Could the wrong modelling be fixed in DG RJW?

[Mish]

A year has passed since the DG RJW was released. It's a great game but some modelling issues have not been fixed yet:

Pritected cruiser "Svetlana" - should have 6x152mm guns (not 6x120mm as modeled in DG)
Armored cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov" - should have 8x203mm guns (not 7x203mm as modeled in DG)
Battleship "Imperator Nikolai I" - 152mm gun has been mounted at the stern in 1904.
http://modelyard.narod.ru/pictures/ships/nicol/nicol_s.gif


Rate of fire.
Battleships "Fuji" and "Yashima": 305mm guns reloading time for the first 8 salvos should be the same as "Shikishima" class, as 16 ready rounds were stored in each turret and additional rammers were installed to provide loading at any degree of train. Only after all ready rounds were used up, the turret did have to return to 0 degrees of train in order to replenish the ready-use ammunition.

Armor protection.
It's not possible that armor protection of "Borodino" class battleships (Suvorov, Borodino, Alexandr III, Oryol) was so weak compared to some other ships, for example "Asama" class armored cruisers:
http://www.newsound.com.au/other/Oryol-Asama.gif

Arc of fire.
152mm casemate guns arks of fire are incorrectly modeled (inability to fire at nose and stern directions) on the following ships:
Battleships: Mikasa, Asahi, Shikishima, Hatsuse, Retvizan, Osliabia, Pobeda, Peresvet, Nikolai I (as well as 229mm casemate guns)
Armored cruisers: Nissin, Kasuga, Bayan

Is it possible to developers to fix these small issues before Jutland be released?

[KGB]

Об этом было сказано Норму и Джиму уже более года назад. Я об этом говорил в том числе. Но, как видишь, ничего не исправляется.

Jim and Norm were told about these issues more than a year ago. I was the one who told this among others. But as you see, nothing is going to be changed.

[Bullethead]

Jim and Norm were told about these issues more than a year ago. I was the one who told this among others. But as you see, nothing is going to be changed.

I believe it more correct to say "nothing has been changed yet".

No promises here, but one of the things we'd like to do is go back and fix various problems with the DG ship data, as well as to update DG ships with at least some of the cool features we're putting into Jutland. But if that ever happens, it won't be until Jutland's out the door.

[Enforcer]

Yes I also thought it was odd: Yashima and Fuji taking 4 minutes to reload the main turrets.

Russian battleship Navarin also needs 4 minutes, Imperator Nikolai too, but that one is old, it could be true?

I never questioned the long reload times of the Japanese "funny fleet" (Chin Yen, Itsikushima, and so forth...) but I suspect this may be incorrect too?

[Bullethead]

Yes I also thought it was odd: Yashima and Fuji taking 4 minutes to reload the main turrets.

Russian battleship Navarin also needs 4 minutes, Imperator Nikolai too, but that one is old, it could be true?

I never questioned the long reload times of the Japanese "funny fleet" (Chin Yen, Itsikushima, and so forth...) but I suspect this may be incorrect too?

The subject of reload rates isn't an exact science, regardless of the type (land, air, sea) or era of combat. Just looking at naval, there were many variables affecting ROF in the RJW and even more in WW1, and these varied from ship to ship even where the gun was the same in both. Game designers have to sort through all this and set values, some of which are sure to upset at least some of the customers in some cases. I'm the guy who's doing the ROFs in Jutland, so I'm anticipating much hatemail in the near future :angry:

In a nutshell, published ROFs for guns are pretty much always the physical maximum based on the irreducible times for moving the ammo and breech parts. They assume an easily visible and essentially stationary target at close range, a lack of hard maneuvering from the gun's ship, fresh crew well trained in all the necessary actions, and ammo being supplied at least as fast as it's being expended. But such things were seldom, if ever, the case in actual combat, so the actual ROF would be less. But how much less? That's where things get interesting.

Just to mention the tip of the iceberg, ammo supply rate is one of the main variables. Except for the biggest guns, in most cases ammo arrived rather slower than it was possible, even at a "sustained" ROF, to fire it. And different ships using the same gun might have different supply rates based on design-specific hoist configurations, etc. So to buffer the supply system, guns often had ready use ammo stashed nearby. But how much? That was something that varied from ship to ship even in the same class, and also varied over time with different safety regulations and the preferences of different skippers. So going very far along this road quickly leads to a huge spectrum of ROFs for a given type of gun in a given class, and another spectrum for the same gun in other classes of ship. This quickly exceeds the limits of feasibility when it comes to game design. So except for where there were definite and significant differences that can be justified, we've got to pick a single number for the ROF and then let various in-game situational factors slide number somewhat.

