Firing Arcs

[revillag]

This has probably been answered before, and I apologize for asking again, but i can't find the answer.
My understanding is that historically, wing turrets could fire forwards, and that was one reason to build them over midship center line turrets.  According to the firing diagram in the ship builder, wing turrets can only fire to one side.  Is this correct or can wing turrets fire forward?

Thanks

[BathTubAdmiral]

Yes, it seems they can fire only to the sides, and no, this is not correct.

I wonder if this is an oversight, or if there are programming or balancing reasons - maybe Fredrik W can enlighten us?

[tbr]

Look at the arcs, the two forward wing turrets (and the two aft ones) have different arcs than the six other wing positions and can fire more "forward", nevertheless they cannot fire directly forward, but that was for most ships anyways ony a theoretical option due to blast damage etc.

[dizzy]

I’d love to know where the arcs of fire are kept so I can edit them. It’s not in the .exe, is it? If it’s in some other file maybe we can hex edit it? I’d like to see this fixed.

[director]

revillag - I'm not sure what degree of forward/aft fire wing turrets actually provided. As the 'Invincible' class showed, firing heavy guns over a non-reinforced deck could lead to serious damage, and at close range there could be risk of actually blowing parts of the ship off - if, for example, the bow was raised for sea-keeping.

I do agree that the turret arcs should be wider, perhaps up to 25 degrees off of fore and aft. A good place to look for data would be the Falklands Battle, where the two 'Invincible' class were in a long stern chase.
Knowing which turrets opened fire and when would tell you what the firing arcs were.

But as for true 180-degree fore/aft fire... I chalk it down to marketing, not real capability. Single ship-on-ship dreadnought actions were few and far between, and that's where axial fire might have had value. Wing turrets were abandoned at an early point in dreadnought construction, which tell me they were a problem rather than a real asset.

[Fredrik W]

Oct 18, 2019 22:05:08 GMT -6 dizzy said:

I’d love to know where the arcs of fire are kept so I can edit them. It’s not in the .exe, is it? If it’s in some other file maybe we can hex edit it? I’d like to see this fixed.

The arcs of fire for the wing turrets are set to what we estimate to be realistic arcs of fire in practice. As has been explained above, blast damage to superstructure limited arcs of fire in practice.

This is not something that needs fixing, and it is in the exe and not in any file, so it is not moddable.

[captainloggy]

I guess the arcs of fire are currently fine for most situations, but I'd like to see a bit more on D/E and S/T turrets, perhaps 10°-125 for the foreward pair and 45°-170° for the aft one. However, a valuable asset t me would be a checkbox for "Improved wing turret firing arcs" akin to cross-deck fire, forcing secondaries into casements, reducing deck space etc. and increasing cost and weight. When this is checked, we could see arcs of 15°-150° for F/G turrets and 30°-165° for J/K turrets. Without improved wing turret arcs, it would be more like 30°-145°, less than the default today. IWTFA would be a tech akin to CDF, with a similar research time. Please note that the exact arcs mentioned above are merely suggestions, and of course everything is Frederik's decision in the end. This is simply around the arcs I'd like to see in order to make wing turrets more viable and perhaps more realistic, as even HMS Dreadnought seemed to have this "tech" (cutouts at the bow).

PS. While we are here, I'd like to bring forth another suggestion: the ability to uncheck CDF (and IWTFA, if it gets implemented) in a refit, giving back deck space and the ability for turreted secs, but not the weight spent.

[Fredrik W]

Oct 21, 2019 5:23:19 GMT -6 captainloggy said:

I guess the arcs of fire are currently fine for most situations, but I'd like to see a bit more on D/E and S/T turrets, perhaps 10°-125 for the foreward pair and 45°-170° for the aft one. However, a valuable asset t me would be a checkbox for "Improved wing turret firing arcs" akin to cross-deck fire, forcing secondaries into casements, reducing deck space etc. and increasing cost and weight. When this is checked, we could see arcs of 15°-150° for F/G turrets and 30°-165° for J/K turrets. Without improved wing turret arcs, it would be more like 30°-145°, less than the default today. IWTFA would be a tech akin to CDF, with a similar research time. Please note that the exact arcs mentioned above are merely suggestions, and of course everything is Frederik's decision in the end. This is simply around the arcs I'd like to see in order to make wing turrets more viable and perhaps more realistic, as even HMS Dreadnought seemed to have this "tech" (cutouts at the bow).

PS. While we are here, I'd like to bring forth another suggestion: the ability to uncheck CDF (and IWTFA, if it gets implemented) in a refit, giving back deck space and the ability for turreted secs, but not the weight spent.

A good and constructive suggestion. We will consider that. Thanks!

[avimimus]

Some armoured cruisers with smaller guns definitely could fire forward and aft...

It'd be nice to have a few more design options to better catch French design philosophies with their sponsoned guns etc. (e.g. being able to pick a tumble-home and have penalties in deck space and stability as a result)! So many exciting directions development could take.

[captainloggy]

That was my thought in making D/E/S/T turrets more of a specialized thing for lighter ships with restricted broadside arcs, but good forward field of fire. F/G/J/K would, being eligible for CDF and hopefully at some point IWTA, become the main heavy wing positions. H/I would keep their role as a Q/L substitute with slightly better arcs, but two turrets to achieve it.