Accuracy and Fire Control

[Seawolf]

I've been playing this game since it first released, and am not pleased with the insane accuracy of IJN battleships and cruisers compared to their US counterparts. In one engagement I fought as the USN, a Myoko class landed the first hits against an Iowa at 20,000 yards, and the Iowa's gunnery was consistently worse, in CLEAR weather--which is absolutely ridiculous, given the latter's radar. My question: Is there any way to modify a warship's shell dispersion and gunnery accuracy? I get the impression that IJN gunnery accuracy has been buffed significantly in recent updates.

[Kraznova]

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1280780/discussions/search/?q=accuracy&gidforum=2261312148308464394&include_deleted=1

Recommend some time weeding through search. Some posts directly contradict you. Most often, it comes down to player tactics.

[ORION]

Just bad luck

[SEAWOLF]

Originally posted by Seawolf:

I've been playing this game since it first released, and am not pleased with the insane accuracy of IJN battleships and cruisers compared to their US counterparts. In one engagement I fought as the USN, a Myoko class landed the first hits against an Iowa at 20,000 yards, and the Iowa's gunnery was consistently worse, in CLEAR weather--which is absolutely ridiculous, given the latter's radar. My question: Is there any way to modify a warship's shell dispersion and gunnery accuracy? I get the impression that IJN gunnery accuracy has been buffed significantly in recent updates.

Hello to my fellow Seawolf! - I have only been playing this game for a short time and have noticed this issue both in the vanilla version as well as the mods. I suspect it is the vanilla version where the origin of the issue exists, though the modders may have added to it e.g. the Pacific mod where my subs are 10,000 metres from the enemy ships. (I either have to use time compression to get them to an intercept position or if I cannot be bothered, exit the encounter). In your example, I think reason the IJN gunnery has been buffed up is in order to make up for the poor enemy AI. Maybe the Developer or the Modders could give a definitive answer to this issue?

[Seawolf]

Digging into unit data, I'm further confused by discrepancies in U.S. and Japanese radar. Iowa's surface radar strength is 20; air search is 60. (Compare this to the Baltimore class cruiser: 44 and 230 (!!!) respectively). Meanwhile, Yamato 1942, while (realistically) lacking effective surface radar, has an air radar strength of 100 (!!!!!), significantly higher than on Iowa (if a higher number=stronger performance). Per NavSource, the Mark 8 fire control radar mounted on the Iowas could "could spot 16-inch (40.6 cm) splashes out to about 20,000 yards (18,300 m)," and the "improved Mark 8 mod 3 could reliably spot 14-inch (35.5 cm) and 16-inch (40.6 cm) fire out to at least 35,000 yards (32,000 m)." (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.php). the Japanese had no equivalent technology, and while their optical fire control could certainly yield potent results in good weather conditions, it was no match for radar-guided shellfire. (I can provide sources if requested).

[cswiger]

Originally posted by Seawolf:

Digging into unit data, I'm further confused by discrepancies in U.S. and Japanese radar.

Not surprising. Prior to WW2, nations were supposed to be building ships within treaty limits, but many nations exceeded those treaty limits to some extent.

Japan practiced extreme disinformation about the Yamato class in particular, and destroyed almost all of their documents and design materials at the end of the war.

Iowa's surface radar strength is 20; air search is 60. (Compare this to the Baltimore class cruiser: 44 and 230 (!!!) respectively).

The original SG surface radar and CXAM air search radar were deployed on battleships, carriers, and some heavy cruisers which had the ~20 km / ~60 km ranges listed.

Smaller ships got SC or SF radars instead of SG. Carriers could have each of SC, SG, SK, and SM radars because they wanted IFF capability for multiple contacts at the same time:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CV-16_1944_radar_arrangement_NAN3-46.jpg

CXAM and SC/SF air radar was replaced by SK radar and then the AN/SPS-6 post-war.
SG surface radar was replaced AN/SPS-10 after the war ended.

