Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Dispersion'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 19 results

  1. Hi all, From Reddit: "Live dispersion chart for every ship in the game"... Leo "Apollo11"
  2. I was thinking a little bit since I had nothing better to do and this idea came to my mind. Right now, as you all know, once you pull the trigger each shot gets random dispersion. What if devs change the dispersion mechanic by adding smaller dispersion circles for each turret so that shots fired from the same turret would hit almost the same spot? Each turret would still have random dispersion inside the main circle but shots fired from the same turret would be more consistent. I know this may not make sense or anything but at least it will make ships more consistent when they do hit the target. This would also mean that ships with more turrets get better dispersion or at least higher chance of scoring a hit. I does kind of simulate reality because dispersion was always decent on most ships, the main problem was finding the proper firing solution and this kinda looks like that, except each turret has its own firing solution. Thoughts?
  3. Hi all, One very important aspect of WoWs - Accuracy / Dispersion - is often neglected and not discussed much... that is very strange... Here is my feeble attempt to draw attention back to it and try to unify all the interesting posts and wisdom we have gathered about it over the time (years now)! #1 How the Dispersion looks like in WoWs AFAIK the dispersion in WoWs in different from real life (i.e. "Horizontal" vs. "Vertical") - here is picture of it from NA forum: (MORE APPROPRIATE PICTURE TO BE ADDED) Is this accurate / true? #2 What influences the Dispersion in WoWs Hidden "Sigma" value for main battery guns in ships stats Hidden "Sigma" value for secondary battery guns in ships stats (<- does this exist?) Maximum Dispersion (in meters) for main battery guns in ships stats Hidden maximum Dispersion (in meters) for secondary battery guns in ships stats Modules / Equipment can lower (in percentage %) maximum Dispersion for main battery guns Modules / Equipment can lower (in percentage %) maximum Dispersion for secondary battery guns Enemy cammo can increase (in percentage %) maximum Dispersion for both main battery guns and secondary battery guns RNG roll #3 Close Range (0 to 3-4 km) / Long Range "special" case Dispersion for BBs in WoWs With WoWs v0.4.1 we now have "special" case Dispersion for BBs at close range (0 to 3-4 km): #4 Interesting existing threads dealing with Accuracy / Dispersion from forums and Reddit and videos from YouTube: "World of Warships - Captain's Academy #38 - Dispersion, Horizontal, Vertical and Sigma" "The meaning of "sigma" (with figures)" "The meaning of "sigma": part deux (with more figures and including horizontal dispersion)" "I solved for WG's Range Scalar" "Dispersion Map @15km, Hood vs Warspite" "What do we know about dispersion (and the modules)?" "North Carolina (2.0 sigma) vs Alabama (1.9 sigma) Preliminary Accuracy Testing" https://www.reddit.c...abama_19_sigma/ "Accuracy, what is sigma? What else influences it? Comparison of all battleships." "0.5.10 LIVE BB sigma values" "BB sigma values (0.5.5.1 live)" "Some interesting info from RU - RichardNixon on Dispersion and Sigma" http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/31444-some-interesting-info-from-ru/page__st__800__pid__862483#entry862483 "Dispersion - Deviation?" http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/50810-dispersion-deviation/ "Tier 6 vs 7 BB dispersion compared" http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/46314-tier-6-vs-7-bb-dispersion-compared/#topmost "I finally figured out some of the math behind WoWs shell dispersion model" http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/56720-i-finally-figured-out-some-of-the-math-behind-wows-shell-dispersion-model/ Please lets check / correct / enter new data & links collectively for this - IMHO it is well worth it! Leo "Apollo11" P.S. Edit: 2017-02-06: More links added to #4 2017-03-19: More links added to #4 2017-04-17: More links added to #4 2017-05-11: More links added to #4
