Secondary Targets?

[Batou]

Secondary Targets?

Ships of the DG era could only target a single ship target at a time. Was there enough change in ship technology and naval doctrine to model secondary ship targets for Jutland era naval combat?

Could or did ships of era have ability to target and fire at multiple targets? If not was this a limitation of technology (fire control systems, gun directors, etc.) or just naval doctrine?

[RCNVR]

I think the a problem in the RJW was shooting at a single target. The fire control system was primitive with no director control. The officers in charge of a turret or battery could easily end up shooting at a different target than another turret in the heat of a battle especially at longer ranges.

Once you got director control the main armament at least should be shooting at the same target. Some ships also had directors for the secondary armament. Of course battle damage could mess it all up.

I can't remember the book but in WW2 a RN captain was quoted as saying to his gunnery officer after a shoot " I was under the impression that X turret was having a private was of its own" So even with a director system you could have the human error problem.

I am not sure of the extent or sophistication of director systems at Jutland. I think that it varied between ships depending on refits etc. Installing a director system was complicated and required a lot of wiring etc.

And then there is the problem of which ship shoots at which of the enemy. The RN battle cruisers had that problem at Jutland when they were supposed to be shooting at their opposite number but one (Tiger I think) messed up. This meant that one HSF BC was not targetted at all and it would confuse the spotters who thought the shell splashed from another ship were their own.

In a battle like Jutland unless you can maybe set target preferences and priorities it would be impossible to micro manage individual ship targets. Hopefully the game engine will do it for us. I think that in DG the secondary and anti torpedo boat batteries fire at different targets. At least when I approach a battle line with TBs the enemy keeps shooting the main guns at my battle line but my TB still get pounded by the light armament.

[Bullethead]

Could or did ships of era have ability to target and fire at multiple targets? If not was this a limitation of technology (fire control systems, gun directors, etc.) or just naval doctrine?

The main and 2ndary batteries could and often did have different targets. That's been in the game since DG, so I guess you're really wondering about splitting the main battery between different targets.

As I understand things, it was not at all the usual practice, and I haven't come across any instance of it happening in WW1. About the only instance I can think of at all was Graf Spee in WW2.

Part of the problem was the that even the director system was highly dependent on spotting splashes. The rule at the time seems to have been that reliable, accurate spotting required 4-5 splashes per salvo. Any fewer and there was a good chance they'd all be on 1 side of the target instead of straddling, so you wouldn't know when you had the range right. Any more and the splashes would obscure the target so you couldn't tell what was happening. Thus, the normal practice was to fire 1 gun per turret per salvo (aka "half salvos"), wait for it to splash, make any corrections, and then fire the other gun in each turret. So even though only 1/2 the guns were firing at once, all of them were still engaging the same target.

There were a couple of exceptions to this at Jutland. Lutzow fired both guns in A and B turrets together, then both guns in C and D, but it was still only 1/2 the guns at once and all at the same target. Agincourt fired all 14 guns at once, but she didn't have a director yet at Jutland. And one of the many gripes the RN had about Renown and "Outrageous" was that they had less than 4 turrets so their ability to spot their own splashes accurately was in question.

[Batou]

The main and 2ndary batteries could and often did have different targets. That's been in the game since DG, so I guess you're really wondering about splitting the main battery between different targets.



Bullethead

I'm confused I thought that in DG, ships of the era could only target and fire on a single target. Are you saying in DG if the player targets ship A, the ship will also target ship B if the conditions are right? Why isn't there a secondary target command?

Shouldn't the number of targets be limited by the number of weapon directors and ship position?

I would really like to see something like weapon ranger circles so when you click on a ship weapon you could see which targets are in weapons range. I could never tell which weapons where in use with DG, other than ammo count. It always looked like it was all or nothing.

[Bullethead]

I'm confused I thought that in DG, ships of the era could only target and fire on a single target. Are you saying in DG if the player targets ship A, the ship will also target ship B if the conditions are right? Why isn't there a secondary target command?

Yup, ships in DG can engage more than 1 target at a time. In fact, they can engage up to 3 simultaneously under the right conditions (which you really don't want to get your ships into :D ).

Weapons in DG are divided into 2 types: centrally and locally directed. This is IMHO a bad choice of words, because most people use these terms to distinguish types of fire control systems. In DG, though, these terms have nothing to do with the fire control systems. "Centrally" means the player can select the target, while "locally" means the AI selects the target.

