Bullethead
01 Aug 06, 17:13
There is a lot of apparent inaccuracy, and some internal inconsistency as well, regarding the arcs of fire of the side-mounted guns on many ships in the game. Almost every ship I've looked at so far has some sort of problem in this regard, but the problems are different for different ships even with the same types of guns. On the whole, these problems are more detrimental to the Russians because, while they have more guns with correct arcs, they also have many that are too restricted. OTOH, almost all Japanese guns have much wider arcs than they should. This gives the Japanese a substantial advantage in volume of fire at angles they shouldn't have it. There are, of course, exceptions to these general statements, and I haven't looked at every ship in the game yet. But these are the general trends I've seen so far.
Getting a bit more specific, on most Russian ships, the broadside guns all have a 90^ arc pointing out from the hull. This is quite correct for the majority of such guns, especially those amidships in unsponsoned casemates or on the upper deck. However, guns at the ends of the broadside batteries, in sponsoned and/or embrasured casemates specifically designed to provide end-on fire, also have the same 90^ arc to the side with no end-on fire. For example, check the arcs of the forward 152mm guns of Pobyeda. They have 90^, even though the hull ahead of them is cut away so they could shoot forward in real life. These guns, IMHO, should have a 135^ arc going from dead ahead to 45^ abaft the beam.
For the Japanese, the problem is the other way. With very few exceptions (such as the 120mm guns of Ikitsushima), the broadside guns all have 180^ arcs. This was physically impossible for almost all of them, due to the constraints of mountings and potential blast damage, not to mention shooting through parts of their own ship. The result is that the entirety of the 2ndary batteries on both sides of most Japanese shps can fire dead ahead and dead astern. This is quite unrealistic, and is seriously imbalancing to gameplay when you consider that almost no Russian guns can bear ahead or astern, even though they could in real life.
There are a few Russian ships (such as Tsessarevitch) with this 180^ problem as well, but not many. However, every DD of both countries have 180^ arcs for their side guns. IMHO, no broadside guns should have a 180^ arc unless they were mounted way outboard of the hull in turrets or big sponsons. Maybe the center 2ndary turrets of Tsessarevitch would qualify, but then there's the blast issue. So IMHO, the widest possible broadside arcs (outboard turrets or very big sponsons) should be 120^, but with most broadside guns (casemates and open mounts both) having the 90^ common on Russian ships. For guns in sponsons near the ends of the ship, or in special embrasures, a 135^ arc would be appropriate.
The Chin Yen has a unique problem with its main battery's echelloned turrets. These have 180^ arcs on their own side of the ship, and 90^ crossdeck fire on the other side. I don't think either of these is correct. As noted above, I'd limit the own-side arc to 120^, but I'd also eliminate the crossdeck arc entirely. The turrets obviously were not echelloned enough for one to clear the other when trained across, and from the 3D model, it doesn't appear crossdeck training was physically possible anyway. There's solid superstructure between the turrets with no opening to shoot across, even if the other turret wasn't in the way. In the game, it looks really strange seeing the gun tubes from the other side of the ship poking out through the superstructure between the turrets, and sometimes into the other turret. While echelloned turrets were often used to provide crossdeck fire, that wasn't the case with this ship. She was instead designed to fire ahead with as many guns as possible as part of the fixation on ramming at the time she was built.
Anyway, fixing this will be tedious, because every ship has to be checked and most need to be changed in some way. I can at least help with the checking process, if that would speed things up. I've already started, in fact :)
Getting a bit more specific, on most Russian ships, the broadside guns all have a 90^ arc pointing out from the hull. This is quite correct for the majority of such guns, especially those amidships in unsponsoned casemates or on the upper deck. However, guns at the ends of the broadside batteries, in sponsoned and/or embrasured casemates specifically designed to provide end-on fire, also have the same 90^ arc to the side with no end-on fire. For example, check the arcs of the forward 152mm guns of Pobyeda. They have 90^, even though the hull ahead of them is cut away so they could shoot forward in real life. These guns, IMHO, should have a 135^ arc going from dead ahead to 45^ abaft the beam.
For the Japanese, the problem is the other way. With very few exceptions (such as the 120mm guns of Ikitsushima), the broadside guns all have 180^ arcs. This was physically impossible for almost all of them, due to the constraints of mountings and potential blast damage, not to mention shooting through parts of their own ship. The result is that the entirety of the 2ndary batteries on both sides of most Japanese shps can fire dead ahead and dead astern. This is quite unrealistic, and is seriously imbalancing to gameplay when you consider that almost no Russian guns can bear ahead or astern, even though they could in real life.
There are a few Russian ships (such as Tsessarevitch) with this 180^ problem as well, but not many. However, every DD of both countries have 180^ arcs for their side guns. IMHO, no broadside guns should have a 180^ arc unless they were mounted way outboard of the hull in turrets or big sponsons. Maybe the center 2ndary turrets of Tsessarevitch would qualify, but then there's the blast issue. So IMHO, the widest possible broadside arcs (outboard turrets or very big sponsons) should be 120^, but with most broadside guns (casemates and open mounts both) having the 90^ common on Russian ships. For guns in sponsons near the ends of the ship, or in special embrasures, a 135^ arc would be appropriate.
The Chin Yen has a unique problem with its main battery's echelloned turrets. These have 180^ arcs on their own side of the ship, and 90^ crossdeck fire on the other side. I don't think either of these is correct. As noted above, I'd limit the own-side arc to 120^, but I'd also eliminate the crossdeck arc entirely. The turrets obviously were not echelloned enough for one to clear the other when trained across, and from the 3D model, it doesn't appear crossdeck training was physically possible anyway. There's solid superstructure between the turrets with no opening to shoot across, even if the other turret wasn't in the way. In the game, it looks really strange seeing the gun tubes from the other side of the ship poking out through the superstructure between the turrets, and sometimes into the other turret. While echelloned turrets were often used to provide crossdeck fire, that wasn't the case with this ship. She was instead designed to fire ahead with as many guns as possible as part of the fixation on ramming at the time she was built.
Anyway, fixing this will be tedious, because every ship has to be checked and most need to be changed in some way. I can at least help with the checking process, if that would speed things up. I've already started, in fact :)