  4. Hookeys, began playing (or trying to) BB's after a loong pause (1 year or more) and of course immediately noticed that the much vaunted Spotting Aircraft were just as useless as they have always been Why even bother putting them there? This matter is even more annoying, since I have recently received 4 of the awesome "Spotting Aircraft Modifications" in sk. super containers (admittedly i fail to notice, what is so super about them), all of which are pretty much useless as well and the exchange of mounting them instead of the main armaments mod, for example, just is not worth it. My points, which everyone probably knows already: The range increase they offer, is pretty much useless, unless the target is fully stationary and does not move, as the lead, you have to take for such long ranges means that you are likely to miss (since the target would have to travel in straight line for ages, which is not very likely. Also the atrocious dispersion at long ranges likely guarantees that none of your shots will hit. If you hit anything with AP, it will likely bounce from the hilariously "thick" deck armor of any ship it might hit so HE is the only choice of ammo, which in turn causes minimal damage thus removing the incentive to even bother (why break concealment for a likely failure anyway). So a proposal, what IF we could make those aircraft useful again in a few easy steps?: Make it so, that while the spotting aircraft is airborne, ship's dispersion ellipse will be a little tighter, say by 2% or something at any range. Thus temporarily improving the BB's chance to hit something. This would of course only work as long as the aircraft is airborne. Spotting aircraft could actually "spot" (I know Woah!) and Increase the effective detection / spotting range of the BB for a short while, for example so that they would temporarily be able to detect an approaching DD, which has a concealment of 6km from 6,6km away (so +10% buff). This would also work on other ships, while the aircraft is flying. PS. I normally play DD, so I fully know this would increase the challenge, but then again a plucky and attentive DD player could still just observe that AHA! There are spotting aircraft about, wait for a while and approach again after they are gone and in cooldown, then torp the fiendish BB or then just torp it from a bit further away. Just thinking, I have so many of the dratted SUPER spotting aircraft mods and absolutely no use for them or even for the regular kind... Oh yeah and before anyone says so, I know they could help in spotting incoming torps a little earlier but that just ain't enough.
  5. Salutations, Capitaines ! Voici un topic que je n'avais pas vu sur le forum ou au moins dans cette section, donc j'ai décidé de m'y atteler ! (il existe un article très complet qui porte sur les canons et la pénétration sur le Wiki, le tout en Français ! Passez faire un tour : http://wiki.wargaming.net/fr/Canon_et_p%C3%A9n%C3%A9tration_(WoWs) 1)Dispersion On connaît tous ce phénomène, cette dispersion, souvent fourbe mais parfois dévastatrice, qui régit l'ensemble des tirs aux canons. Cette dispersion, on peut la trouver sur chaque navire dans le port, en plaçant le curseur dans l'onglet artillerie et plus précisément sur les canons principaux, et nous y voyons une valeur en mètres. Cette valeur "Dispersion maximale" aurait pu être définie par la phrase suivante : "Distance maximale entre deux obus tirés d'une même pièce d'artillerie à l'impact à portée maximale". C'est beau n'est-ce pas ? Bah c'est faux... Quand vous tirez, votre obus est dans un cône de dispersion totalement linéaire, plus vous augmentez la distance à laquelle vous tirez, plus vous grossissez la zone d'atterrissage de l'obus de façon proportionnelle. Enfin ça c'est si on avait des obus qui voyageaient au-dessus de nous horizontalement et partaient en piqué une fois au-dessus de la cible... Non les obus ont une trajectoire régie par la vitesse initiale et les frottements représentés IG par l'Airdrag. C'est cette trajectoire qui va le plus changer la dispersion. 