In DG, the player can only designate 1 target for each ship. This is why there's no 2ndary target (or torp fire) command. The player's target is the one that the main battery (which is usually the only "centrally directed" battery) will fire at.

The AI-controlled weapons (2ndary and teritary guns, plus torps) will normally fire at the same target selected by the player, provided they're in range. However, under certain conditions, these guns will fire at other targets. Usually, this happens if a 2nd target closes to about 1/2 the max range of the AI-controlled weapons. In this case, the main battery will keep firing at the player's target further away, while the smaller guns will switch to the closer target. They think they're defending the ship from torp attack, which is the main reason they were installed in the ship to begin with. So that's 2 targets at once.

The 3rd simultaneous target can be engaged by the weapons on the other side of your ship. If your main battery's firing to port and a different target gets close enough on the starboard side, the starboard AI-controlled weapons will open fire on their own initiative. Thus, both 2ndary batteries can be shooting at close DDs, 1 on each side, while your main battery engages a more distant target that you've selected.

Shouldn't the number of targets be limited by the number of weapon directors and ship position?

It pretty much is: 1 main battery target, and 1x 2ndary target for each side.

I would really like to see something like weapon ranger circles so when you click on a ship weapon you could see which targets are in weapons range. I could never tell which weapons where in use with DG, other than ammo count. It always looked like it was all or nothing.

Range circles are drawn on the mini-map. But if you can't see them or can't tell which is which, you can look on the ship's I screen, which shows the range for whatever weapon you've got the mouse over. Then select a target, and the pop-up telescope box for your ship will tell you the range. You can then compare this number to the known max range of the weapon in question.

[Rhetor]

The main and 2ndary batteries could and often did have different targets. That's been in the game since DG, so I guess you're really wondering about splitting the main battery between different targets.

As I understand things, it was not at all the usual practice, and I haven't come across any instance of it happening in WW1. About the only instance I can think of at all was Graf Spee in WW2.


In DG armored cruisers with their 203mm guns in board casemates would not fire them, if the main target is on the other side of the ship.

In Jutland we will have the "Posen" class battleships or the "Dreadnought" herself, which had main turrets on both sides of the ship. Since "Dreadnought" had virtually no secondary artillery save the short range 76mm guns, would she be completely defenceless against ships attacking from both sides?

[Bullethead]

In DG armored cruisers with their 203mm guns in board casemates would not fire them, if the main target is on the other side of the ship.

Hmmm, I thought that had been fixed. In fact, I was just making a little Jutland scenario including a ship with the main guns down both sides like this, instead of on the centerline. This ship was firing to starboard at a close target I'd designated, and at the same time the port battery opened fire by itself on a target further away to port.

[Hinchinbrooke]

Since "Dreadnought" had virtually no secondary artillery save the short range 76mm guns, would she be completely defenceless against ships attacking from both sides?

You won't have to worry about 'Dreadnought', as she wasn't at Jutland.;)

[Rhetor]

You won't have to worry about 'Dreadnought', as she wasn't at Jutland.;)

I know. If I shall have a working scenario editor, I'll make sure she is there.

[Hinchinbrooke]

Given all the work that has to be done, I assume that they won't release a specific 'Dreadnought', so despite an enhanced Scenario Editor, you might be out of luck.

[Rhetor]

Given all the work that has to be done, I assume that they won't release a specific 'Dreadnought', so despite an enhanced Scenario Editor, you might be out of luck.

I supposed that the game would cover the 1916 campaign, not just the May battle. That is why I do hope that "Dreadnought" will be there somewhere. I'll be very disappointed if she isn't included in the database. I have always wanted to sink her :D

[Batou]

Yup, ships in DG can engage more than 1 target at a time. In fact, they can engage up to 3 simultaneously under the right conditions (which you really don't want to get your ships into :D ).

Weapons in DG are divided into 2 types: centrally and locally directed. This is IMHO a bad choice of words, because most people use these terms to distinguish types of fire control systems. In DG, though, these terms have nothing to do with the fire control systems. "Centrally" means the player can select the target, while "locally" means the AI selects the target.

In DG, the player can only designate 1 target for each ship. This is why there's no 2ndary target (or torp fire) command. The player's target is the one that the main battery (which is usually the only "centrally directed" battery) will fire at.

The AI-controlled weapons (2ndary and teritary guns, plus torps) will normally fire at the same target selected by the player, provided they're in range. However, under certain conditions, these guns will fire at other targets.

