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

issm #301 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:35 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,568
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostAjatcho, on 20 March 2017 - 10:11 PM, said:

well they should really scale the gun ranges to compensate for the compression

 

But why?

 

It's extra work that does not achieve any of the goals it purports to.


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

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Ajatcho #302 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:41 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 823
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 21 March 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

 

But why?

 

It's extra work that does not achieve any of the goals it purports to.

 

it does actually since right now high tier games are pretty much static unless their are carriers to make battleships move

WHEN YOU SEE A JUICY TARGET


Kanzler_Bismarck #303 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:55 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 918
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012
Bravo, sir.

Well explained, well thought out, well done.


WG, get on this!

issm #304 Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:17 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,568
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostAjatcho, on 20 March 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

it does actually since right now high tier games are pretty much static unless their are carriers to make battleships move

 

And how, precisely would scaling ranges help?

 

First, the actual scaling would be practically non-existent. The compression from real range to max possible in game range for Iowa is only ~15%. 

 

Iowa's maximum possible range in game is [23.35km (Max range of Elite Iowa) * 1.16km (Range module) * 1.2 (spotter planes)=] 32.5km. That's 86% of Iowas real life range of 38.7km.

 

The compression, if any, is only going to be ~16%.

 

Now, the big reasons why iChase and many of the other idiots in this thread claimed range compression would help are 1: Plunging fire, and 2: Immunity zones.

 

On Immunity Zones

 

tl;dr, they're insignificant, and will not have a major impact on gameplay.

 

Second, on plunging fire

tl;dr, plunging fire is just as irrelevant

 

And finally, iChase is completely wrong on why people bow camp.

 

People bow camp because of accuracy, not penetration.

 

The real problem is: While accuracy causes bow on, it's also a nessesary evil for all of us who don't want matches dragging on for hours.

 

What's the real solution to bow on camping?

 

Good map design.

tl;dr, More cover, split ships up, with tons of caps or something.

 

View PostKanzler_Bismarck, on 20 March 2017 - 10:55 PM, said:

Bravo, sir.

Well explained, well thought out, well done.

WG, get on this!

 

Except, as I detailed above.... no, no, and no.

 

So no, WG, don't get on this.


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

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


_Madcows_ #305 Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:35 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 94
  • Member since:
    04-04-2015

View Postissm, on 17 March 2017 - 04:51 AM, said:

 

1) "Realistic" ballistics wouldn't make gameplay more dynamic, it would just cause teams to camp and bow tank within their immunity zones. Immunity zones are nice in theory, but the idea fails to account for what happens if someone ends up outside of their immunity zones. No plan survives first contact with the enemy, and "stay in your immunity zone" sure as hell sounds like a plan. Anyone caught out of their immunity zone closer to the enemy fleet has the exact same options they have now: Turn and risk dying, or bow tank it and tough it out. I don't think the idea is to make all balistics as real as possible, and im not suggesting that either. What I am suggesting however is that if one parameter is changed aka the shortened ranges used in WoW then the penetrations used should reflect porportionally that which would occur at say max/75%/50% range equivalents in game. I do believe iChase does make a point for this at some point in the video, as the real life penetration values remain despite the drastically shortened ranges used in game. The ballistics changes would actually inhibit bow camping at range due to plunging fire and not shells having greater area to hit when a ship is bow on. At these ranges I would suggest then that been broadside is even safer due to less area and also the angle of shell fall landing possibly on angled side armour... pretty sure this was one of iChase's points. Lastly gameplay can be very static already so this wont make things worse than they already are...

 

Furthermore, Germans would be more OP, less, due to their strength in close quarters being added to a new meta that basically forces ships into midrange, whereas before, ships might have been more comfortable trying to maintain long range and kite, keeping them outside of a German BB's lethal range. No, not if they get penetrated via bad deck armour at range, Basically just means they will be forced to close the distance and get close as they were meant to, not be the silly citadel proof monsters they are now despite whatever distance they are at. close range can then be owned by german BBs but the other nations BBs get flavoured armour qualities based on range to target, this with obvious benefits or negative to their guns dependent on WG/balance i guess...

 

2) Cruiser deck armor is even thinner at long range than a BBs. This makes cruiser armour less relevant. Cruiser armour works primarily because cruiser main belt can autobounce BB main battery. (Even cruiser bow/sterns can do this in some cases). Convert the long range fire to plunging fire, and it'll punch straight through cruiser decks. My point was no specifically about CA/CLs vs BBs, rather than armour may mean more in cruiser vs cruiser action as well just like for BB vs BB scenarios.