Meanwhile, Yamato 1942, while (realistically) lacking effective surface radar, has an air radar strength of 100 (!!!!!), significantly higher than on Iowa (if a higher number=stronger performance).

The IJN Type 13 Radar could detect a single plane up to about 50 km and a larger group up to 100 km.

[MizuYuuki]

Originally posted by Seawolf:

Digging into unit data, I'm further confused by discrepancies in U.S. and Japanese radar. Iowa's surface radar strength is 20; air search is 60. (Compare this to the Baltimore class cruiser: 44 and 230 (!!!) respectively). Meanwhile, Yamato 1942, while (realistically) lacking effective surface radar, has an air radar strength of 100 (!!!!!), significantly higher than on Iowa (if a higher number=stronger performance). Per NavSource, the Mark 8 fire control radar mounted on the Iowas could "could spot 16-inch (40.6 cm) splashes out to about 20,000 yards (18,300 m)," and the "improved Mark 8 mod 3 could reliably spot 14-inch (35.5 cm) and 16-inch (40.6 cm) fire out to at least 35,000 yards (32,000 m)." (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.php). the Japanese had no equivalent technology, and while their optical fire control could certainly yield potent results in good weather conditions, it was no match for radar-guided shellfire. (I can provide sources if requested).

From my experience the game is more simplistic than this. Radar ranges are used on the strategic map to help identify enemy ships and planes. Better radar would detect the enemy further out. On the tactical map, turning on radar improves the firing solution against enemy ships by 10 points. Weather conditions might reduce the effect. I haven't tested it.

[ellieisded]

The accuracy disparity seems to be an ai thing, Not specific to the ijn. If you play the ijn campaign you'll notice that the usn ships are also somewhat more accurate than your ships. You can somwhat compensate for this by engaging targets at longer range, 25000m+, and by manually controlling your gunnery and using the 'spot' firing command, which will slow down your rate of fire in exchange for a pretty large increase in solution if the target is unobscured. Focusing the fire of your capital ships on one enemy vessel at a time also helps.

[Kraznova]

Originally posted by MizuYuuki:

Originally posted by Seawolf:

Digging into unit data, I'm further confused by discrepancies in U.S. and Japanese radar. Iowa's surface radar strength is 20; air search is 60. (Compare this to the Baltimore class cruiser: 44 and 230 (!!!) respectively). Meanwhile, Yamato 1942, while (realistically) lacking effective surface radar, has an air radar strength of 100 (!!!!!), significantly higher than on Iowa (if a higher number=stronger performance). Per NavSource, the Mark 8 fire control radar mounted on the Iowas could "could spot 16-inch (40.6 cm) splashes out to about 20,000 yards (18,300 m)," and the "improved Mark 8 mod 3 could reliably spot 14-inch (35.5 cm) and 16-inch (40.6 cm) fire out to at least 35,000 yards (32,000 m)." (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.php). the Japanese had no equivalent technology, and while their optical fire control could certainly yield potent results in good weather conditions, it was no match for radar-guided shellfire. (I can provide sources if requested).

From my experience the game is more simplistic than this. Radar ranges are used on the strategic map to help identify enemy ships and planes. Better radar would detect the enemy further out. On the tactical map, turning on radar improves the firing solution against enemy ships by 10 points. Weather conditions might reduce the effect. I haven't tested it.

To clarify something. The radar range has 0 impact on the strategic map. Its value in calculations/spotting is strictly limited to tactical. This is another reason that the ranges are all over the place. Plans to do some standardization are in the works, but low priority for modders.

[jfoytek]

Originally posted by Kraznova:

Originally posted by MizuYuuki:

From my experience the game is more simplistic than this. Radar ranges are used on the strategic map to help identify enemy ships and planes. Better radar would detect the enemy further out. On the tactical map, turning on radar improves the firing solution against enemy ships by 10 points. Weather conditions might reduce the effect. I haven't tested it.

