Jump to content


Iowa's Citadel is Actually Correct, but shows Warships real problem

Iowa Missouri Montana Alabama Citadel

  • Please log in to reply
334 replies to this topic

iChase #1 Posted 16 March 2017 - 06:36 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 1,004
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

Core i7-4790K, ZOTAC GTX980 AMP!, 16GB RAM (1866Mhz), 2X128GB SSD, 9TB (1TB + 2X4TB) HDD, EVGA SuperNova 850G2

Youtube Channel | Twitch Channel | Discord Community | The Penguin Alliance - Clan Recruitment |


Fog_Carrier_Shoukaku #2 Posted 16 March 2017 - 06:48 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 353
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Watched two and a half minutes until I realized the limited scope of your background in naval architecture.  Disregarded.

World of Tanks beta tester.  RIP NavyField, the most fun battle game that only worked once every few battles.  Fleet of Fog gaming community.


Vossie #3 Posted 16 March 2017 - 06:49 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 193
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
nice video chase. as always, enjoyed the content and agree with what your saying overall, its potentially the mechanics and not individual modelling that may be at the heart of the issue

Edited by Vossie, 16 March 2017 - 06:50 AM.

IT'S NOT A JEEP! IT'S A LAND CRUISER!!!

Vossie 

  • Plays a mix of destroyers (very good) and cruisers (excellent)                                                             Youtube Channel soon to be churning out WOWS Videos!
  • Deals an above average amount of damage                                                                                https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDcpkG1PbhCD87b3-eboJgw
  • Rarely uses torpedoes                                                                                                                                                                     Twitch channel: twitch.tv/vossie1992
  • Key vehicle- Gremyashchy                                                                                                                                    Im a noob to the whole streaming thing so go easy!!!

 

As told by warships.today

 


iChase #4 Posted 16 March 2017 - 06:50 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 1,004
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostFog_Carrier_Shoukaku, on 16 March 2017 - 01:48 AM, said:

Watched two and a half minutes until I realized the limited scope of your background in naval architecture. Disregarded.

 

And you utterly missed all the important bits later on, good job though watching only the intro

Core i7-4790K, ZOTAC GTX980 AMP!, 16GB RAM (1866Mhz), 2X128GB SSD, 9TB (1TB + 2X4TB) HDD, EVGA SuperNova 850G2

Youtube Channel | Twitch Channel | Discord Community | The Penguin Alliance - Clan Recruitment |


Sventex #5 Posted 16 March 2017 - 06:50 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,472
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Wait, but in your diagram, the 5" magazines only cover a small part of the above deck citadel.  Shouldn't the vulnerable damage sections be serrated like a saw instead of a uniform deck? When a BB shell hits the washroom, it shouldn't cause catastrophic citadel damage, right?

Edited by Sventex, 16 March 2017 - 06:56 AM.

"The world is not beautiful; and that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty."
 


iChase #6 Posted 16 March 2017 - 06:51 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 1,004
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostSventex, on 16 March 2017 - 01:50 AM, said:

Wait, but in your diagram, the 5" magazines only cover a small part of the above deck citadel.  Shouldn't the vulnerable damage sections be serrated like a saw instead of uniform deck? When a BB shell hits the washroom, it shouldn't cause catastrophic citadel damage, right?

 

There are multiple 5" magazines, in between the upper portions of the boiler rooms. Any AP shell hit into that middle section and you're talking huge amounts of damage

Core i7-4790K, ZOTAC GTX980 AMP!, 16GB RAM (1866Mhz), 2X128GB SSD, 9TB (1TB + 2X4TB) HDD, EVGA SuperNova 850G2

Youtube Channel | Twitch Channel | Discord Community | The Penguin Alliance - Clan Recruitment |


Vossie #7 Posted 16 March 2017 - 06:52 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 193
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSventex, on 16 March 2017 - 06:50 AM, said:

Wait, but in your diagram, the 5" magazines only cover a small part of the above deck citadel.  Shouldn't the vulnerable damage sections be serrated like a saw instead of uniform deck? When a BB shell hits the washroom, it shouldn't cause catastrophic citadel damage, right?

 

agreed. i also thought the same thing, that the citadel model should reflect the powder rooms, but only them and other key ares. the current in game model covers way more than just them. they need to modeled, and they are above the water line, but its not as big as in game

IT'S NOT A JEEP! IT'S A LAND CRUISER!!!

Vossie 

  • Plays a mix of destroyers (very good) and cruisers (excellent)                                                             Youtube Channel soon to be churning out WOWS Videos!
  • Deals an above average amount of damage                                                                                https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDcpkG1PbhCD87b3-eboJgw
  • Rarely uses torpedoes                                                                                                                                                                     Twitch channel: twitch.tv/vossie1992
  • Key vehicle- Gremyashchy                                                                                                                                    Im a noob to the whole streaming thing so go easy!!!