 

There's a reason real life cruiser doctrine never had them going toe to toe with BBs. Forcing "realistic penetration" without adding the "realistic Stormtrooper accuracy" and "realistic shell flight times to plunging fire range" is a MASSIVE de facto nerf to cruisers. Adding the crap accuracy and shell flight times would make the game slow and boring as all hell. If all but german BBs need to have a bit more distance this gives more survivability to cruisers who can "dodge" fire, and swings the pendulum of balance actually in favour of cruisers who with better shell accuracy might then be able to use thier theoretical DPM advantage. IF BBs shells at range have more plunging trajectory then they also have a greater chance of missing as the shells dont just fly for want of a better word hosrizontally through the cruiser into the citadel.. they also have to land squarely in the right spot aiding cruisers chance of been missed.

 

3) You're misunderstanding his video if you think he wanted reduced penetration. What he was arguing for is range compression, instead of the range cutoff we have in game now. Um no I disagree, see above, he mentions range compression and % change in penetration and angle of fall changes to reflect either penetration vertically and horizontally and this to be corresponding to say the penetration values at the ships actuall real life ranges and thus make alternate ship design philosopies actually have some meaning in game.  aka if a ship can penetrate X Y and Z at 25% and 50% and 100% range then at the max ranges in game the % changes in the penetration at each of these ranges should be reflected in game....

 

This would result in higher penetration at close range and long range, in exchange for an "immunity zone" in the mid range. See above

 

4) See 3. DDs will still be overpenned all day.  point was that with reduced penetration then the chance of lodging in the ship structure is actually increased for the BB so those 33% dmg shots could become greater... this point mainly made for those people who come hell or high water want their BB buffed again....

 

5) Dunno what exposure you have to high tier cruiser play - hell, even some mid tier cruiser play. AP gets slung around quite a bit.  Enough if you care to look it up. See point above about cruiser vs cruiser and shell changes not just for BBs but cruisers as well (aka moskva auto pen might be modified..?)

 

6) whether or not the game gets longer depends on what other changes get added alongside. i.e., if you use this as an excuse to get rid of overmatch and autobounce, you might see games ending earlier as BBs take more damage, and routs happen sooner. On the other hand, if this change comes with arc / accuracy nerfs (which would actually reduce bow camping), games would get considerably longer. Yet to see what this might equal in game, but surely it might add some diversity to mm lineups and make it less world of german BBs, USN & RU dds and IJN/Brit cruisers.  Would also shake up ranked which lets be honest is rather generic in many ways (yes yes i know smoke ect is involved here to....) Diversity of games is what keeps me interested in games, but if this game just becomes almostt cookie cutter teams then it could get rather dull)

 

tl;dr, it's a modification that will do none of what it advertises. It's there to add complexity where there isn't really any need for it, and for the sake of historical accuracy rather than for gameplay No again not just for complexity (which I believe is a good thing anyhow otherwise whats the point), and not just for historical accuracy but also to open up new avenues for the game to be played and also make different ship designs possble and valid in game. Otherwise only those ships which were designed for example to be say have effective armor at close range will be relevant and the complaints and "exceptions" as per the USN BBs will be rife throughout the game and make it harder actually to balance than otherwise. 

 

 

Replies in Bold, sorry couldn't split it up and given work cannot reply very quickly but do try to eventually.

Cheers

_Madcows_



Kanzler_Bismarck #306 Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:08 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 918
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012

View Postissm, on 21 March 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:

 

And how, precisely would scaling ranges help?

 

First, the actual scaling would be practically non-existent. The compression from real range to max possible in game range for Iowa is only ~15%. 

 

Iowa's maximum possible range in game is [23.35km (Max range of Elite Iowa) * 1.16km (Range module) * 1.2 (spotter planes)=] 32.5km. That's 86% of Iowas real life range of 38.7km.

 

The compression, if any, is only going to be ~16%.

 

Now, the big reasons why iChase and many of the other idiots in this thread claimed range compression would help are 1: Plunging fire, and 2: Immunity zones.

 

On Immunity Zones

 

tl;dr, they're insignificant, and will not have a major impact on gameplay.

 

Second, on plunging fire

tl;dr, plunging fire is just as irrelevant

 

And finally, iChase is completely wrong on why people bow camp.