BTW, I disagree that Fuso ever had the same ROF as the later IJN BBs. From what I understand, the ready use ammo in the turrets was there as insurance against hoist breakdowns. To get it from the racks to the breeches, I think the crew had to rig an overhead crane for it, in a throwback to ironclad days. This seems to have been slower than cranking the turret around to line up with the external rammers, and then back on the target.

[Mish]

BTW, I disagree that Fuso ever had the same ROF as the later IJN BBs. From what I understand, the ready use ammo in the turrets was there as insurance against hoist breakdowns. To get it from the racks to the breeches, I think the crew had to rig an overhead crane for it, in a throwback to ironclad days.

That's exactly the way how 203 mm shells were loading in armored cruiser Asama turret (on the crane). Please check the link below:
203mm turret (Asama, Tokiwa) (http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MKA/2006_01/Draw/11.jpg)
Nevertheless, the rate of fire for Asama has been modelled as two rounds per minute(!!)

Anyway, during Tsushima battle japaneese battleships fired the total of 446 (four hundred and forty six) 305mm shells. «Mikasa» — 124, «Shikishima» — 74, «Fuji» — 106 and «Asahi» — 142
The rate of fire which Fuji showed during the real battle was quite close to that one of modern battleships.

No promises here, but one of the things we'd like to do is go back and fix various problems with the DG ship data

Could you please tell me is it really too hard to re-model "Svetlana" with 6x152mm or "Nakhimov' with 8x203mm. Why hasn't it been fixed yet as well as some other pretty obvious ship modelling mistakes?

[Enforcer]

Could you please tell me is it really too hard to re-model "Svetlana" with 6x152mm or "Nakhimov' with 8x203mm. Why hasn't it been fixed yet as well as some other pretty obvious ship modelling mistakes?

I was wondering that too. I read Norm's website, and how he is so fascinated by the RJW, one would suspect he really feels the inclination towards historical correctness.

Naturally one should not underestimate the full-devotion task to Jutland :D

Still I also hope the models will be adapted to their historical counterparts :clown:

[JebUSMC]

There is reason to believe that what killed HMS Queen Mary, HMS Indefatigable, and HMS Invincible may well have been all of the blast doors between the turrets and the magazines being left open to permit a faster ROF. HMS Lion and HMS Tiger demonstrated slower ROF in combat yet both ships survived hits on turrets that were similar to the ones that killed the other 3 BCs. The difference? Lion and Tiger both followed what was supposed to have been the standard gunnery protocol of opening and closing the blast doors as the shells passed through. The BBs of the GF all had it drilled into them by Jellicoe. Beatty had it drilled into his flagship and kept a watchful eye on it yet he didn't or was unable to do the same for the rest of the BCs.

[Shanghai Slim]

Could you please tell me is it really too hard to re-model "Svetlana" with 6x152mm or "Nakhimov' with 8x203mm. Why hasn't it been fixed yet as well as some other pretty obvious ship modelling mistakes?

I second that!

Isn't this simply a matter of changing some data in a table or two? It's seems very unlikely it would require any change to the code. Why are we waiting months or years for such relatively easy fixes?

Some of these changes could have a big impact on the game, like preventing ships from throwing nearly a full broadside directly ahead - which greatly reduces the usefullness of "crossing the T". Rather puts a cramp on all the other work to make the game historically accurate.

After all this time, I'm fearing that DG has become an orphan. It's all fine and well to hear that someday after Jutland is out, just maybe some of DG's lingering problems might be fixed, but ... I don't care about Jutland, I already paid for DG! Why should I have to wait at all? :(

The message sounds a lot like "Sorry folks, we're too busy focusing on future potential sales. Check back in a year or two, maybe we'll have something then ..."

That seems a rather poor way of treating your customers - who also happen to be your most likely future customers. Will Jutland's problems have to wait to be addressed until after the third title is out?

[Bullethead]

There is reason to believe that what killed HMS Queen Mary, HMS Indefatigable, and HMS Invincible may well have been all of the blast doors between the turrets and the magazines being left open to permit a faster ROF. HMS Lion and HMS Tiger demonstrated slower ROF in combat yet both ships survived hits on turrets that were similar to the ones that killed the other 3 BCs. The difference? Lion and Tiger both followed what was supposed to have been the standard gunnery protocol of opening and closing the blast doors as the shells passed through. The BBs of the GF all had it drilled into them by Jellicoe. Beatty had it drilled into his flagship and kept a watchful eye on it yet he didn't or was unable to do the same for the rest of the BCs.

