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

AdmiralQ #21 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:14 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 134
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostFog_Carrier_Shoukaku, on 16 March 2017 - 07:08 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

 

Yeah this game encourages bow on attacks with HISTORICALLY is the worst place to be and the real issue  is not adjusted the guns for the condense playfield of the game

Pr0fi1er #22 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:14 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 13
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
The thing that i've never understood - naval forces wanted to "Cross the T" giving the enemy nothing but broadsides in an effort to get all of their guns to bear on enemy (bow on) ships.... The strat for this game is the exact opposite....

iChase #23 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:16 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 995
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostVossie, on 16 March 2017 - 02:14 AM, said:

 

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...

 

You also realized that WG CEO has already come out and stated that he forced warships to be like tanks, hence why so many warships battles looks like a tank battle happening on water. Scaling the proper penetration and shell angle of fall into the game with the condensed distances, so shell flight times and stuff stay the same, will allow ships to actually engage like ships. Maneuver warfare at sea. Not the current bow in, tanks like play we see all too much

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 |


AdmiralQ #24 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:17 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 134
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostVossie, on 16 March 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

 

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...

 

I can understand up tierign the Tiger a bit since she  curb stomp Shermans but they need to adjust for  condensign thigns. this made be an arcade game but usign historic ships or tanks they should try to be close hsitorical  but modified for the limits ofthe game.

Personator #25 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:18 AM

    Captain

  • WoWS Wiki Editor
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 5,444
  • Member since:
    12-03-2014

View PostiChase, on 15 March 2017 - 11:16 PM, said:

 

You also realized that WG CEO has already come out and stated that he forced warships to be like tanks, hence why so many warships battles looks like a tank battle happening on water. Scaling the proper penetration and shell angle of fall into the game with the condensed distances, so shell flight times and stuff stay the same, will allow ships to actually engage like ships. Maneuver warfare at sea. Not the current bow in, tanks like play we see all too much

 

To add on: Bow-tanking is similar to the "hull-down" tactic in WoT - you just sit there with your vital parts covered while the enemy helplessly attempts to deal damage to you through your weak spots. And there's no easy way to get around the enemy without also risking showing your vital parts either.
 
Current progress on all ship lines

Game OST -- Replay Ctrl Change -- Relaxing Time


Lampshade_M1A2 #26 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:18 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,471
  • Member since:
    10-07-2014

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

Do you want to hold the Iowa to its own standard unlike all of the other battleships which don't have all of their secondary magazines counted or not?



iChase #27 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:20 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 995
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostLampshade_M1A2, on 16 March 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

Do you want to hold the Iowa to its own standard unlike all of the other battleships which don't have all of their secondary magazines counted or not?

 

Once again, even if the secondary magazines don't count, that area also houses all the boiler rooms as well. So that's still consistent with all the other nation's ships where their entire machinery is considered a citadel

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 #28 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:20 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 99
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPr0fi1er, on 16 March 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

The thing that i've never understood - naval forces wanted to "Cross the T" giving the enemy nothing but broadsides in an effort to get all of their guns to bear on enemy (bow on) ships.... The strat for this game is the exact opposite....

 

something ive never understood either. sure, you were able to bring more guns to bare when crossing the T, but you gave more ship to shoot at too. from how i understand it, it was more about just lading hits. a hit was a hit in real life. not like in game where penetration and damage is the issue. a hit in real life and you were killing people. so more guns firing= more hits= more death/destruction.

 

but then again, look at the HMS Hood. she turned, or at least started to, and that when she took the hit from the Bismarck


Vossie 

  • Plays a mix of destroyers (very good) and cruisers (excellent)
  • Deals an above average amount of damage
  • Rarely uses torpedoes
  • Key vehicle - Gremyashchy

 

As told by warships.today

 


Macabe #29 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:20 AM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertest Coordinator
  • Members
    Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers
    Supertester

  • 13,144
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Why the obsession on the 5in powder magazines? I realize the importance when it comes to reality but i don't recall secondary/auxillary powder storage counting as a citadel location in the game nor did the exhaust/uptake of the boilers. As far as gameplay mechanics go, the citadel is incorrectly placed. If anything the lowering of the citadel will encourage less bow on gameplay when it comes to short-mid range combat. Lower citadel means less citadel penetrations. That leads to a similar effect as German designs where shells are going to bounce off the top of the citadel and explode outside the citadel(33%) or over pen(10%). All of that not citadel damage is a lot more repairable than taking a shot to the citadel. That will ultimately lead to more heavy angling rather than bow on only.


Fleet of Fog Commander

Supremacy League Admin and Head Referee

Self-Proclaimed Forum Mascot

World of Warships Forum Cat. Pet at own risk.