 

People bow camp because of accuracy, not penetration.

 

The real problem is: While accuracy causes bow on, it's also a nessesary evil for all of us who don't want matches dragging on for hours.

 

What's the real solution to bow on camping?

 

Good map design.

tl;dr, More cover, split ships up, with tons of caps or something.

 

 

Except, as I detailed above.... no, no, and no.

 

So no, WG, don't get on this.

Well thought out as well... and much of it I agree with. But, I just don't get were you don't think 16% is a big deal. It is a significant difference and, as you pointed out with accuracy being what it is, that 16% could increase survivability in a turn significantly. 



issm #307 Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:36 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,568
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View Post_Madcows_, on 21 March 2017 - 01:35 AM, said:

~snip~

 

"...as the real life penetration values remain despite the drastically shortened ranges used in game"

 

Except, no, ranges are NOT "drastically' shortened in game.

 

As I pointed out in the post, ranges at high tiers are only clipped by ~15-20%, if you factor in all the available range upgrades.

 

The compression is slightly worse at low tiers: Kongo only gets ~70% of it's maximum real life range. Thing is, the problem iChase's suggested changes supposedly solves doesn't happen at low tiers.

 

Thing is, even though they HAVE 80-85% of the real range available, people CHOOSE not to use that range, even though it would permit things like plunging fire.

 

~~~~~~

 

"My point was no specifically about CA/CLs vs BBs, rather than armour may mean more in cruiser vs cruiser action as well just like for BB vs BB scenarios"

 

I'm going to make one assumption in responding to this, but it seems to be an assumption a ton of people are making, even the pro-change people: That autobounce/overmatch will be removed, in order to further disincentivize bow on.

 

If that happens, armour will matter less in cruiser v cruiser combat.

 

Most cruisers will be able to punch through each others' bows, and in most cases, be capable of citadeling each other through an angled bow.

 

Some high tier cruisers *cough*Moskva*cough* will rip through BB belt armour at 10km for citadels. Citadeling an angled cruiser would be child's play. Other than the autobounce mechanics currently preventing it.

 

~~~~~~

 

"point was that with reduced penetration"

 

Penetration is NOT reduced.

 

iChase misinterpreted the penetration tables and thought armour was stronger than it actually is.

 

To be perfectly clear, this suggested change is NOT a direct penetration nerf.

 

For the vast majority of cases, penetration remains effectively the same - there will only be a few cases , mostly in the low/mid tiers, where battleships might have an immunity zone against each other.

 

Cruisers and DDs will both be nerfed not by the ballistics changes, but by removal of autobounce - seeing as DDs benefit from autobounce when they run into cruiser AP.

 

~~~~~~

 

"he mentions range compression and % change in penetration and angle of fall changes"

 

Once again, what he said was not accurate.

 

As has been pointed out by other people earlier in this thread, iChase misinterpreted those penetration charts. 

 

Armour is not actually as strong as he presents in the video.

 

~~~~~~

 

"aka moskva auto pen might be modified..?"

 

There is no such thing as "auto pen".

 

On the other hand, the only thing preventing Moskva from turning into the Yamato of cruisers - aka able to cit pen other CA from any angle, is the autobounce mechanic. You think the 152mm citadel armour of a Des Moine will stop a Moskva's shell, when those will rip through a Yamato's 410mm belt? Please.

 

~~~~~~

 

"Yet to see what this might equal in game, but surely it might add some diversity to mm lineups"

 

HOW?

 

And I also dispute that there's a lack of diversity in randoms, or that other lines aren't viable. I have high tier ships in, well, basically everything, and there isn't a single line that doesn't have something going for it.

 

Ranked will always be somewhat cookie cutter, because that's the nature of competitive.

 

~~~~~~

 

"No again not just for complexity  (which I believe is a good thing anyhow otherwise whats the point)"

 

Would bejewelled be a better game if you started tacking on tons of complexity?

 

 

"also to open up new avenues for the game to be played "

 

For example? As I already explained, the actual range compression would be minuscule,and people just don't use those ranges, because, you know, firing at 20 km just isn't that effective.

 

 

"Otherwise only those ships which were designed for example to be say have effective armor at close range will be relevant"

 

Which is why Yamato is a meta pick at T10, despite the fact that Yamato is laughably easy for another Yamato to citpen from the front - THE easiest T10 BB, in fact.


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

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Ajatcho #308 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:17 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 823
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

well I would rather have some sort of immunity zone in a certain distance than non at all.