I disagree. AFAIK, when Lion's Q turret was hit, the magazine doors were wide open, as was usual in the BCF, in the interests of higher ROF. The magazine doors were closed immediately upon the hit being received, and the order to flood the magazines was given some minutes later (and not by the guy who got the VC for it--he was dead before then). When the smoldering fire eventually ignited the 8 charges in the hoists about 1/2 hour after the hit, the magazines were finished flooding.

And that's what saved the ship. The blast (not just flash, but an actual explosion) from these 8 charges severely buckled the magazine bulkheads, and the magazine doors weren't flashtight in this direction anyway. So had the magazines not already been full of water, Lion almost certainly would have blown up, even with the doors closed. And had not much of the blast energy been able to vent out the missing turret roof, even the flooded magazines might not have saved the ship--cordite that's been on the bottom since WW1 still burns, and can do so underwater.

The real culprit at Jutland was the Brit cordite. That stuff was pure evil and accounted for the majority of casualties suffered by both sides. It ignited easily and burned so rapidly, with such a huge release of gas overpressure, as to count as an explosion. Given Lion's experience, where all involved charges were in approved positions with no extras exposed, it seems highly likely that any Brit ship, GF BBs as well as BCs, would have blown up if the charges anywhere from gunhouse to lower handling room had been ignited by a hit, before there was a chance to flood the magazines. The Brit ships that survived turret/barbette penetrations at Jutland did so due to dud shells or just luck that all charges were in flashtight cages and hoppers at the moment of impact.

[Mish]

The message sounds a lot like "Sorry folks, we're too busy focusing on future potential sales. Check back in a year or two, maybe we'll have something then ..."

That seems a rather poor way of treating your customers - who also happen to be your most likely future customers. Will Jutland's problems have to wait to be addressed until after the third title is out?

Yes. Distant Guns has not been fixed yet enough to be an accurate platform for more complicated modelling. Rates of fire/lethality/damage model are all quite far from beeing historically accurate.
What can we expect from Jutland now?

[Enforcer]

I second that!


After all this time, I'm fearing that DG has become an orphan. It's all fine and well to hear that someday after Jutland is out, just maybe some of DG's lingering problems might be fixed, but ... I don't care about Jutland, I already paid for DG! Why should I have to wait at all? :(

The message sounds a lot like "Sorry folks, we're too busy focusing on future potential sales. Check back in a year or two, maybe we'll have something then ..."

That seems a rather poor way of treating your customers - who also happen to be your most likely future customers. Will Jutland's problems have to wait to be addressed until after the third title is out?

Big second

That is true and I couldn't have put it better.

[PepsiCan]

I disagree.

1) Over a year after its release there's still fixes coming out. Many other game software vendors would have stopped after about half a year.

2) SES has said that when Jutland comes out, the appropriate approvements will also be implemented to DG. Usually, when a vendor starts work on a new version, they stop support on the current version.

Case in fact: Silent Hunter IV. After three patches the thing is still full of bugs and there seems to be no inclination whatsoever to fix these by Ubisoft.

SES is a much better company in that respect.

[Bullethead]

The last several patches for DG have included a lot of "under the hood" improvements that were developed for Jutland. Only a few of these have been visible during play, and even then haven't had much noticeable gameplay effect. I can understand, then, why people would wonder why we bother.

Well, it's like this. First off, we do hope to retrofit DG with a number of much more visible features that are currently Jutland-specific. Some of the "under the hood" DG patching prepares DG to accept these things at a future date. Second, we haven't washed our hands of DG, but SES is a very small company. Thus, to support both games in a reasonably timely manner, we have to keep them both as similar as possible.

[Haida]

I think you guys are nit-picking about the modelling. Sure it would be nice for everything to be 100% accurate, but would that really make much difference in gameplay? As the game stands now, if you take the four Borodino-class battleships and put them against Mikasa, Asahi, Shikishima and Hatsuse and commit them to a drawn-out gunnery duel, the end result of the battle, if there are no random magazine explosions, is both sides loose all of their ships to fire damage. Little ship details here and there will do nothing to change that outcome. If anything they might give more advantage to the Russian side which would make the game even less historically accurate.

[Rhetor]

As the game stands now, if you take the four Borodino-class battleships and put them against Mikasa, Asahi, Shikishima and Hatsuse and commit them to a drawn-out gunnery duel, the end result of the battle, if there are no random magazine explosions, is both sides loose all of their ships to fire damage.

OH yes. You have touched the change that is most needed in DG. I would really like to take the four Borodino-class battleships and put them against Mikasa, Asahi, Shikishima and Hatsuse. But - whops, I can't! I can only pray that the engine would generate such a battle.

We need a working scenario editor. We need that more than the eight gun on some obsolete armored cruiser.