Improvements to gun quality system

[DeMatt]

Speaking from my experience with RtW2, some improvements I'd like to see in regards to gun quality:

1. Expansion of quality range to "-2 through +2". As it stands, the only -2 guns in the game are British 13" 1900-start guns, and a concentrated effort (with 100% research) will see the majority of your guns at +1 in the mid-1930's. If the game's going to start in 1890, it needs lower-quality guns to start with, and if it's to run all the way to 1970, then there should be more room for improvement.
2. Cost (but not tonnage) penalty for +1 and +2 guns. I'd like there to be a tradeoff for going for the most potent guns; increasing the cost of the guns seems to be a reasonable way of doing it.
3. Gun quality selector made functional. It irks me that the selector is THERE, it's probably BEEN there since before RtW1, and yet you can't USE it. If you want to change your gun quality, you have to jiggle the gun calibre, and that annoys me.

[wlbjork]

-2 quality guns are definitely going to be available - and they won't be upgradable either.

+2 quality is iffy as guns pretty much got abandoned in favour of missiles in the 1960s and 1970s.

[zederfflinger]

Oct 22, 2022 4:36:46 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

-2 quality guns are definitely going to be available - and they won't be upgradable either.

+2 quality is iffy as guns pretty much got abandoned in favour of missiles in the 1960s and 1970s.

I would argue that there is enough of a difference between WW1 era guns and later weapons to justify having quality 2 guns for any caliber. The duel purpose guns of the late game should quality 3 in my opinion.

[pratapon51]

Arguably, something like the 5"/54 Mark 42 deserves to be a +2 or +3 quality gun, and it's a 1950s era gun. While maybe big-big guns (anything over 6" or 8") would be unlikely to be improved past +1 or +2, I think the tech tree shouldn't restrict us from doing so. Entirely possible alternate history delays the development of other techs - or a war to prove some ideas woefully out of date - after all.

[director]

I would support a wider range of gun quality, at least in principle, though I'd rather see crew quality linked directly to rate of fire as well as accuracy. If the current rating system was expanded to -3 to +3 (just for argument's sake) then that would give a better gradation. As it is, sometime in the 1920s a player has usually got a +1 gun in heavy, medium and light calibers, so gun selection becomes much of a muchness.

But I would ask: if, for the sake of argument, we can assume that the WW2-era German 15", the British 15" (and possibly the 14") and/or the American 16" are one or all +1 quality, then what would a +2 gun actually look like?

Would a +2 gun have a heavier weight? The American 16" already does that. Higher muzzle velocity? The British 16" and German 15" do, and they are not notably superior (and in many ways, inferior to a heavier shell with lower MV).

So what qualities should a gun possess to give it a +2 rating?



From what I've heard, the 5"/54 was a notable failure when first introduced, with a lot of jams and mechanical issues. Its chief virtue was its automation, which cut down on space and tonnage required and theorectically allowed a high rate of fire. But autoloading is a separate variable in the RtW series, and does not bestow a + rating to a gun.

Could you explain why you think the 5"/54 deserves to have a +2 or +3 rating?

[JagdFlanker]

i don't know anything about guns, but i'v always had the impression that (generally) a gun is a gun, in the game the 13" -2 gun is an older slower firing short barrelled gun, while all the -1 to +1 guns are longer barrelled guns with -1 still having some development issues and +1 have most or all the kinks are worked out

i assume it's the method of aiming the guns that make guns more or less useful

[wlbjork]

Oct 23, 2022 4:40:11 GMT -6 JagdFlanker said:

i don't know anything about guns, but i'v always had the impression that (generally) a gun is a gun, in the game the 13" -2 gun is an older slower firing short barrelled gun, while all the -1 to +1 guns are longer barrelled guns with -1 still having some development issues and +1 have most or all the kinks are worked out

i assume it's the method of aiming the guns that make guns more or less useful

There's quite a range of issues - so much so that a system whereby we can designate various parameters and get modifiers to the gun would be more appropriate in the long term, possibly with techs unlocking options. Barrel length is a key parameter, and the choice could affect: Gun weight (longer barrel = heavier), muzzle velocity (longer barrel = higher = more range, more precision and better penetration), rate of fire (shorter barrel is quicker to get on target = higher rate of fire) etc.

[christian]

With the way the game is set up for the gun system, I think that having naval gun progression tied to research is a better way to handle the problem as gun quality just does not inherently lend itself well to scaling through the game from 1910 to 1970.
The way I think of it is that gun quality is a measure of the quality control in the guns and projectiles, the better the quality the better the performance but only by a certain margin, with the overall performance of the gun being tied to research.

While I would welcome a rework to the gun system I also realize it would be a lot of work and thus not realistic.

[aetreus]

Oct 23, 2022 0:44:54 GMT -6 director said:

I would support a wider range of gun quality, at least in principle, though I'd rather see crew quality linked directly to rate of fire as well as accuracy. If the current rating system was expanded to -3 to +3 (just for argument's sake) then that would give a better gradation. As it is, sometime in the 1920s a player has usually got a +1 gun in heavy, medium and light calibers, so gun selection becomes much of a muchness.

But I would ask: if, for the sake of argument, we can assume that the WW2-era German 15", the British 15" (and possibly the 14") and/or the American 16" are one or all +1 quality, then what would a +2 gun actually look like?

Would a +2 gun have a heavier weight? The American 16" already does that. Higher muzzle velocity? The British 16" and German 15" do, and they are not notably superior (and in many ways, inferior to a heavier shell with lower MV).

So what qualities should a gun possess to give it a +2 rating?



From what I've heard, the 5"/54 was a notable failure when first introduced, with a lot of jams and mechanical issues. Its chief virtue was its automation, which cut down on space and tonnage required and theorectically allowed a high rate of fire. But autoloading is a separate variable in the RtW series, and does not bestow a + rating to a gun.

