Battleship attack range vs blurry range of typical units

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Battleship attack range vs blurry range of typical units

      The battleship is already extremely powerful since it's attack range is longer than artillery and cruisers. But what pushes it over the top is the fact that it can bombard normal units at that range without them even knowing where they are at. I think this is too OP. I think the battleship attack range should be changed to the blurry range of typical units which is think is around 42 * 1.6 = 67. It would still have the advantage of outranging artillery and cruisers, but at least you would be able to see that something is attacking you before it's too late.
    • I share this sentiment. We can see where airplanes are coming from, even though a target would normally have no idea where the bombers overhead are based. Certainly not when the bombers are coming from an aircraft carrier. But still, the game wants us to see them.

      It should be a LOT easier to figure out where high-caliber cannon shells are coming from. Defenders can hear them while they travel through the air.

      The one issue with range is that maps are designed with certain spacing in mind. The map designers purposely made some province centers in cruiser range, others in battleship range, and others out of battleship range. Changing the maximum range of a unit can have unpredictable side-effects depending on the map and the country you play with. I think the developers wanted to give battleships an extra boost by allowing them to reach certain cities and provinces they were not able to reach in the past.
    • I disagree for many reason but I will start with the simple reason that all navies at the time had some very simple ways to fire on land targets out of sight range of firing units. I want to use some quotes from Naval Artillery: Firepower on Display at D-Day to show why sight distance is not the issue. "Because most gunfire support ships could not see their targets, indirect fire was required." and "Aerial observation was an important aspect of effective NGF." Also "Both infantry and airborne forces had gunfire spotters down to the battalion level, and some naval officers jumped with the paratroopers to provide an organic spotter capability." After reading the article the most realistic change would be to return short range fire to destroyers (but that would be best discussed in another post). As shown the Allies used Naval Gun Fire at ranges out of sight during Operation Overlord as well as the previous Operations including Husky (the Allied Invasion of Sicily) by using Forward Observers in direct contact with firing units at sea via radio.

      Now lets look at the points raised by
      z00mz00m. Lets start with the seeing airplanes point. Planes are not just observed with an eye to determine where they came from, there was also an interesting new device called RADAR that could track planes. By as early as 1942 radar was being used on Allied ship and over 500 different early warning radar were built by the end of the war.

      As for his point of "

      z00mz00m wrote:

      It should be a LOT easier to figure out where high-caliber cannon shells are coming from.
      Sure it would and the answer that you would get would be out to sea. Let us look closer at

      z00mz00m wrote:

      Defenders can hear them while they travel through the air.
      yes they can, but hearing it pass overhead DOES NOT allow to identify an exact or even close position that is MILES from your location, about the best you would get is its out to sea. As was shown in Band of Brothers when the Allies started the bombardment in Normandy all you could tell was that it was going overhead NOT where it came from other than a general direction of out to sea. Normally I would NOT use War Movies or TV shows to prove a point about actually war as they so often get it wrong as in you never see bullets puffing the ground at your feet if you are getting shot at, all you do is hear them as they fly by you to hit something behind you. Finally you could try to use sound to triangulate the location but once again about the best you would get would be in area out to sea but due to the sheer volume and amount of firing it would be impossible to locate a single ship for the multitude of ships firing so all you would get is a general location of out to sea. BECAUSE it isnt just 1 Battleship firing but a BATTLE GROUP, the icons make people forget the simple fact that a unit is not 1 man, 1 tank or 1 ship but hundreds of men, a company of tanks or a Naval Task Force.
      "Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the later than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

      "Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." ~ Erwin Rommel
    • When you see the direction of fire from long distance, before the unit close enough to identify, all you can see is that "something" is firing at you from province X or ocean area Y. You can probably guess what it is based on the range.

      That's all we need for battleships. Just to see "hey look something is firing at me" instead of the current system where the targeted unit loses HP quietly and mysteriously. That's just weird.

      No need to make this complicated.
    • S Schmidt wrote:

      "Because most gunfire support ships could not see their targets, indirect fire was required."
      This is about land bombardment by naval forces, where view is often obstructed by obstacles (hills, houses, trees, etc). We're talking about naval-to-naval gunfire here, where there are no such obstacles. All targets for naval gunfire would typically be in sight; masts can be spotted between big ships at around 40 km in good weather, while effective gunfire range was under 30 km (biggest known hit range was around 25 km for Scharnhorst against Glorious iirc).

      Radar was still in its infancy and mainly used for spotting enemies, without the accuracy needed for detailed fire control.

      So yes, being hit by ships you cannot actually "see" isn't really realistic. If he needs to see you to hit you, you can also see him (and he's presumably bigger, so you can see him even better).
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      The one issue with range is that maps are designed with certain spacing in mind. The map designers purposely made some province centers in cruiser range, others in battleship range, and others out of battleship range.
      I think you're overestimating the map designers here. There obviously has gone some thought into "what cities are ports", but I doubt if they specifically looked at "closest range to some naval move line" and placed "dots" accordingly. Naval bombardment possibilities just derived from the map as it was made, and not the other way around (though there may have been some tweaking in very specific map areas, like Washington DC).
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      We're talking about naval-to-naval gunfire here
      The OP was not just about naval to naval gunfire, if it was then why is there mention of artillery. The OP POINT was to reduce the range of Battleships from its current distance of 75KM to 67 because no units can ID the location of where the fire was originating from due to the long range of Battleships. My POINT was that there were plenty of examples of Naval fire beyond the sight of the defender.