2)Trajectoires Par définition, un obus se "dispersera" autour de sa trajectoire idéale (sinon ça part en cacahuète sévère...), donc en fait il sera autour de la trajectoire idéale selon un cône qui a une demi-molle. et à chaque tir il se passera cela. Ce cône a pour diamètre, à la distance maximale, la dispersion maximale, et à mesure qu'on se rapproche du canon par cette trajectoire, le cône voit son diamètre diminuer proportionnellement jusqu'à 0 (le bout du cône en jeu n'est pas à 0m du canon d'ailleurs, mais on y reviendra plus tard) Quand ce cône va rencontrer la surface de l'eau, la zone que cela va former sera la dispersion totale et maximale à la portée donnée (information à vérifier d'ailleurs, il me semble avoir vu une coquille là-dedans) Parlons maintenant de ce qui va arriver quand les trajectoires n'ont pas la même forme (#ATLvsMOSKVA) : Il y a 3 grands types de trajectoires dans Wows : La trajectoire tendue, la trajectoire en cloche et la trajectoire que j'appelle "en piqué". Quelle que soit la trajectoire, aucune n'arrive à faire atterrir ses obus à la verticale, certains s'en rapprochent (ATL) certains en sont loin (MOSKVA). De ce fait, la zone de dispersion à la surface ne sera pas un beau cercle de diamètre dispersion, ce sera une ellipse dont le petit axe aura bien la même valeur que la dispersion du fameux cône, mais dont le grand axe aura une valeur plus grande, et le phénomène s'amplifie à mesure que l'on tend la trajectoire ! (à partir d'ici on va appeler le petit axe la dispersion horizontale, et le grand axe la dispersion verticale) En gros : Plus la trajectoire est en cloche, plus la zone de dispersion à l'arrivée est petite. Exemples : ATL = cloche = dispersion verticale <~> dispersion horizontale. Moskva = tendu = dispersion verticale >>> dispersion horizontale. NC = en piqué = dispersion verticale > dispersion horizontale. 3)Précision Mais, me direz-vous, dans certains navires avec une trajectoire tendue je touche très facilement mes cibles, yakoa ? Trois choses : 1) Les navires sont hauts sur l'eau, donc même avec une dispersion verticale supérieure, les tirs qui sont surélevés toucheront le navire quand même ! 2) T'es trop près pour pouvoir louper... Il est également une chose c'est qu'à moins de x km (je n'ai pas le chiffre exact, je crois que c'est aux alentours de 2km, mais rien n'est moins sûr), la dispersion a été manuellement changée à 0m et ne respecte pas le cône (pauvre cône ) Donc tu touches exactement là où tu tires. 3) Un autre facteur intervient : SIGMA. Sigma c'est quoi ça ? C'est une valeur mystérieuse qui va modifier la Distribution aléatoire des obus dans la zone de dispersion. Et elle fonctionne comment ? Plus elle est grande, plus tes obus ont de chance d'être groupés vers ce que tu vises. (Yamato a le meilleur sigma du jeu, c'est pour ça qu'on a l'impression qu'il est plus précis que ces homologues) Voilà le sigma pour tous les navires du jeu ainsi que les valeurs de dispersions verticales et horizontales pour chacun d'entre eux (BBs, CAs et même DDs) : http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/78821-battleship-datamined-gun-accuracy-parameters/ (Crédits : OttoKretschmer) 4) La réalité ingame... Vous avez sans doute remarqué une chose, c'est que dans le jeu, vos tirs sont souvent alignés quand il s'agit de tirer sur une cible broadside (totalement de flanc) et souvent plus groupés pour tirer sur une cible vous faisant face ou vous montrant son voluptueux derrière. Est-ce une illusion ? Et bien non, je ne pense pas. En effet, il est très simple de faire le rapprochement entre l'angle du navire visé au moment du tir et la dispersion de vos obus. Et ce n'est pas pour rien, car il est plus que probable que le jeu "améliore artificiellement vos tirs". Dans la réalité c'est un fait. Tirer sur une cible non visible est horrible pour la précision (le blindshot dans Wows en est un exemple), et à l'inverse acquérir une cible, c'est pas juste pour le carnet de bord, c'est pour améliorer la précision des tirs. Ce que je disais tout à l'heure, c'est que la dispersion est un cercle dans lequel la distribution des tirs se fera. Et bien quand vous avez acquis une cible, cela devient faux. Quand une cible est de flanc, votre "cercle de dispersion" devient une "ellipse de dispersion" avec pour grand axe la parallèle au navire visé et de valeur la dispersion de vos canons. De cette manière la surface de dispersion à l'impact est réduite, mais pas assez pour faire en sorte que vos obus toucheront automatiquement la cible, faut pas déconner ! Ainsi la dispersion verticale ou en profondeur s'en trouve grandement réduite pour une cible broadside ! Mais pour une cible de face ou de dos, elle est à son maximum... (d'où les valeurs dans le tableau précédent). Remarque : Quand vous tirez sur une cible en train de manœuvrer, la dispersion qui s'applique est celle au moment où vous tirez, il n'y a pas d'anticipation de la part de l'acquisition, gardez ça à l'esprit quand vous shootez un DD à plus de 10 bornes ! Voilà j'ai essayé d'être précis mais à la fois compréhensible, j'espère que vous comprendrez.
  6. AMONAS1