 

As told by warships.today

 


Terran_Crusader #8 Posted 16 March 2017 - 06:54 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 225
  • Member since:
    06-30-2015

I'm really glad that someone with clout in the community is drawing attention to this. Trying to combine historical design factors (ship designs, penetration values, etc.) with arcade mechanics (compressed ranges, overmatch mechanics, etc.) has resulted in some really weird and boring (and ahistorical) gameplay. I agree that decompressing the range or scaling the penetration values would fix a lot of problems in the game.

 

Here's the diagrams that I'm pretty sure iChase is using, if anyone wants to take a closer look: https://maritime.org/doc/plans/bb63.pdf. It's technically the Missouri in 1950, but nothing would be significantly different from the Iowa's WW2 configuration.


Edited by Terran_Crusader, 16 March 2017 - 06:57 AM.


Fog_Carrier_Shoukaku #9 Posted 16 March 2017 - 06:57 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 353
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
No other BB (as far as I'm aware of) in this game has their secondary ammunition/powder rooms modeled as citadel space unless already encompassed by the citadel.  That is why this is bunk.

World of Tanks beta tester.  RIP NavyField, the most fun battle game that only worked once every few battles.  Fleet of Fog gaming community.


Personator #10 Posted 16 March 2017 - 06:58 AM

    Captain

  • WoWS Wiki Editor
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 5,460
  • Member since:
    12-03-2014

View PostFog_Carrier_Shoukaku, on 15 March 2017 - 10:48 PM, said:

Watched two and a half minutes until I realized the limited scope of your background in naval architecture. Disregarded.

 

Shrink the NorCal to accurate represented size in game and in accordance with the supposedly set ranges and you'll see that he's correct about the game's inaccuracy conflicting with the accurately copied, real-life armor scheme's effectiveness.


 
Current progress on all ship lines

Game OST -- Replay Ctrl Change -- Relaxing Time


iChase #11 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:02 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 1,004
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostFog_Carrier_Shoukaku, on 16 March 2017 - 01:57 AM, said:

No other BB (as far as I'm aware of) in this game has their secondary ammunition/powder rooms modeled as citadel space unless already encompassed by the citadel. That is why this is bunk.

 

Even then, you also notice that in that same exact space is the upper portions of the Babcock and Wilson M-Type boilers? Which essentially are part of the ships machinery and that is in fact citadel space for all the other nation's ships. Furthermore, completely ignoring the rest of the video means you actually missed out the real important bit that I was talking about which you know takes place after the 2 and a half minutes you watched. 

Core i7-4790K, ZOTAC GTX980 AMP!, 16GB RAM (1866Mhz), 2X128GB SSD, 9TB (1TB + 2X4TB) HDD, EVGA SuperNova 850G2

Youtube Channel | Twitch Channel | Discord Community | The Penguin Alliance - Clan Recruitment |


Vossie #12 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:02 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 193
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPersonator, on 16 March 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

 

Shrink the NorCal to accurate represented size in game and in accordance with the supposedly set ranges and you'll see that he's correct about the game's inaccuracy conflicting with the accurately copied, real-life armor scheme's effectiveness.

 

View PostTerran_Crusader, on 16 March 2017 - 06:54 AM, said:

I'm really glad that someone with clout in the community is drawing attention to this. Trying to combine historical design factors (ship designs, penetration values, etc.) with arcade mechanics (compressed ranges, overmatch mechanics, etc.) has resulted in some really weird and boring (and ahistorical) gameplay. I agree that decompressing the range or scaling the penetration values would fix a lot of problems in the game.

 

Here's the diagrams that I'm pretty sure iChase is using, if anyone wants to take a closer look: https://maritime.org/doc/plans/bb63.pdf. It's technically the Missouri in 1950, but nothing would be significantly different from the Iowa's WW2 configuration.

 

i wonder how scaling would work out though. im pretty sure it couldnt be scaled linearly, as there are a potential ton of variables that may factor in. but its about the best option for modeling historically accurate vessels with accurate mechanics

IT'S NOT A JEEP! IT'S A LAND CRUISER!!!

Vossie 

  • Plays a mix of destroyers (very good) and cruisers (excellent)                                                             Youtube Channel soon to be churning out WOWS Videos!
  • Deals an above average amount of damage                                                                                https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDcpkG1PbhCD87b3-eboJgw
  • Rarely uses torpedoes                                                                                                                                                                     Twitch channel: twitch.tv/vossie1992
  • Key vehicle- Gremyashchy                                                                                                                                    Im a noob to the whole streaming thing so go easy!!!

 

As told by warships.today

 


Jorge_Beaven #13 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:02 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 102
  • Member since:
    03-18-2015

I think if they do what you propose, the game would be a lot more HE based, on every ship... and we all know how annoying that can be


Edited by Jorge_Beaven, 17 March 2017 - 01:29 AM.


iChase #14 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:08 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 1,004
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostJorge_Beaven, on 16 March 2017 - 02:02 AM, said:

I think if they do what you propose, the game would be a lot more HE based, on every ship... and we all knos how annoying that can be

 

Might be, might not be, we won't fully know until changes like these are made. Don't forget a lot of what we have right now in terms of HE mechanics and whatnot exist because of the current mechanics of the game. Cruisers will shoot HE at BBs and APs on full broadsides because there's no accurate way to know when your AP will actually do something reliable, so since HE is more reliable right now in the current mechanics, then keep spamming HE. Now imagine if you knew at exactly what range and what angle your AP will reliably pen for more damage, don't you think that's the ammo you'd switch to?

