Dilemma between Coincidence rangefinder and Radar rangefinder

[Anavel Gato]

After researching Radar tech, your ship will get the option to build Radar components into your warship that has significant long range ability. What is your choice for your rangefinder: coincidence (base accuracy) or stereoscopic rangefinder (long range).

Please explain why.

On my part, using stereoscopic rangefinder only make your ship targeting further target first (as the further the target is, the higher accuracy stereoscopic will provide). In theory, taking coincidence may balance overall base accuracy beside Radar Rangefinder.

[Ninjafroggie]

In the early years of the game you can make an argument for either, as engagement ranges are quite short, but by the time you're putting radar on ships long range gunnery is king. The only time you EVER see close range combat is if you are severely outnumbered AND for some inexplicable reason not kiting. Getting close enough at that tech level for coincidence to provide more benefit than stereoscopic means you are inviting torpedo hits. In a one on one fight, the ship with superior long range gunnery is likely to be the one scoring hits first, and thus inflicting damage penalties on the enemy gunnery, so that even if they are fast enough to close in to closer range where a coincidence rangefinder would be better in theory, in actual practice they'll have damage penalties so you'll still be scoring more hits than the enemy ship.

IIRC coincidence saves some weight, so its ok to use on DDs that you intend to use for torpedo attacks, but anything CL and up I only use stereoscopic

[Vuld_Edone]

In earlier versions, it was an open question.
My rule of thumb was to use coinc' until coinc' III where you would switch to stereo' III and stay on stereo' 'til the end. You could design a late-game brawler to close in and cause mayhem, but in hindsight that relied more on bad AI ship designs.

My experience with 1.1.x is coincidence V all the way, and only switch to stereoscopic when you unlock radars.
I don't know why but I just can't get past 5-6km engagements (~1913), and I still rely heavily on secondaries to fend off the small fry, which also requires coincidence. I tried switching as usual and got punished for it.
So that one is more about game balance, and I hope we eventually will be back with a choice between brawler and sniper designs in all eras.

Note also that the answer is different depending on if you're playing random missions or campaign ones. The latter skews fleet numbers and also tech' heavily.

[Anavel Gato]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vuld_Edone:

In earlier versions, it was an open question.
My rule of thumb was to use coinc' until coinc' III where you would switch to stereo' III and stay on stereo' 'til the end. You could design a late-game brawler to close in and cause mayhem, but in hindsight that relied more on bad AI ship designs.

My experience with 1.1.x is coincidence V all the way, and only switch to stereoscopic when you unlock radars.
I don't know why but I just can't get past 5-6km engagements (~1913), and I still rely heavily on secondaries to fend off the small fry, which also requires coincidence. I tried switching as usual and got punished for it.
So that one is more about game balance, and I hope we eventually will be back with a choice between brawler and sniper designs in all eras.

Note also that the answer is different depending on if you're playing random missions or campaign ones. The latter skews fleet numbers and also tech' heavily.

By using:
Coincident + Radar = Balance close range vs long range
Stereoscopic + Radar = Very good long range, average close range

I too got trouble when AI get into 8-11 km and spray torpedoes to my formation ...

[munroburton]

The other variable to consider: How large are your typical task forces?

Because coincidence rangefinders are also more suitable for, say, a single ship operating alone or a commander who designate separate targets for every ship. Stereoscopics are more helpful for task forces which focus their firepower on a single enemy ship at a time.

[Anavel Gato]

You wouldn't want this when all your ships focus into 1 target. As a result, you got like 100 hits per second while the ship can't simply blow up to pieces, broken into two.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2931758265

[Lipi]

My detection range is often so low that often I have to get in very close to even see them. Upto 1910 I'm sticking with coincidence too.

[Ninjasquirrel]

Playing Germany 1910-1950, as soon as I got radar (use stereoscopic on everything except DD), large fleet battles was basically the same as attacking an unescorted convoy. AI can't shoot back at all, sometimes can't even spot me till they're half dead, while I'm sailing around them in a circle 20+km away where they can't touch me. Even with swarms of DDs and CLs going 40kts only one or two of their ships can barely make it within 15km of me if they're lucky. A world war started in 1940 and it was 6 or 7 years of these turkey shoots till they finally started coming out with ships that can actually shoot back. Radar completely changed the game soon as it came out.

[smartalecme]

The real question to ask here is: What does the game consider long range? Is is static? Does it scale with spotting distance? It really needs a more thorough explanation, like so much else in the game.