    UNREALISTIC SMOKE ACCURACY

    Smoke is deployed and 3 ships are in it. No hydro No radar. They have MAX accurasy because they get my position from their team. FAIR? They can go into smoke and take my position from their team but having MAX accurasy without your own targeting system is UNFAIR. When ships are in the smoke they must have biger dispersion on their guns. They dont see me they take my position from their team. 07-05-2017 Yes the BBs should suffer the same penalty when they fire from MAX distance. 2 kills in max range in under 1 min is not right. Burning BBs is right. Citadels for cruisers is right. Accurate torps from smoke is right. Be able to have MAX accuracy from smoke is wrong. It is not that 2 DDs 1 cruiser and a BB can stay in the smoke for ALL the duration of a game. It is that you can not attack a formation like that. I dont have a problem with 1 DD or 1 cruiser be in the smoke. The only defence in a smoke with multiple ships in it, is to run, run, run and hope that you are out of their firing range. BBs stay in the edges and snipe and the rest in the smoke hoping someone comes close. (I will NOT stay at the edge, I will die).
  7. AMONAS1

    SMOKE & CELL DISPERSION

    When smoke is deployed the ships in it have MAX accuracy by "locating" the enemy from the veiw of a friendly ship out of the smoke. CELL DISPERSION penalty must aplay for the ship in the smoke because it does not use its own targeting system. The radar cant help because of the small duration, sonar cant help because of the small rang but the ACCURACY does not suffer a penalty.
  8. Hi! Please, can you tell, are there some kind of charts available where you can compare main battery guns characteristics? Thanks!
  9. Dirty_Filthy_Scrublord

    German BB dispersion

    Quick rant as I`m pissed off! Finally got myself the T10 German BB, been a long and sometimes ball achingly shite grind. And guess what?!?! The dispersion is awful, bloody awful even. Expect that at max range on any BB, but firng all twelve guns at a Zao at 6.1km and ONE hit!! and it was an overpen! Now he was angled away, but seriously...one hit? I`m barley hanging on to a 52% WR so that makes me average(at best), but come on..at that range even an angled ship should be taking a paddlin! Feel free to troll etc etc, not expecting many serious replies. Am expecting the usual "learn to shoot" "learn to play" etc etc, and the "don`t play a BB then". Doesn't alter the fact that at 6.1km range rng should be on your side, not taking the piss. Rant over.
  10. del536847803

    Shell dispersion

    Why battleship shell dispersion is so bad, can't reliably hit a target near 10km range? Playing with New Mexico.
  11. RAHJAILARI

    Naval Guns Dispersion Pattern

    Hi all, just a thought that came to mind and I did check to see if it was valid. It seems to me that the naval guns dispersion pattern (the oval target area with which guns hit or miss the target) is way off reality and actually results in rather ridiculous naval battle tactics, which in actuality would have resulted in disaster. What I mean is, that as in the Battle of Denmark straight, when Bismark demolished Hood, the result was BECAUSE Hood was heading towards Bismarck head-on thus making it easier to hit (citadel hits), had Hood been sideways towards Bismarck, the hits would have been fewer and she might have survived the combat (though perhaps badly damaged). In actuality, naval guns dispersion is narrower sideways and bigger rangewise (this is precisely why "finding the range" was such a big deal in naval battles). This makes sense, when you think of ships tossing and listing while on sea, the guns pointing sideways would not necessarily change much due to ship movement, but they would be severely affected by pitching and rolling, which would affect the range of shot mostly. This is why I find it quite ridiculous seeing BB's in a battle trying to "angle" their ships nose first in order to get shot to deflect off armor and to lessen the number of hits (and succeeding), when exactly the opposite should actually be true. Therefore the Vertical and Horizontal dispersion patterns in the game should actually be adjusted 90 degrees for them to be anywhere near correct. It also stands to reason, that since BB's width is usually somewhere in 30-50 meter range depending, their length of 160-250 should actually make for a much easier target. I included some links, which better illustrate the matter: https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.co.uk/2015_12_01_archive.html (scroll down a bit and you'll see the chart). and http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm These are both excerpts from actual artillery studies and I just feel that doing it "the wrong way" feels awkward and absurd and somewhat deducts from the game-playing experience. It also leads to the BB players not firing full broadsides, as was the accepted and recommended BB practice at the time, instead strangely "wiggling" around trying to get ships "angled" which just ain't right... Any thoughts? Any hope of getting this "fixed"?
  12. BruceForce