Core i7-4790K, ZOTAC GTX980 AMP!, 16GB RAM (1866Mhz), 2X128GB SSD, 9TB (1TB + 2X4TB) HDD, EVGA SuperNova 850G2

Youtube Channel | Twitch Channel | Discord Community | The Penguin Alliance - Clan Recruitment |


Fog_Carrier_Shoukaku #15 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:08 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 353
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
The rest is irrelevant, as I'm specifically talking about the Iowa's citadel space - you know, that bit you titled the thread after. The gameplay realities of it are already apparent to someone who's played the Iowa often recently.

Your picture does a very poor job of distinguishing between the boilers and their uptakes - something every ship in the game tends to have.

This picture, while not particularly academic, shows distinctly where the boilers end in relation to the waterline - below it.

https://s-media-cach...1ddb44646c6.jpg

Edited by Fog_Carrier_Shoukaku, 16 March 2017 - 07:09 AM.

World of Tanks beta tester.  RIP NavyField, the most fun battle game that only worked once every few battles.  Fleet of Fog gaming community.


Sventex #16 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:10 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,472
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostJorge_Beaven, on 15 March 2017 - 11:02 PM, said:

I think if they do what you propose, the game would be a lot more HE based, on every ship... and we all knos how annoying that can be

 

If the worst thing the Iowa had to worry about was HE shells, it would last a heck of a lot longer and be able to actually turn in the face of the enemy.  This would be a huge improvement, since the ship would now possess tactical options.

Edited by Sventex, 16 March 2017 - 07:11 AM.

"The world is not beautiful; and that, in a way, lends it a sort of beauty."
 


AdmiralQ #17 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:10 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 138
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

Bingo. in history the Iowa's never feared showign broadside. hoenstly why did Wg take this into outcount from the begining.

 

Hell this is why the Tiger has a hard time in WOT because she engage the enemy at farther range in real life and didn't face it's fellow T 7 tanks



Pr0fi1er #18 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:12 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 13
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
It makes me sad that I havent been able to play my (IRL) awesome US BB's..... ive been relegated to Kutuzov, Zao, and Belfast :/ 

Vossie #19 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:14 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 193
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostAdmiralQ, on 16 March 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

Bingo. in history the Iowa's never feared showign broadside. hoenstly why did Wg take this into outcount from the begining.

 

Hell this is why the Tiger has a hard time in WOT because she engage the enemy at farther range in real life and didn't face it's fellow T 7 tanks

 

here you raise a great example of what the fundamental problem with both WOT and WOWS is.... they are games. arcade games at that. look, im not saying i dont agree with you, bc i do. i wsih we could have 100% accurate mechanics and models that would behave as they would in reality. but sometimes, its just not possible and so decisions are made for the sake of game play, not realism. doesnt mean we have to like it tho...

IT'S NOT A JEEP! IT'S A LAND CRUISER!!!

Vossie 

  • Plays a mix of destroyers (very good) and cruisers (excellent)                                                             Youtube Channel soon to be churning out WOWS Videos!
  • Deals an above average amount of damage                                                                                https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDcpkG1PbhCD87b3-eboJgw
  • Rarely uses torpedoes                                                                                                                                                                     Twitch channel: twitch.tv/vossie1992
  • Key vehicle- Gremyashchy                                                                                                                                    Im a noob to the whole streaming thing so go easy!!!

 

As told by warships.today

 


iChase #20 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:14 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 1,004
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostFog_Carrier_Shoukaku, on 16 March 2017 - 02:08 AM, said:

The rest is irrelevant, as I'm specifically talking about the Iowa's citadel space - you know, that bit you titled the thread after. The gameplay realities of it are already apparent to someone who's played the Iowa often recently.

Your picture does a very poor job of distinguishing between the boilers and their uptakes - something every ship in the game tends to have.

This picture, while not particularly academic, shows distinctly where the boilers end in relation to the waterline - below it.

https://s-media-cach...1ddb44646c6.jpg

 

You linked me a picture that's not even the Iowa class? Really? The Iowa and the North Carolina have completely different machinery spaces.

 

If you want to prove anything, use these actual blueprints 

 

https://maritime.org/doc/plans/bb63.pdf

 

The section I point out is clearly labelled as the boiler room. An entire deck up and that's where you see intakes being clearly labelled. 


Core i7-4790K, ZOTAC GTX980 AMP!, 16GB RAM (1866Mhz), 2X128GB SSD, 9TB (1TB + 2X4TB) HDD, EVGA SuperNova 850G2

Youtube Channel | Twitch Channel | Discord Community | The Penguin Alliance - Clan Recruitment |






Also tagged with Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Alabama, Citadel

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users