I don't think this is explained clearly in the DG manual. I guess this is one of the issues of gameplay vs. realism, there are times in DG when it would be nice to be able to target the main weapons on one target, and secondary guns on another or not to waste ammo on a crippled ship and just order a close in torpedo attack. This is exactly the type of features that would give the player more control over battles and make them more exciting.

[Bullethead]

I don't think this is explained clearly in the DG manual.

From page 38 of the manual, in the section about how weapons work in the "Playing the Battle Game" chapter:
Locally directed weapons are generally used for close defense against small ships, or for a quick torpedo shot at nearby major vessels other than the ordered target. Locally directed weapons will usually fire on a ship's ordered target, but if another target is within 1/2 of the maximum range of a locally directed weapon, the weapon will instead fire on the nearest target. A ship's locally directed weapons may independently fire on several targets. This means you don't have to manually retarget your battleship on those destroyers the other fellow is trying to swarm you with. While your centrally directed weapons will continue to fire on some more appropriate target, the locally directed weapons will automatically target approaching smaller ships.

I guess this is one of the issues of gameplay vs. realism, there are times in DG when it would be nice to be able to target the main weapons on one target, and secondary guns on another or not to waste ammo on a crippled ship and just order a close in torpedo attack. This is exactly the type of features that would give the player more control over battles and make them more exciting.

This is a playability issue, not a "gameplay vs. realism" issue. Just to make sure we're on the same page, I define these terms as follows:

playability: is the rate at which the player is forced to take action less than or equal to the player's ability to make decisions and enter commands?
realism: will this or that feature mimic reality fairly well?
gameplay: will this or that feature be fun?


DG and Jutland are realtime games, not turn-based. Some players who, like me, came up through boardgames and miniatures, and thus expect to have to do everything themselves, might not care. They've got the pause button, at least in single player. Thus, no matter how much micromanagement they want to do, they can pause the game as frequently and for as long as they want to do everything last little thing the game allows. IOW, they can turn a real-time game into a turn-based game, where each turn is only a few seconds long, separated by "orders phases" of several minutes each.

However, that's not possible at all in multiplayer games. And the bulk of solo players prefer not to pause the game if they can avoid it. They want the real-time action, the stress of having to make decisions on the fly, etc. Otherwise, they'd stick to turn-based minuatures, "Action Stations", etc.

So to satisfy these customers, the game has to be "playable" as I defined above. That is, the game has to be built to reduce the workload on the players so they can control their units as much as necessary without recourse to the pause button. This primarily means eliminating the need for player micromanagement of units. In a naval battle, micromanagement is stuff like aiming the guns, dodging torpedoes, and damage control. This is because regardless of who does this stuff, the big-picture grand tactical decisions still have to be made at the same time.

IOW, the player can be the admiral or the gunner (or gunnery officer, or damage control officer, etc.), but not both. Whatever jobs the player doesn't have time for must be automated. So which would you rather have, the AI running your whole fleet or the AI aiming your guns? Usually, there's more satisfaction in being the admiral, because you can thus win battles instead of just playing "Quake" while the AI admirals maneuver.

So, having spent the effort to automate all the micromanagement to facilitate real-time play, both solo and MP, there's the question of whether or not there should also be a manual micromanagement system in parallel for those who want it. That would entail making a whole new set of guts for the game, new interfaces, the works. Basically, a complete 2nd game. This quickly runs into the wall of time and money factors, especially considering such features would not be used very often even by those desiring them, given the size of most battles (either too big or too small, hardly any "just right").

[Batou]

Bullethead

You explained it better then the manual!

I don't want to play ship's gunner, just fleet admiral and ships captain and have control over weapons and some input to damage control. For a naval game with ship to ship combat I don't think that's too much control. :)

[Bullethead]

You explained it better then the manual!

:hush: Shhh! If the bosses see this, they might make me write the Jutland manual.

I don't want to play ship's gunner, just fleet admiral and ships captain and have control over weapons and some input to damage control. For a naval game with ship to ship combat I don't think that's too much control. :)

You've got control over the main weapons and you've "got people" who deal with the little stuff.

On the damage control thing, what would you do differently? IIRC damage control is prioritized both in real life and in the game toward saving the ship first (keeping it afloat and putting out fires), then making it so it can keep fighting (movement and weapons). It doesn't matter if you fix the gun if it's on the bottom because you didn't plug the leak. And everybody aboard knows that they can't just walk home if something bad happens to their ship, so getting them to depart from this priority list is not realistic. Why would you want to anyway? To do some Ahab-esque "for Hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee" thing, just to game the game?