-Ship guns: we usually use data for penetration at 0m a best case that is completely unrealistic for a 20km hit (that would probably hit the deck with less chances to hit the belt.) is that right?

[Nikademus]

1. the game engine calculates belt hits vs Deck armor hit preportions based on range. The longer the range, the more likely a "deck armor" hit will occur over a belt armor hit.

2. deck armor protects against both bomb hits and plunging hits. Bombing runs retain a chance to hit "belt armor"

3. There is no direct torpedo protection (Side protection system or SPS) represented in the game. It is handled indirectly by the DUR value which limits SYS damage. Torpedo hits do attack the belt armor hit location but all torpedoes in the game have penetration values that exceed the belt armor value. If they didn't then there would be "no penetration" and no FLT damage would occur and only the barest minimum of SYS would occur.

4. Gun devices use a max penetration value @ point blank range (or 0mm) which is then adjusted for range.

[Sardaukar]

And to add...skip bombing attacks belt armour, I think. (Well..not related to Naval GUN Combat, tho..[:'(])

[Sardaukar]

Another bit OT thing.

I hate playing Animations on when it comes to Naval Gun combat. Widely unrealistic things seem to happen...since IIRC, Animations were added after game engine was ready. I wonder if they actually represent what's going on... Things like BBs using only their secondary guns in combat etc. are way too common and I lose the "suspension of disbelief".

Thus, I stick to combat reports only.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Another bit OT thing.

I hate playing Animations on when it comes to Naval Gun combat. Widely unrealistic things seem to happen...since IIRC, Animations were added after game engine was ready. I wonder if they actually represent what's going on... Things like BBs using only their secondary guns in combat etc. are way too common and I lose the "suspension of disbelief".

Thus, I stick to combat reports only.

And more than likely avoid any sync issues by doing so...

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Another bit OT thing.

I hate playing Animations on when it comes to Naval Gun combat. Widely unrealistic things seem to happen...since IIRC, Animations were added after game engine was ready. I wonder if they actually represent what's going on... Things like BBs using only their secondary guns in combat etc. are way too common and I lose the "suspension of disbelief".

Thus, I stick to combat reports only.

I too love the Naval combat screen concept, but seeing "naval combat begins at 36,000 yards", and every ship present opens up, well, that is annoying and has nothing to do with either the game combat calculation, nor real-life possibility..
Never a "game breaker, just a nuisance..
Can be cured by just leaving off the "range" announcement altogether...

[Dili]

Thanks Nikademus/Sardaukar. Good Witp is much better than i tought. This issue came because Littorio(Italian BB) armor, it has a belt of 350+36+24mm=410mm i was afraid this would make an ubber BB.

[Nikademus]

your welcome. Littorio's side armor belt was a sandwich concept designed to encourage decapping of an AP shell. The armor plate grade steel was in two components 70mm on 10mm backing and a main 280mm armor plate on a 50mm wood backing + 15mm steel (for splinter protection). total armor grade steel armor thickness 360mm (14.17inches total at thickest), inclined 8 degrees. Estimated immunity zone against the Italian 15inch 17,498 yards+

Don't expect the WitP engine to be that precise however. BB belt armor systems tend to be fairly immune at most longer range daylight fights, same as with the deck armor.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Another bit OT thing.

I hate playing Animations on when it comes to Naval Gun combat. Widely unrealistic things seem to happen...since IIRC, Animations were added after game engine was ready. I wonder if they actually represent what's going on... Things like BBs using only their secondary guns in combat etc. are way too common and I lose the "suspension of disbelief".

Thus, I stick to combat reports only.

I used to think the damage "Descriptions" listed whenever a penetration occured were just eye candy but according to Mike Wood, who wrote the actual routines, they represent real information about the nature of damage. He came online about a year ago to mention this. Thus, I don't think the other msgs are without meaning.

[Dili]

I have a drawing that after that belt(it states 350mm not 360mm) there is a 36mm plate and then a 24mm side plate covering the machinery. Lets see if i can upload. One of those things that can only be confirmed by official plans probably.

[Nikademus]

Yes, the diagram you posted is in Garzke. There's an inconsistency though, in that the other side of the diagram breaks down the armor sandwich as 70 + 10 + 280 (360mm) and the descriptive paragraph on the belt armor also adds up to 360 as does the belt armor summary on page 432 for a total thickness of armor grade plate of 14.17 inches. It might be that the 10mm backing plate is not armor grade which could explain it. Either way, 10mm won't make a difference in this game engine. Its simply not that precise.

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I too love the Naval combat screen concept, but seeing "naval combat begins at 36,000 yards", and every ship present opens up, well, that is annoying and has nothing to do with either the game combat calculation, nor real-life possibility..

