i think arcade aiming is the best aiming system its very easy to balance and due to disperssion can make it hard to snipe ammo magzines which is histroically innaccurate
1 Like
I think you need agency over aiming, but it needs to be more imprecise than now.
That’s why I think it’s better to implement a system where your target is tracked as OP suggested, and then aiming forward or behind the target’s center point is both good and bad enough to be effective and engaging.
Also, we need ships to blow up and take damage if they’re not playing smart. A ship sitting full broadside shouldn’t be tanking rounds with ease to a ship from the same BR. Angling should matter.
1 Like
except thats too accurate you just get magazine sniping like we have ingame right now
it should be a lock on system that aims in the silhouette but the area is randomized as IRL BBs dont get to pick where there aiming on a ship its the general area a ship is in
2 Likes
The strain on the observer’s eyes wasn’t a major issue, at least from what I’ve read.
The main goal is for players to have to work for their kills, so any idea that helps achieve that is welcome.
except no one works for there kills you literally have ships that detonate in seconds vs ships that are unkillable
3 Likes
Bismarck and scarnhorst other later naval vessels also use a radar to range find
instead of optical
1 Like
I think ships in general take too many hits to sink as you get into higher ranks.
Battleships weren’t uncommonly sunk in 20 or so penetrating hits, but in game it usually takes much more than that.
1 Like
radar range finders should be available as one of technologies available for more modern ships
1 Like
yes please. This would make torpedo boats and naval aviation actually viable.
2 Likes
On the other hand - many players have their AA switched to air only, you can get to even the shortest torpedo range, but you need to thread carefully
What you described sounds like AB (Arcade Battles), where nothing is manually measured and the computer handles everything; for RB (Realistic Battles), the current system is fine—there’s no need to overcomplicate it. You can already select which plane or ship to focus on using commands, so the idea that you need to manually issue a fire order is nonsense; on a real ship, there are many crew members and commanders who decide to open fire when a threat comes within range. Honestly, maybe you should focus on other improvements because the game is very simple as it is. Instead of complaining about that, you should ask to go back to the old compartment system—not the current one where your ship scuttles itself if three compartments turn black. Those are the real issues: AI gunners (of bot)
firing from 4,000 meters away and bombers being overpowered in standard battles—not the realistic aiming system, which is fine as it is.
this are some ex if you can focus the plane and ship same now with some command who i dont explain at you and us you can learn by yourself.
I don’t know if you’ve read the whole thing. After some thinking I also agree to leave the aiming system unchanged, but less precise. Use of different rangefinding instuments would allow for more precise aiming and differenciate between ships from different periods.
The whole idea is about giving players more controll over aiming, especially at ranges that ingame rangefinder can’t measure (above 20 000 yards). Yamato for example was built to fight at at least 22 000 yards.
And yes, the old compartment system was better
1 Like
i found pretty good in ec my score of an a hit with italia is on 30km on an a yamato and my best reange kill are at 21km against an a sharnost(same with italia) so i dont have issue you have to learn how have better managament of the aim at long range
Mine longest kill was 21 km with Hipper, against Des Moines and a bit shorter but funnier - 18 km with Tone against Bayern, but that not the point.
My point is to make aiming more dependent on player for input
I would argue Type 93s don’t count.
Against all of this:
Look AB side is the one that sees the actual gunnery and RB eventually gets it a little later. How many changes has naval gunnery went through? At least 3 times so far.
Overall as I pointed out years ago AB gunnery is the only one that makes sense for the game.
RB is some weird Civil War/Age of sail nonsense, as usual due to a community that actively always wants some arbitrary “skill” that never existed in the timeframe of the vehicles in question.
Furthermore I am one man controlling a ship of hundreds to thousands. So ships with rangefinders, mechanic and electronic computers, gunners, etc. Literally people just there to aim one gun aided by rangefinders, shell dyes, and computers.
It works as is now I’d like less spread but their idea that spread is tied to distance works overall since that’s reality. Ironically this is tied more to tiers than nations and technology as obviously certain nations had better aiming devices and training than others.
But every point of complication in some effort to add some new unrealistic mechanic so some player can feel he was killed by skill is silly to be, keep it in RB where it belongs since nothing is realistic about RB. It’s the land of unintended consequences from a whiny player base.
1 Like
The neatest part about WW1 to WW2 ships in general is how between a hundred to 3000+ men somehow managed to keep the steel beast working efficiently. Everything from getting her moving and turning to firing solutions and getting shells onto the target, let alone keeping her afloat and working.
Realistically, that’s not really something that could be properly simulated in a video game. Games like IRON NEST can get somewhat close to the firing solution part but that’s going off topic.
And while current naval aiming has its issues, if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it imo.