Could you explain why you think the 5"/54 deserves to have a +2 or +3 rating?

RTW2 is already stretching things by having +1 quality start to become available in the 1920's as the ultimate development in gun technology. There's a real gap between the sort of early 20's weapon and the late 30's or early 40's weapon. The British 15" was a good gun but it comes up very short in a comparison with the later French and Italian 15" guns, and the French gun is also lighter than the British 15". Fundamentally a more advanced gun simply has more power without a proportional increase in weapon weight or size. Mount technology also plays a role, but that's kind of more represented by autoloader and the associated fire control in game. The Mark 7 is a little weird in that it is arguably a technically superior weapon, but rather than being more powerful it is lighter than the Mark 2/3 gun that proceeded it(which it should be noted was a powerful gun for the time). 

The 5"/54 is probably a +2/+3 weapon down to it having considerably better range than earlier long 5" class weapons, like the British 5.25" or 4.7"/50, or the French 130mm. A more decisively +3 weapon would be something like the Soviet 130mm/58. 

[director]

Thank you for the informative answer.

As I say, I'd like to see a wider range of gun quality values. I'd even go for a user-directed gun research system whereby you could prioritize things like range, shell-weight, rate of fire, accuracy, fixed propellant and so forth, with improving some qualities affecting others and all of it costing. I am not really in favor of expanding the current system past using gun and fire-control quality: two elements seems enough.

I would say that increases in gun range were possible even earlier than they happened, it is just that gun direction and fire control didn't permit practical use... there was no point in making guns that could shoot farther than the shot could be spotted. This is why turret openings were cut away in the 1920s, why higher-powered and longer-ranged guns were developed: fire control and the possibility of radio-equipped aircraft spotting led to a large increase in 'useful' engagement range. We go from, what, 8000 yards at Tsushima to 15,000 yards at Jutland to an expected over-the-horizon engagement in the 1930s.

All of those I listed are 'practical' ranges at which you might expect to get some hits, not the maximum range of the guns... and certainly you could exhaust your magazines firing at very long distances without achieving much. Pre-radar, that severely limited the practical use of long-range fire, and post-radar the improvement in usable gun performance was due to, um, radar.

So I tend to credit good performance from post-WW2 guns with improvements in radar, remote-spotting, fire control and mount design. The RtW series separates it into the gun and the fire control, which does manage to give most of the flavor without being very complicated, but also without accounting for all of the potential factors.

But I would ask, what specific qualities make for a high-quality gun, as opposed to high-quality fire control? Loading speed, muzzle velocity, accuracy, shell weight, or only range? In an example you cited, the Italian 15" gun is indeed a good one, and Italian fire control was quite good for a pre-radar setup... but accuracy was very poor because of quality control issues with shell weights. Should we factor this into the gun quality, demerit the fire control, or what?

[axe99]

A very interesting discussion For some random thoughts of dubious merit on the matter:

- First thing to make clear is what do the numbers mean and what does gun tech cover. Does gun tech start at the breech block, or does it include the ammunition hoists and magazine arrangements (from an ammunition supply perspective - damage control would look after safety elements)? Personally, I'd see the gun as just the gun, with turret tech covering hoists, training and elevation and what-have you, and the below flows from that.

- With RTW3 going back to 1890, we've got the situation where (IIRC) some of the earlier muzzle-loaders (or low-tech breech loaders, depending on the navy) are still in use, which I think certainly suggests for a -3 for 'legacy' tech, a -2 for "cutting edge in 1890" (British 12in/25 Mk I-VII, say), -1 for developed in the 1890s (British 12in Mk VIII and IX - I'm using the British 12in here because there are lots of examples through the time period), +0 for 1900s (12in/45 Mk X), +1 for late-WW1 (no real example here) and +2 for the 1930s Mk XIV. I'd expect timing of what's available when to still vary a bit, as larger calibres were as best I understand it, particularly when talking 14" and up, more work as they got bigger (some of this is in turret techs, to deal with recoil forces, but it might make more sense to think of them under guns, given we don't develop calibre-specific turrets).

- As I understand it, there were improvements in both material science and understanding of ballistics/gunnery that warrant a "WW2 era" gun tech (+2), separate from a "+1 for late-WW1 good guns). Better materials and things like autofretting allowed (I think - I'm at the bleeding edge of my memory here, and don't have time to look up) chambers that could handle higher pressures, for example, and guns that were less likely to distort under those pressures (as well as the understanding that a heavy shell at a lower velocity was a better bet than a lighter shell at a higher velocity, at WW1 and later engagement ranges). So, for example, I'd certainly see the British 14in Mk VIII as a +2 weapon (it had really low dispersion, and a heavy shell), as well as the US 16in/50 Mk 7.

- If the figures on the scales were taken to represent a certain stage of technology, then it may be worth thinking about some countries skipping techs rather than having to go through each tech. For example, the 18in -3 might represent the 17.72in muzzle-loaders on the Italia class of the 1880s, but Britain or the US developing 18in guns for the First time in WW1 wouldn't start with a muzzle-loading design and 1880s materials technology or gun design, so perhaps they might start with "one less than the max tech for the best heavy gun they already have". (The progression system would need to be managed to make sure this couldn't be abused - ie, no player, no matter how much they prioritise one calibre in the 1890s, will get better than +1 until the 1930s).

- I'm not up on my post-WW2 development, but I wouldn't be surprised if diminishing marginal returns in material science and gun design would mean that, as the good Director says, post-WW2 improvements would be down to ammunition, turret arrangements, and sensors/fire control, so I'm not sure there's much of a case for a +3 gun tech - but I could well be wrong, I'm no expert.