 

Iowa is a fast ship she could unload all its main guns to bear at range without the fear of getting citadel in return, as she could maneuver away to keep distance with the enemy if the enemy decides to close the distance.

 

and with the range being scaled to the proper real life scaling means that the idea of bow tanking would be eliminated as the angle of fall of the shell would penetrate the weaker deck armor

 

right now that 3rd turret is basically useless due to bow tanking 


WHEN YOU SEE A JUICY TARGET


UrPeaceKeeper #309 Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:35 AM

    Ensign

  • Supertester

  • 963
  • Member since:
    04-09-2015

Two things would help Iowa out and ISSM has covered one of them and I agree:  Map design.  It's been a source of irritation and every time WG has asked for feedback, either through ST, or through their surveys, I've made similar comments about maps with more cover being the key to removing the stagnant game play.  What has been the result? Well... maps like Mountain Range which is the epitome of everything wrong with this game's maps.

 

The other is maneuverability.  Those of us who have been around since CBT remember when the high tier battleships were far more maneuverable beasts.  A return to that could also yield a reduction in the torp detection nerfs to IJN DD's.  With the amount of counters to torpedoes in this game, it is worth putting it on the PTS and letting it get tested there.  Iowa didn't have nearly this big of a problem in CBT.  It existed, but for different reasons.


Ever wondered how to play a USN BB or USN DD's?  Or maybe you just want to watch some fun WoWs videos?  Have I got the videos for you! Check out my YouTube channel here for How to Videos and More:

https://www.youtube.com/c/Whiskey11Gaming

CaptainTeddybear #310 Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:46 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 25
  • Member since:
    03-13-2017
WG should definitely not compress the shell arcs. Yes the in game gun ranges are shorter than real life but engagements did not take place at those ranges. There was the very occasional long range shot but there were no engagements. Also if they wanted to go all out sim a max range shot would take 90 seconds to land and ships would be half the size they are in game, so again there would almost never be any hits. I much prefer to see armor and penetration err on the side of realism. Everybody knows there have been compromises for the sake of gameplay and if they need to buff the Iowa a tad for balance reasons that's fine, but let's not twist game mechanics to cover up a design flaw with 1 ship.

iChase #311 Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:49 PM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

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

I replied to Sub_Octavian in the other thread so I figured i'd better copy+paste the reply over

 

View PostSub_Octavian, on 21 March 2017 - 03:12 AM, said:

I am not sure what do you mean here.
The ballistics is actually one of the most realistic aspects, along with armor (I'm not saying we don't have some simplifications, but still).

If we are talking about "shell hitting armor", well, it hits armor more or less like it would hit it IRL.

Scaling has very little to do with it.

Let me explain it a bit.

We have two meters in the game - ship and ballistics. One ship meter is two ballistics meters. 
It is done so that ship models look bigger and to create more presense in the game (otherwise, we would be firing at very tiny ships on the horizon all the time).

It also increases % of shells hit - because target is x2 in size :izmena:

However, ballistics meters that are used for firing range and, well, actual ballistics, are true. Shell trajectory are flattened in the middle, but it is done for visual effect (so that player sees his shells mostly). But the speed of shell and the angle it hits armor are calculated according to the most accurate data we have.

 

And also, you should know that our limits to firing range does not "squeeze" the ballistics. It actually limits your aiming.

 

For example, Space Battleship Yamato could historically fire at 45 km (I said, for example :( )

In our game she can fire at 30 km stock, 35 km top and 40 km with recon plane.

In-game ballistics for 30, 35 and 40 km is calculated as IRL Yamato firing at these exact ranges. With the same shell speed and angle. 

 

Moreover, this is the exact reason some low-tier ships cannot get their full bonuses from AFT skill - the ballistics just won't allow them to fire THAT far.

 

Now, we still have terminal ballistics, and there shell has to travel x2 range inside the target (because target is x2 bigger, because of scaling). But we normally compensate this with fuse settings, and this issue is not big.


I hope I was able to clarify things a bit.

 

I think there might be a misunderstanding from what I was talking about here. I know the game does replicate realistic angle of fall for shells and realistic penetration values.

 

What I was trying to point out is that at say at roughly Iowa's max range in game say around 22,860m the shells have an angle of fall of 21.1 degrees and can pen 441mm of side and 131mm of deck armour. In game this makes it so that an Iowa turning broadside is going to get deleted by citadel hits. This occurs because the belt armour is insufficient to protect the ship against this amount of penetration. Hence why we have all the weird tank like angling mechanics creating the very boring bow on playstyle.