AdmiralQ #30 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:21 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 134
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostiChase, on 16 March 2017 - 07:16 AM, said:

 

You also realized that WG CEO has already come out and stated that he forced warships to be like tanks, hence why so many warships battles looks like a tank battle happening on water. Scaling the proper penetration and shell angle of fall into the game with the condensed distances, so shell flight times and stuff stay the same, will allow ships to actually engage like ships. Maneuver warfare at sea. Not the current bow in, tanks like play we see all too much

 

Ichase. Consider this. there's going to be a PRem Hood at some point. and the current in game mechanic promots Bow on fightign which is the worse place for her considering her weak rear deck armor. Hell i nthe Hood vs Bismark he tried to cross Bismarks T but lost Bis and when re aquired Bis was crossign theior T and the hood tried to get clsoe to not fear plugnign fiore and tried to broadside where she be safe.

Sonoskay #31 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:21 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,531
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
So. Are you actualy advocating bigger maps and longer  engagement ranges?

 

Check me out on the youtube! I put out a new video this week.


iChase #32 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:22 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 995
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostMacabe, on 16 March 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

Why the obsession on the 5in powder magazines? I realize the importance when it comes to reality but i don't recall secondary/auxillary powder storage counting as a citadel location in the game nor did the exhaust/uptake of the boilers. As far as gameplay mechanics go, the citadel is incorrectly placed. If anything the lowering of the citadel will encourage less bow on gameplay when it comes to short-mid range combat. Lower citadel means less citadel penetrations. That leads to a similar effect as German designs where shells are going to bounce off the top of the citadel and explode outside the citadel(33%) or over pen(10%). All of that not citadel damage is a lot more repairable than taking a shot to the citadel. That will ultimately lead to more heavy angling rather than bow on only.

 

that area Macabe held the boilers, not the exhaust, blueprints are quite clear about that. Still, Iowa's armour is actually fine, had WG actually done things correctly and scaled the realistic penetration to their scaled down ranges of engagement

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 |


iChase #33 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:23 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 995
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostSonoskay, on 16 March 2017 - 02:21 AM, said:

So. Are you actualy advocating bigger maps and longer  engagement ranges?

 

No, I'm advocating for the same sized maps with the same engagement ranges, but with penetration and shell angle of fall scaled properly. So essentially treating 20km in game like it's 40km in real life and adjusting the guns penetration curve accordingly

 

[EDIT] not like right now, where we have penetration curves that reflect real life, while the in game actual combat distances are less than half of what typical engagement distances are irl


Edited by iChase, 16 March 2017 - 07:24 AM.

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 |


Slayer_Jesse #34 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:24 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 172
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013

View PostSonoskay, on 16 March 2017 - 07:21 AM, said:

So. Are you actualy advocating bigger maps and longer  engagement ranges?

 

im pretty sure that wont happen because they don't want the battle to take too long. Already as it its, if you die early waiting 16-18 minutes to get your ship back can be quite long.

Fog_Carrier_Shoukaku #35 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:25 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 322
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostiChase, on 16 March 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

 

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. 

 

Source's wording failed me, I apologize.

 

The third deck is not clearly labeled about the boilers.  It is still the boiler room, I believe, but the machinery would all be below that point - it is the beginning of the uptake and just a not very clever subdivision or labeling on the source's part.

 

 


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


AdmiralQ #36 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:25 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 134
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostSonoskay, on 16 March 2017 - 07:21 AM, said:

So. Are you actualy advocating bigger maps and longer  engagement ranges?

 

what he is saying adjsut the penetration values to match the range in game. right now they are in real life  stats yet the games battlefeidls are far smaller then the engagments in real life. The need to adjsut the pen values for this smalelr feild.

Vossie #37 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:26 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 99
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostiChase, on 16 March 2017 - 07:23 AM, said:

 

No, I'm advocating for the same sized maps with the same engagement ranges, but with penetration and shell angle of fall scaled properly. So essentially treating 20km in game like it's 40km in real life and adjusting the guns penetration curve accordingly

 

[EDIT] not like right now, where we have penetration curves that reflect real life, while the in game actual combat distances are less than half of what typical engagement distances are irl

 

we need a dev to see this

Vossie 

  • Plays a mix of destroyers (very good) and cruisers (excellent)
  • Deals an above average amount of damage
  • Rarely uses torpedoes
  • Key vehicle - Gremyashchy

 

As told by warships.today

 


Sventex #38 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:26 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,282
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
I've seen compressed distances in Battlestations Pacific, the max range of the Yamato was 1.8miles, and the shells flew into high orbit when you fired at max range.  It was...odd to see ships so close flinging high arc shells from close range.

Edited by Sventex, 16 March 2017 - 07:37 AM.

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


Slayer_Jesse #39 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:27 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 172
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013

View PostSventex, on 16 March 2017 - 07:26 AM, said:

I've seen compressed distances in Battlestations Pacific, the max range of the Yamato was 1.8km, and flew into high orbit when you fired at max range.  It was...odd

 

all i can imagine is the barrels pointing straight up :D

issm #40 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:31 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,283
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

Who cares what the hell the specifics of he history is?

 

The ships look like the originals, that's good enough for 90% of the playerbase.

 

The game mechanics are solid for the game it is.

 

Just make ahistoric modifications to the ships themselves to make them work with the mechanics, and presto.


Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet






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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users