    Camouflage enemy shell dispersion

    So you all know that one of the standard camouflages increases the enemy shell dispersion by 4% when shooting at your ship. I wonder how that works. The only reasonable way how this might work seems to be this: Whenever an enemy has selected you as a target (e.g., by pressing "X"), then his shell dispersion just increases if you have this camouflage. So if somebody shoots at you blind (i.e., with setting you as target), then this penalty would not apply. Does anybody know how it works exactly? Do you think it's worth the credits? Does it ever cause a shell to miss that otherwise would have hit?
  13. Hello, After reading through numerous topics complaining about not being able to hit anything (mostly by BBs firing at max range), I though why not add the dispersion to the crosshairs. Add an oval/circle to the aiming UI which shows a graphical representation of the dispersion based on the dispersion of the ship and the corresponding range, such that when a BB is aiming at max range it can see the area in which the shells will land. This oval/circle changes in size depending on the dispersion of the ship at the range it is aiming at. Why? In comparison to WoT, aiming at max range in a ship is comparable to a tanks max dispersion and when a ship aims at a closer range it is more comparable to a tank that has aimed its gun. For example: A fully upgraded Fuso mounted with Gun fire control system modification 1, which decreases dispersion, has a max range of 21.8km and a dispersion of 224m. Thus when said Fuso is aiming at a target at its max range an oval/circle along with the current aiming UI which shows the area in which any shell fired by the Fusos main guns will land. When the Fuso is aiming at a target at 10km range the oval/circle shows the dispersion of the guns at that range. Implementation Options: Pros: Cons: Issues: What it does not do: TLDR: I'm looking for any feedback you have and if possible please expand on them. Edit: Say this was implemented as another option for a crosshair, would you consider it an unfair advantage or not? crazy5982
  14. Just recently i noticed this - for example: If you compared this module dont confuse it with the "upgrade" this is important, Japs BBs seems to benefit from this more than US BBs, why u ask me? If you compared between the BBs, Amagi benefits for using this module while Izumo gets just a little dispersion was well to benefit more from range. Although US seems to be countered by it, from North Carolina up their regular range allows us to chose between getting the tower/module or not, just to get that little range and get sht tons of dispersion. In my case i will not been using the tower since 21km is good enough for me since my perference distance is 15km bellow. So yeah if you think the using the module brings advandges, please point it out, so i can learn from it, if it does not bring any advandges into it, why does WG/Dev puted this module ingame since it only takes out the potential of the US bbs while it does not from Japs BBs? What i trying to say? Simple, why put something that cost good amount XP/credits into a boat with it does not benefit from it? Regarless i just happy that we aint forced to unlock or buy it, so cheers for that, but meeh... this seems like for my point of view on US BBs a useless module to get/use... Any ways if it brings any potential please tell me or redirect me towards the source, and thx for your usual attention.
  15. Sticky_Icky

    Dispersion - Deviation?