To clarify something. The radar range has 0 impact on the strategic map. Its value in calculations/spotting is strictly limited to tactical. This is another reason that the ranges are all over the place. Plans to do some standardization are in the works, but low priority for modders.

Incorrect,

Have you never noticed your fighters sent up as scouts not finding the enemy in poor weather but radar equipped planes do find them. This disparity should be rather obvious since KFG contantly has the area receive Hurricane weather far too frequently.... The opportunity too see planes like the Sunderland excel at their role of a long range scout because of the radar should be rather apparent as you play....

[Kraznova]

Radar equipped planes didn't even exist (though the code support was there), until modders added them in, and as one of those people who's also peered into the code a bit to help with the Pacific Campaign mechanics, I can assure you, equipping radar on the planes does nothing to help with location on the strategic map. Only in tactical.

This is like the Kingfisher argument. People swear having it present increases accuracy. There is no mechanic for increasing accuracy using spotter aircraft.

[jfoytek]

Originally posted by Kraznova:

Radar equipped planes didn't even exist (though the code support was there), until modders added them in, and as one of those people who's also peered into the code a bit to help with the Pacific Campaign mechanics, I can assure you, equipping radar on the planes does nothing to help with location on the strategic map. Only in tactical.

This is like the Kingfisher argument. People swear having it present increases accuracy. There is no mechanic for increasing accuracy using spotter aircraft.

This is nothing like the kingfisher argument...

You can easily replicate this in game...

Send a wildcat to where a fleet is in Poor Visibility 30 or less in heavy sea's
Now Send a Sunderland their and it will appear on the campaign map...

Now if Sunderland's are in the base game is a whole different argument but the Radar equipped Sunderland in my game clearly is utilizing it's advantage in the campaign map...

[cswiger]

Originally posted by Kraznova:

This is like the Kingfisher argument. People swear having it present increases accuracy. There is no mechanic for increasing accuracy using spotter aircraft.

Having a spotter plane watching the fall of shells ought to provide a solution bonus equivalent to firing the guns in spot fire mode, namely "tmaSpotFireBonus":0.2 ...?

[Kraznova]

Originally posted by cswiger:

Originally posted by Kraznova:

This is like the Kingfisher argument. People swear having it present increases accuracy. There is no mechanic for increasing accuracy using spotter aircraft.

Having a spotter plane watching the fall of shells ought to provide a solution bonus equivalent to firing the guns in spot fire mode, namely "tmaSpotFireBonus":0.2 ...?

Has nothing to do with aircraft.

[Kraznova]

Originally posted by jfoytek:

Originally posted by Kraznova:

Radar equipped planes didn't even exist (though the code support was there), until modders added them in, and as one of those people who's also peered into the code a bit to help with the Pacific Campaign mechanics, I can assure you, equipping radar on the planes does nothing to help with location on the strategic map. Only in tactical.

This is like the Kingfisher argument. People swear having it present increases accuracy. There is no mechanic for increasing accuracy using spotter aircraft.

This is nothing like the kingfisher argument...

You can easily replicate this in game...

Send a wildcat to where a fleet is in Poor Visibility 30 or less in heavy sea's
Now Send a Sunderland their and it will appear on the campaign map...

Now if Sunderland's are in the base game is a whole different argument but the Radar equipped Sunderland in my game clearly is utilizing it's advantage in the campaign map...

Mods added the Sunderland. That's how I know it doesn't impact the strategic map. There is nothing in the code that supports that. Nothing. Additionally, the range to detect ships is 11 miles, that's a speck of radius on the map practically immeasurable. I have done what you said, finding ships in storms. Its possible with and without radar equipped aircraft. As with many things in this game, seems to be a bit of luck. You're correlating causation without proof.

[cswiger]

Originally posted by Kraznova:

Has nothing to do with aircraft.

You seem certain of this. Do you have a source?

While my efforts to test this a while back are anecdotal, I recall something very similar to a 20% penalty to my firing solutions right after my spotter plane was shot down.