IIRC nobody ever scored a ship-to-ship gun hit at more than 26,000 yards.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I too love the Naval combat screen concept, but seeing "naval combat begins at 36,000 yards", and every ship present opens up, well, that is annoying and has nothing to do with either the game combat calculation, nor real-life possibility..

IIRC nobody ever scored a ship-to-ship gun hit at more than 26,000 yards.

The point I am making is that DD's were making hits at CA/BB ranges.........

[el cid again]

DDs should not be able to shoot beyond the range of their guns. I have noted very few long range engagements in testing. Many times ranges are very believable - especially at night. Ships cannot normally see each other much above 30,000 yards - although radar can reach out to greater distances. Range is tricky - because you can see the top of a big ship a lot farther away than you can see a submarine or patrol boat. But it appears to me the engine has this approximately figured out. 5 inch gun ranges are typically 18,000 yards - so if you see an engagement at 26,000 yards - it is because something with bigger guns is present (or should be).

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I used to think the damage "Descriptions" listed whenever a penetration occured were just eye candy but according to Mike Wood, who wrote the actual routines, they represent real information about the nature of damage. He came online about a year ago to mention this. Thus, I don't think the other msgs are without meaning.

Yes, did read that too. It's very nice..but it rises the question of "is everything else seen in combat anomations true too?". If that's the case, it's scary since too weird things seem to happen. I'm mainly concerned about large ships using their main weaponry very reluctantly (at least it shows that way in animations). Same happens in War Plan Orange where it's even more alarming, since that game is all about surface combat.

[Sardaukar]

I think the engagement ranges shown in animations are quite realistic...it's what actually happens after that is what worries me...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar



Yes, did read that too. It's very nice..but it rises the question of "is everything else seen in combat anomations true too?". If that's the case, it's scary since too weird things seem to happen. I'm mainly concerned about large ships using their main weaponry very reluctantly (at least it shows that way in animations). Same happens in War Plan Orange where it's even more alarming, since that game is all about surface combat.

If your not seeing hits, that doesn't mean the weapons arn't firing, just not hitting. On the DD thing, what ranges were they firing that were considered "CA/BB" range?

on an end note, there's never been any doubt in my mind that the surface engine is optimized for night engagements. Day engagements are not very precise so don't expect NWS's "Fighting Steel" rework. In defense of the orig developers, WWII pacific surface combat was mostly at night. Tankerace's War plan orange tweaked things a bit making it better.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar



Yes, did read that too. It's very nice..but it rises the question of "is everything else seen in combat anomations true too?". If that's the case, it's scary since too weird things seem to happen. I'm mainly concerned about large ships using their main weaponry very reluctantly (at least it shows that way in animations). Same happens in War Plan Orange where it's even more alarming, since that game is all about surface combat.

If your not seeing hits, that doesn't mean the weapons arn't firing, just not hitting. On the DD thing, what ranges were they firing that were considered "CA/BB" range?

on an end note, there's never been any doubt in my mind that the surface engine is optimized for night engagements. Day engagements are not very precise so don't expect NWS's "Fighting Steel" rework. In defense of the orig developers, WWII pacific surface combat was mostly at night. Tankerace's War plan orange tweaked things a bit making it better.

The DD firing on the surface battle screen shows the DD's making hits at what are really CA/BB ranges. These "hits" however are not necessarily being mirrored on the combat summary. I suspect the entire "surface battle screen" was meant as chrome entertainment and NOT a representation of "miniatures-type" combat.
Certainly, the torpedo attacks are also reporting hits further than maximum range on occasion..
Not a so-called "game breaker because I do not expect that surface screen to be showing me the true battle ranges/events, but rather a rough approximation..
Example:If you stick around you will actually see ships sink, but if you exit from the screen, FOW might tell you a single ship sunk, (but later you will get the true sinking info.)

[el cid again]

Sometimes torpedoes hit at very great ranges. Normally you expect effective torpedo range to be much less than theoretical maximum torpedo range. But the greatest torpedo salvo in history took decades to understand - partially because not all the ships hit were even in the same task group. The same salvo sank a carrier (Wasp?), blew a destroyer in two, and damaged a modern US battleship. For many years we assumed two submarines were involved. The most distant hit was almost certainly not visible to the attacking submarine.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sometimes torpedoes hit at very great ranges. Normally you expect effective torpedo range to be much less than theoretical maximum torpedo range. But the greatest torpedo salvo in history took decades to understand - partially because not all the ships hit were even in the same task group. The same salvo sank a carrier (Wasp?), blew a destroyer in two, and damaged a modern US battleship. For many years we assumed two submarines were involved. The most distant hit was almost certainly not visible to the attacking submarine.

True, but in this case the Japanese torpedo could actually go that long of a distance, this is the exception and not the rule, and really is a statistical fluke. Indeed the major focus of Japanese surface warfare, of which the subs were a part, was their ability to fire torpedoes to very long ranges, but depended on the firing of mass amounts of torpdeoes.