Post by Fear God & Dreadnought! on Aug 28, 2017 15:49:34 GMT
While I generally like the simplicity of War at Sea, there is one inconsistency that particularly bothers me: the extended range SAs on battleships. As many of you are well aware, the longest ever confirmed hit by a battleship in combat against another battleship was inflicted by Warspite upon Giulio Cesare at the Battle of Calabria at a range of about 26,000 yards. As each sector in WAS supposedly represents around 5,000 yards, this would translate to around ER5--nothing close to the Longshot 6 SA she is given in the game. Here are my thoughts on some other BBs:
Yamato (ER4): Yamato, as many of you probably already know, was equipped with some of the best optical rangefinders in the world, and, as I understand it, was intended to fight at ranges of 30,000+ yards (Japanese battleship doctrine focused on achieving underwater hits at extreme ranges)--her guns had a range of 26 miles. However, in game, she is only given ER4, which, if you include her own sector, is equivalent to roughly 25,000 yards--far short of the ranges at which she would open fire.
Tirpitz (ER5): Tirpitz, a ship which possessed excellent optical rangefinders and, as I understand it, quite advanced radar (the exact type of which was changed frequently during the war), is, in my opinion, deserving of the ER5 SA, which represents approximately 30,000 yards.
Iowa (ER5): Why is Iowa only given ER5? With excellent radar fire control, the ships of the Iowa class were truly capable of blind-fire, or shooting at the enemy without visual contact (from over the horizon, at night, with poor visibility, etc., which also makes me irritated that they can't shoot through a smokescreen like the Cleveland in-game). From my understanding, these ships could shoot accurately at ranges of 35,000+ yards, and deserve the ER6 SA more than any other ship in the game (of course, Montana would get it as well).
I understand that War at Sea is a game, not a simulation, but I think that the extended range SAs on battleships can be easily be adjusted without adding any additional complexity or playtime to the game. All comments welcome!
Yamato (ER4): Yamato, as many of you probably already know, was equipped with some of the best optical rangefinders in the world, and, as I understand it, was intended to fight at ranges of 30,000+ yards (Japanese battleship doctrine focused on achieving underwater hits at extreme ranges)--her guns had a range of 26 miles. However, in game, she is only given ER4, which, if you include her own sector, is equivalent to roughly 25,000 yards--far short of the ranges at which she would open fire.
Tirpitz (ER5): Tirpitz, a ship which possessed excellent optical rangefinders and, as I understand it, quite advanced radar (the exact type of which was changed frequently during the war), is, in my opinion, deserving of the ER5 SA, which represents approximately 30,000 yards.
Iowa (ER5): Why is Iowa only given ER5? With excellent radar fire control, the ships of the Iowa class were truly capable of blind-fire, or shooting at the enemy without visual contact (from over the horizon, at night, with poor visibility, etc., which also makes me irritated that they can't shoot through a smokescreen like the Cleveland in-game). From my understanding, these ships could shoot accurately at ranges of 35,000+ yards, and deserve the ER6 SA more than any other ship in the game (of course, Montana would get it as well).
I understand that War at Sea is a game, not a simulation, but I think that the extended range SAs on battleships can be easily be adjusted without adding any additional complexity or playtime to the game. All comments welcome!