 

What I was proposing is that because the game has it's in game engagement distances capped, that we treat the capped max range of a ship to = the max range of the ships in real life. Then scale the penetration and angle of fall accordingly. 

So for example the Iowa's real life max range is 38,720m and at that range it has 241mm belt penetration and 357mm of deck penetration with shell angle of fall at 53.25 degrees. 

That penetration value should now be put at Iowa's max in game range of 23,349m. This means that if an Iowa were to be able to hit a ship at in game max range, it's some pretty serious plunging fire.

 

Going back to my earlier example 22,860m is 59% of the Iowa's realistic max range, those penetration values for real life should now occur at 59% of the in game Iowa's max range, which would be 13,785m. This means that at slightly longer ranges, the Iowa can find a small patch of protection for itself while it goes broadside. It also means that because plunging fire is now in game, battleships which optimized close range engagements like the German BBs will really feel threatened at higher ranges and will do everything possible to try and close the range down.

 

Hope this clarifies what I'm trying to say a bit more


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 |


KnightFandragon #312 Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:55 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,403
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostUrPeaceKeeper, on 21 March 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

Two things would help Iowa out and ISSM has covered one of them and I agree:  Map design.  It's been a source of irritation and every time WG has asked for feedback, either through ST, or through their surveys, I've made similar comments about maps with more cover being the key to removing the stagnant game play.  What has been the result? Well... maps like Mountain Range which is the epitome of everything wrong with this game's maps.

 

The other is maneuverability.  Those of us who have been around since CBT remember when the high tier battleships were far more maneuverable beasts.  A return to that could also yield a reduction in the torp detection nerfs to IJN DD's.  With the amount of counters to torpedoes in this game, it is worth putting it on the PTS and letting it get tested there.  Iowa didn't have nearly this big of a problem in CBT.  It existed, but for different reasons.

 


 

eeewwwwwww, were gunna be in an ocean full of mouintains, ridges, hills, rocks, sunk ships...its gunna be like playing WOT...Its already [edited]annoying as hell playing maps like Shards or Fault lines with all the huge [edited]mountains blocking LoF....I dont want more crapin the way. 

 

No, you stop the stagnant gameplay by making stuff TOUGHER and less delete worthy.

 

I know you all are to impatient and want games to end in 30s or less, but that just leads to the terrible gameplay we have now, since everything has to DIE right now.  Could stand to have a good, hard fought game last for 20 minutes where maybe not every one on the enemy team dies.  Where you win by 890-790 points and only kill like 7 ships each......instead of every game being a 15-0 or 0-15...



issm #313 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:20 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,568
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostiChase, on 21 March 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

That penetration value should now be put at Iowa's max in game range of 23,349m. This means that if an Iowa were to be able to hit a ship at in game max range, it's some pretty serious plunging fire.

 

Going back to my earlier example 22,860m is 59% of the Iowa's realistic max range, those penetration values for real life should now occur at 59% of the in game Iowa's max range, which would be 13,785m. This means that at slightly longer ranges, the Iowa can find a small patch of protection for itself while it goes broadside. It also means that because plunging fire is now in game, battleships which optimized close range engagements like the German BBs will really feel threatened at higher ranges and will do everything possible to try and close the range down.

 

Hope this clarifies what I'm trying to say a bit more

 

What you were saying was perfectly clear.

 

The only problem is, you were 100% dead wrong.

 

Iowa's maximum in game range is NOT 23,349m.

 

It's 32,501m (or 31,754m if the spotter+module bonuses are additive rather than multiplicative): That's more like 85% of Iowa's real life max range.

 

That's barely any change. Unless you're suggesting something stupid, like changing ballistics compression depending on the current maximum range of the ship.


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

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


CybrSlydr #314 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:23 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,060
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View Postissm, on 21 March 2017 - 03:20 PM, said:

 

What you were saying was perfectly clear.

 

The only problem is, you were 100% dead wrong.

 

Iowa's maximum in game range is NOT 23,349m.

 

It's 32,501m (or 31,754m if the spotter+module bonuses are additive rather than multiplicative): That's more like 85% of Iowa's real life max range.

 

That's barely any change. Unless you're suggesting something stupid, like changing ballistics compression depending on the current maximum range of the ship.