      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Radar was still in its infancy and mainly used for spotting enemies, without the accuracy needed for detailed fire control.
      You should reread my point and why I even mentioned Radar, if you do you will see I make NO MENTION of it being used for FC but to provide a location for where planes on carriers were launch from in response to a claim that the eye could tell you where planes came from even tho the carrier was no where near the sight range of a human eye.

      Also iirc THE BATTLE OF SAVO ISLAND and other Naval battles during the Guadalcanal campaign had US Navy vessels with Radar take part in those battles, you can read Radio over Radar: Night Fighting Chaos at Guadalcanal (12-13 November 1942) and see that there was already if nothing else a rude doctrine in place for using radar in combat.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      If he needs to see you to hit you, you can also see him (and he's presumably bigger, so you can see him even better).
      Finally I will counter that with the the simple addition of a Cruiser (or any scout unit with a ground unit under fire) will extend the visual detection range of that group so that it can see out and ID the location of the firing Battleship. Failure to do so is not the fault of unit firing from a range which it cannot be detect by an enemy but the FAULT of a commander/player that does not properly utilize the available forces at his command. Why penalize the commander/player smart enough to use the proper tool for the job by reducing the range of Battleships because of those that try to use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail?
      "Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the later than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

      "Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." ~ Erwin Rommel
    • OP's point is that BB's shouldn't have the ability to hit targets outside visual range.
      Since we agree that both radar (limited, assisting FC use) and spotter planes (usually not available, and comms problems make them very hard to use against moving targets) couldn't be used, that means naval-to-naval gunfire must be (mainly) visually controlled. For that you must see the enemy, and if you see him, he sees you. Which proves OP's point.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • S Schmidt wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      We're talking about naval-to-naval gunfire here
      The OP was not just about naval to naval gunfire, if it was then why is there mention of artillery. The OP POINT was to reduce the range of Battleships from its current distance of 75KM to 67 because no units can ID the location of where the fire was originating from due to the long range of Battleships. My POINT was that there were plenty of examples of Naval fire beyond the sight of the defender.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Radar was still in its infancy and mainly used for spotting enemies, without the accuracy needed for detailed fire control.
      You should reread my point and why I even mentioned Radar, if you do you will see I make NO MENTION of it being used for FC but to provide a location for where planes on carriers were launch from in response to a claim that the eye could tell you where planes came from even tho the carrier was no where near the sight range of a human eye.
      Also iirc THE BATTLE OF SAVO ISLAND and other Naval battles during the Guadalcanal campaign had US Navy vessels with Radar take part in those battles, you can read Radio over Radar: Night Fighting Chaos at Guadalcanal (12-13 November 1942) and see that there was already if nothing else a rude doctrine in place for using radar in combat.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      If he needs to see you to hit you, you can also see him (and he's presumably bigger, so you can see him even better).
      Finally I will counter that with the the simple addition of a Cruiser (or any scout unit with a ground unit under fire) will extend the visual detection range of that group so that it can see out and ID the location of the firing Battleship. Failure to do so is not the fault of unit firing from a range which it cannot be detect by an enemy but the FAULT of a commander/player that does not properly utilize the available forces at his command. Why penalize the commander/player smart enough to use the proper tool for the job by reducing the range of Battleships because of those that try to use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail?
      I fully agree with your counter-statements, Schmidt.
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison


      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - callofwar.com/index.php?id=279
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      When you see the direction of fire from long distance, before the unit close enough to identify, all you can see is that "something" is firing at you from province X or ocean area Y. You can probably guess what it is based on the range.

      That's all we need for battleships. Just to see "hey look something is firing at me" instead of the current system where the targeted unit loses HP quietly and mysteriously. That's just weird.

      No need to make this complicated.
      Units health bar flashes yellow when under fire, if you actually pay attention to your units you should know when this happens, while i do not blame you completely sometimes even i miss the flashing, it is not excuse to not also see the units health drop. your solution is to move more inland, just because your angry that you cant counter Battleships does not mean they need to be nerfed for your enjoyment, not to be rude but your fighting when you can legit spam a unit that can see the battleships, and even more when Pan-Asian, put AC's in your army or near it to spot naval bombardments and prevent or intercept them, or the simple solution of having Subs near your land armies near shore can easily counter this problem.
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison


      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - callofwar.com/index.php?id=279
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      That's all we need for battleships. Just to see "hey look something is firing at me" instead of the current system where the targeted unit loses HP quietly and mysteriously. That's just weird.
      Yeah, it would be nice if there was some kind of notification when you are being silently attacked, perhaps just a notice in the "Front Reports". I'm not generally that interested in comparing the game to reality, but if you are being shot at and wounded you know it right away :)