|
Post by gurudennis on Aug 13, 2021 20:07:26 GMT -6
I think it's a misconception that light guns on capital ships are supposed to deter torpedo attack. Neither in practical real-life combat (what precious few examples exist) nor in RTW2 is this strictly speaking the case. Light guns do in fact need to kill or cripple destroyers, even though they only realistically do so over prolonged intermittent exposure. When two battle lines slug it out, destroyers can perform intermittent feints and/or attacks, and as you pointed out the AI does it all the time. This messes with the aim, with pursuit trajectories, and worst of all actually endangers the battle line because you can never tell if a DD has already expended its torpedoes (let alone reloads if any). So what the light guns accomplish in this scenario is kill or cripple enough of these destroyers over time as they continue to perform their feints to the point where it becomes less dangerous to close the range with the enemy battle line. If this wasn't the case, one might argue light guns would be fairly useless before DP. In my estimation, they are not, but then I tend to slap a massive secondary battery on all dreadnoughts (twenty 5" or twenty-four 4" if I can help it).
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Aug 13, 2021 22:21:30 GMT -6
I was under the impression it was more about rate of fire and the rate of rotation of the gun. Early on, they're pretty much laying he guns manually, so light guns will turn far more rapidly for the same effort, plus have shorter barrels overall making them easier to keep on target when the enemy is fast-moving, like a torpedo-boat with rate of fire to compensate for the reduced damage.
However, consider the battle of Tsushima Strait. The Japanese Torpedo boats only attacked undamaged Russian ships overnight - so there was at least some concern that the QF guns could sink them effectively.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Aug 14, 2021 8:05:24 GMT -6
I was under the impression it was more about rate of fire and the rate of rotation of the gun. Early on, they're pretty much laying he guns manually, so light guns will turn far more rapidly for the same effort, plus have shorter barrels overall making them easier to keep on target when the enemy is fast-moving, like a torpedo-boat with rate of fire to compensate for the reduced damage. However, consider the battle of Tsushima Strait. The Japanese Torpedo boats only attacked undamaged Russian ships overnight - so there was at least some concern that the QF guns could sink them effectively. That is my impression as well - deterrent, force the attackers to use their burst of speed to get in undamaged and then your DD or escorts can pounce on them on the egress. No light guns means they can approach pretty much at will if the escorts have been pulled off or neutralized by using up their burst of speed on torp run...
Again the British, and I've read others, would outfit their guns with case / canister or shrapnel shells to cut down attacking crews. Take a look at navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_4-50_mk7.php and navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_2pounder_m9.php with the MK XI (which was mainly for harbor defense vessels). Shrapnel shells were generally ready shot, with fuse settings pre-set typically around 500-1000 yards. When an an enemy attack run was incoming they would lay down a wall of fire at a set range - shrapnel would then beat about a 100 yard zone away from the exploding shells.
You're probably need to log in, if possible, but the short write-up when searching www.jstor.org/stable/44895725 via the web states: " In 1909, the RN provided an allowance of six rounds of shrapnel per heavy gun to repel night torpedo boat attacks."
Not to get off-topic here, but I found a new fly in the equation on my end with secondary / tertiary 2" and 3" guns. I might make a bug report on it if warranted, happens over a few battles. The light secondaries do not seem to want to target close in ships... I'm not sure how prevalent it is, but in a January 1902 battle the Italian 500 ton DDs have 3" secondaries that seem to actively pursue worthlessness. The three pictures should tell everything, but the Corazierre is 900 yards from a slowed AH DD. The 4" main gun is firing on her with a low to mid 2.37% or there about to hit. The 3" port secondary gun is targeting a ship at 3200 yards and which has not slowed down (also seems to be a bit out of arch for the 3"). The 3" gun's accuracy is 0.47%, and there is no way that I can see out side of ship maneuvering to get it trained on the DD at 900 yards. If the DD's are firing who knows where when their is a torpedo boat, DD attacking the ship at 100-1200 yards, the burst fire rate suggested by the OP will make no difference!
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Aug 14, 2021 8:06:30 GMT -6
3rd image showing the 3" secondary fire solution data, ship design, etc.
Again, I wonder if the lack of effectiveness of the light guns might be due to bad target prioritization, rather than a game mechanic like ROF, actual hit rate, etc...
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 14, 2021 8:24:57 GMT -6
We have had internal discussions along the lines of "is close range fire deadly enough vs smaller ships", and the following is a change in a recent Expansion Beta that reflects our current view:
"Slightly increased very short range (< 4000 yds) hit chances and ROF to make close range fire against DD more deadly."
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Aug 14, 2021 12:51:03 GMT -6
We have had internal discussions along the lines of "is close range fire deadly enough vs smaller ships", and the following is a change in a recent Expansion Beta that reflects our current view: "Slightly increased very short range (< 4000 yds) hit chances and ROF to make close range fire against DD more deadly." Thanks! Good to know you are watching. Can you comment on the other stuff as well?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 15, 2021 0:00:33 GMT -6
Sorry, but not at this time - now, when we get to looking at/working on those areas I will be able to do so at that point.
Thanks!
|
|