 

Or simply remove the ridiculous mechanic of extending range via a spotter plane and average the difference to be the new "max" range.

 

Never liked that mechanic of "magic extra distance" because of the spotter - should decrease dispersion instead.


CybrSlydr:  The poster you love to hate so you feel better about yourself.

 

World of Warships:  Video Game version of "Who's Line?..." where the rules are made up and the history doesn't matter.

 


iChase #315 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:40 PM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

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

View Postissm, on 21 March 2017 - 03:20 PM, said:

 

What you were saying was perfectly clear.

 

The only problem is, you were 100% dead wrong.

 

Iowa's maximum in game range is NOT 23,349m.

 

It's 32,501m (or 31,754m if the spotter+module bonuses are additive rather than multiplicative): That's more like 85% of Iowa's real life max range.

 

That's barely any change. Unless you're suggesting something stupid, like changing ballistics compression depending on the current maximum range of the ship.

 

and when was the last time you engaged anything at ranges greater than 25km? For all intents and purposes the engagement distances of the game are sub-20km

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 |


lemekillmister #316 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:51 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,226
  • Member since:
    07-30-2016

View PostUrPeaceKeeper, on 21 March 2017 - 10:35 AM, said:

Two things would help Iowa out and ISSM has covered one of them and I agree:  Map design.  It's been a source of irritation and every time WG has asked for feedback, either through ST, or through their surveys, I've made similar comments about maps with more cover being the key to removing the stagnant game play.  What has been the result? Well... maps like Mountain Range which is the epitome of everything wrong with this game's maps.

 

The other is maneuverability.  Those of us who have been around since CBT remember when the high tier battleships were far more maneuverable beasts.  A return to that could also yield a reduction in the torp detection nerfs to IJN DD's.  With the amount of counters to torpedoes in this game, it is worth putting it on the PTS and letting it get tested there.  Iowa didn't have nearly this big of a problem in CBT.  It existed, but for different reasons.

 

I loath Mountain Range. I do think Haven is a move in a better direction though. 


I'm a spudman, I got eyes all around.

 

 

 


Grizley #317 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:55 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,035
  • Member since:
    12-08-2013

View PostiChase, on 21 March 2017 - 12:40 PM, said:

 

and when was the last time you engaged anything at ranges greater than 25km? For all intents and purposes the engagement distances of the game are sub-20km

 

This is because while they may use realistic shell speeds, they do not use realistic ship speeds and rudder shifts.  This is obviously for gameplay, and I don't disagree that it would be a fairly dull game that made you spend 30 minutes getting your BB up to speed.

 

However, that means that at those 25km+ ranges even if you can aim well the target ship can change their position dramatically before the shell lands.  Not something that was a concern in the real world.  Especially considering most navies couldn't maintain a firing solution in the turn.  So say, an IJN BB captain could sail in a straight line and try to walk the shots in, or they could maneuver and every shot has the first salvo accuracy.  First salvo accuracy for most navies was very poor. 

 

Yes, not the USN, but the rest.


Shadilay!

lemekillmister #318 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:56 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,226
  • Member since:
    07-30-2016

View Postissm, on 21 March 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

 

What you were saying was perfectly clear.

 

The only problem is, you were 100% dead wrong.

 

Iowa's maximum in game range is NOT 23,349m.

 

It's 32,501m (or 31,754m if the spotter+module bonuses are additive rather than multiplicative): That's more like 85% of Iowa's real life max range.

 

That's barely any change. Unless you're suggesting something stupid, like changing ballistics compression depending on the current maximum range of the ship.

 

 

Is that range you typically operate at in the game?  Probably not. Live chat between you and your teammates must be quite colorful if or when you do.  :hmm:


Edited by lemekillmister, 21 March 2017 - 08:57 PM.

I'm a spudman, I got eyes all around.

 

 

 


SRM__ShaRoMoto #319 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:58 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 130
  • Member since:
    06-26-2016

So...If this were to work, World of Warships would need to implement the World of Tanks bullcrap normalization values on autobounces and it will be cancer all over again.

 

kekekeke



Aetreus #320 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:12 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,948
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostiChase, on 21 March 2017 - 02:49 PM, said:

I replied to Sub_Octavian in the other thread so I figured i'd better copy+paste the reply over

 

 

I think there might be a misunderstanding from what I was talking about here. I know the game does replicate realistic angle of fall for shells and realistic penetration values.