    I havent found anything like that, and i was really wondering..... We all know about max dispersion and we have probably seen the graphs with the differences between IJN BB max dispersion and USN BB max dispersion, but i have an important question to make..... does Standard Deviation change from ship to ship or tier to tier? or does it stay the same? is it just placebo e.g. saying that the Amagi is more Accurate than the Nagato? because max Dispersion doesnt mean a lot without knowing about Standard Deviation... if 1000 shots land with a maximum dispersion of 240m for two battleships, but BB No.1 has a tighter spread close to the middle than No.2, then we can safely say that the No.1 is more accurate than the No.2 does this kind of mechanic exist like a hidden stat, or it is universally the same for all USN BBs and the same for all IJN BBs? if it does, can modules affect it, like a Hull upgrade, or a Gun Fire Control System upgrade?
  16. You are right, it was a estupid rant with a lot of mumbo-jumbo mixed together, i'm actually an experienced player and that should be a reason to measure my words. I deleted it and I'll think twice before i get mad about something again and say things i don't really believe. In my poor english, i was actually trying to say it's too easy to hit a ship, not too hard. Maybe because i play mostly with DDs that have short range cannons. This is the class i play the most, from Isokaze to Kagero but i've been trying to play other classes and i just feel that aiming is not giving me the sensation that it was me hitting that ship, then again, maybe most people doesn't give so much importance to that. I can't say the same about torpedoes so maybe i'll just stick with DDs for a while. Before this i had some weird RNG moments ending with a game crash that made me restart my pc and that, along with some frustration related to other issues i think the game has but i doubt will be fixed any time soon, made me start "beating" the keyboard. Cheers "if i aim here... i may get a hit somewhere around there, ahhh failed, i'll hit again in the same spot, let's see.... nice, a citadel hit!" I have a hard time celebrating this kind of stuff.
  17. Ahoy there! I've been playing the Izumo for a while (grinding my bitter way to the Yamato), and I've noticed some odd things about this particular ship. First off, what is up with the dispersion of the main battery 10th year type guns? With the Gun Fire Control System Mod.1, I have better dispersion than most BBs around those tiers. 247m dispersion at 25.5km range (270+ something with spotter up), which is pretty damn good if you ask me. However, the calculation algorithm for the shells seems to troll players all the time. You land a perfect salvo time and time again, only to see them harmlessly land in the water in a circle around the enemy ships. I've gone through entire battles without hitting an enemy more than 11 times. In a 20km duel. With multiple targets. All of them giving me their sides. Wut? Now don't get me wrong, I know this is a common feature for BBs. But at the same time, it seems to happen WAY more often when I play the Izumo. How in the world can those guns perform so poorly when the dispersion (on paper) is so good? Next is the penetration values of the guns. And I know this is a hot subject to anyone playing BBs. What in the world is up with the shells penetration? And we're talking a fully upgraded Izumo, not that horrible pen that you get with the stock hull. I have to play the damn ship as a close-range knife fighter just to be able to penetrate other BBs. Well, except for when I fight another Izumo. The irony. Rarely do I get a hit that actually does more than 6k damage. And citadel penetrations are a thing of the past, it seems. You want to get citadels while playing an Izumo? Then shoot at a Yorck, and hope you actually even hit him. Furthermore, I can't make sense of the armor of the thing. The Izumo is supposed to be an adequately armored ship with sligthly less citadel armor and reinforced forward and after ends. Yet there seems to be no torpedo protection, so they just go straight through doing about 20k+ damage all the time. Even at an extreme angle those things cut through the ship like a hot knife through butter. And again, I'm not complaining about the ship, it has it's moments just like any other. For example, the AA and secondary batteries are great with their extreme range and punch (with mods, ofc). But you don't win battles with good AA guns. You actually need to be able to sink, well, things. So to sum up my experience of the Izumo: Trolly dispersion. Trolly armor. Lousy penetration. Great AA power (again, with mods). Great secondary batteries (same here, mods). Seemingly no torpedo armor bulge. Superstructure seems to be made out of flammable glass, not welded metal. So my question to you guys: what's your opinion and experience of the Izumo? Scourge or clown? Cheers!
  18. Notice how nobody says "Let's play toss-a-coin"? The tedium and irritation caused by randomness in this game detract from enjoyment. Randomness makes air superiority Brogues dull to play and battleship vs cruiser engagements irritating. Fighter RNG The fighter engagement mechanism removes skill and thus deprives the carrier player of meaningful engagement. Fighter engagement whereby fighters literally cannot move the battle in any direction is unrealistic and often ends up eg 5-1 in planes shot down. This unbalances the whole battle on a coin toss. Faster fighters in particular should be able to disengage at a penalty to their attack strength but slower fighters too should be able to move the battle towards an allied ship with AA. Whilst strafing is the more skillful approach, it is very risky and still forces your planes to engage. Solution: remove the fighter engaging mechanism. Players will still be able to focus enemy squadrons but it will be more like fighter vs bomber engagements. Fire RNG Cruiser/gunboat success vs battleships is almost entirely dependent on luck with starting fires. Even angling doesn't make much of a difference any more due to reducing overpenetration. Solution: make fire chance cumulative. Start at 0% chance per shell (for US). Each shell that hits increases the chance by 0.5%. By the time you've landed 8 HE shells, you're up to 20% chance of fire per shell. Cap it at 30% (10 shells) and have it halve every 20s. Fire extinguish could half the chance too but you'd still likely be prone to another fire if you're getting hit a lot. This makes dying to a couple of cruisers who can't shoot but are lucky with fires incredibly unlikely. If they can shoot then chances are you'll be set on fire three times at least. Fire duration could also be part of this equation. Accuracy RNG Accuracy/dispersion has been discussed a lot I'm sure. The Myogi drives me nuts but I think it's a ship-specific problem at short range. Feel free to discuss. Teammate skill RNG Lastly, players are over-rewarded for being lucky with good teammates. Winning should be reward enough without getting double the XP of the losing team. If there's any XP bonus for winning, it should be 20% at most. Boost XP overall to compensate.
  19. The_TrashMan

    Iowa - incorrect data (speed, dispersion)

    Noticed two mistakes in regards to the Iowa. It's top speed is listed as 31knots, yet every source I've seen (and I've seen a lot. I've got 2400+ books in my house and most of them are about ships) mentions 33 knots (with 35 achieved during tests). Also, the dispersion for it's guns in tests made in 1945 was 220m, not 270m
×