 

What I was trying to point out is that at say at roughly Iowa's max range in game say around 22,860m the shells have an angle of fall of 21.1 degrees and can pen 441mm of side and 131mm of deck armour. In game this makes it so that an Iowa turning broadside is going to get deleted by citadel hits. This occurs because the belt armour is insufficient to protect the ship against this amount of penetration. Hence why we have all the weird tank like angling mechanics creating the very boring bow on playstyle.

 

What I was proposing is that because the game has it's in game engagement distances capped, that we treat the capped max range of a ship to = the max range of the ships in real life. Then scale the penetration and angle of fall accordingly. 

So for example the Iowa's real life max range is 38,720m and at that range it has 241mm belt penetration and 357mm of deck penetration with shell angle of fall at 53.25 degrees. 

That penetration value should now be put at Iowa's max in game range of 23,349m. This means that if an Iowa were to be able to hit a ship at in game max range, it's some pretty serious plunging fire.

 

Going back to my earlier example 22,860m is 59% of the Iowa's realistic max range, those penetration values for real life should now occur at 59% of the in game Iowa's max range, which would be 13,785m. This means that at slightly longer ranges, the Iowa can find a small patch of protection for itself while it goes broadside. It also means that because plunging fire is now in game, battleships which optimized close range engagements like the German BBs will really feel threatened at higher ranges and will do everything possible to try and close the range down.

 

Hope this clarifies what I'm trying to say a bit more

 

Yes, it does. Your proposal is now utterly insane​, but it's clear. If ship maximum ballistic range is scaled to current FCS range, it just makes things a total hash. More powerful guns have longer ballistic ranges, and nonlinear penetration curves mean that now having a bigger, better gun is worse unless your newer FC gear gives you proportionally more range, which it usually doesn't. So now penetration decreases as tier increases. Also penetration will now change with upgrades to range and modules, which is going to be bizzare. I have no idea how baliistics will work out, WG can​ contrary to what people are saying decouple exterior ballistics from terminal ballistics(the game doesn't simulate during play, it tabulates values before and interpolates them), but that will impose extra computational load and complicate things further.

View PostiChase, on 21 March 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

and when was the last time you engaged anything at ranges greater than 25km? For all intents and purposes the engagement distances of the game are sub-20km

This is a consequence of map design, visibility ranges, and secondarily main battery accuracy and flight time. Most of the time the battle does not commence until shorter ranges because BB visibility is not sufficient to allow it. This is actually quite realistic, as in most cases fleets would not spot each other until 22-24km.

View PostGrizley, on 21 March 2017 - 03:55 PM, said:

This is because while they may use realistic shell speeds, they do not use realistic ship speeds and rudder shifts.  This is obviously for gameplay, and I don't disagree that it would be a fairly dull game that made you spend 30 minutes getting your BB up to speed.

 

However, that means that at those 25km+ ranges even if you can aim well the target ship can change their position dramatically before the shell lands.  Not something that was a concern in the real world.  Especially considering most navies couldn't maintain a firing solution in the turn.  So say, an IJN BB captain could sail in a straight line and try to walk the shots in, or they could maneuver and every shot has the first salvo accuracy.  First salvo accuracy for most navies was very poor. 

 

Yes, not the USN, but the rest.

IIRC testing concluded that ship speeds and flight times are both scaled by about 3 times. In practice a BB took about 45 seconds to initiate a turn from commanded rudder shift, in terms of both time to actually turn the rudder and time for the ship to begin turning. I once did a numeric analysis on Yamato to see at what range she could effectively start dodging salvos- the answer was something like 20km, which isn't much different from where a BB can start effectively salvo dodging ingame. The current BB rudder shift times and proportional speeds are not unrealistic when compared to shell flight times.

 

Claiming that only USN could maneuver and fire is... not really true at all. There were a number of fire control setups that had fast enough solution resolution and had stable elements and automatic follow-up capable of doing this. US Mark 38, 34, and 37 are certainly the most prominent and widely deployed of these. But other nations did it as well. IJN had the Type 98/97 system(all IJN major combatants received stable verticals late in the war, but only these systems would have been fully capable of exploting it). UK AFCT Mark IX/X were similarly capable. Italian systems used stable elements, I'm less certain about how fast their systems were. Russian systems were heavily derived from Italian ones as well and stable verticals were in development for them as well during and a bit pre-WWII, so the high tier VMF ships would be similarly capable.

 

 







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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users