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

Destroyer_Teruzuki #41 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:31 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,394
  • Member since:
    03-30-2015

Balance > Realism.



iChase #42 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:32 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 1,015
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View Postissm, on 16 March 2017 - 02:31 AM, said:

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.

 

you mean the game mechanics that actually don't work and instead make this a tanks game on water with ships as the skins? Honestly, if we want a naval game, we really should re-examine the mechanics and see if something better can be done

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 #43 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:33 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,685
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSlayer_Jesse, on 15 March 2017 - 11:27 PM, said:

 

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

 

Here's a taste of it:


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


AhosChaos #44 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:33 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 251
  • Member since:
    09-26-2015

Didn't WG say that magazines for 5" shells don't count as citadel space(excluding the Atlanta).  I could be very wrong, but isn't that part of the reason why DD's don't have citadels and there was that one really angry post about how a RN(?) CL had it citadel extended to a 5"magazine?  He said something along the lines of "I thought we went over this WG, 5" shell magazines don't count as citadel space" or something like that.  Of course DD's don't have citadels because of balance reasons also and I could be very wrong about the whole 5" shell magazines not counting towards citadel space.

 

I do agree that part of the problem is the disproportionate relation of range and penetration, but at the same time I feel like having immunity zones would be a too complex mechanic for most to understand.  Thinking about it from a more layman point of view, it wouldn't make sense, for example, that I can penetrate you from 0 to 12km, but as soon as you reach 12km I can't do any damage until you get out to 18km.  I personally don't know how large an immunity zone be, but I feel like it would be too realistic of a mechanic that would require a much higher level of understanding that most players won't have.


Rip stat.png

I was Unicum in BB's and CV's with a WTR of 1798 and 1777 ... for one day, but hey I was Unicum

"If you kill me I'll buy you an Okhotnik"-NoZoupForYou 3/10/17 roughly 7:09 PST - I guess Zoup is going to buy me an Okhotnik- The real question is when though-Read my most recent Baltimore post for proof

3/19/17 1:55 PST NoZoupForYou became a god in my heart

 


iChase #45 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:34 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 1,015
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostDestroyer_Teruzuki, on 16 March 2017 - 02:31 AM, said:

Balance > Realism.

 

You mean how the German BBs are so balanced right now compared to all the other nations? 

 

In some cases, realism might actually provide an answer to how to balance things properly


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 #46 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:34 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 138
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View Postissm, on 16 March 2017 - 07:31 AM, said:

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.

 

except it isn't. the N CAl and up shouldn't have such weak armor performance. Iowa was design to fight Yamato andthe guys that studied the real yamato say a fight between Iowa and yamato dpedned on weather. they were that close in real life.

Sonoskay #47 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:36 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,564
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSlayer_Jesse, on 15 March 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

 

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.

 

This was going to be my point actualy. There was a reason its not that way now, and its  because it made game play really slow and tedious. Reducing everything down made the game much better, And the majority of people who were testing at the time agreed.

View PostiChase, on 15 March 2017 - 11:23 PM, 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

 

That makes a cruisers job that much harder. This is essentially a HUGE nerf to all cruisers. they would be relegated to HE spam. (more than they already are) There are some cruisers that are effective at hurting Battleships that broadside, And  some that are effective cruiser hunters. Not to mention you would have to rework how armor works with regular AP shells. this would require a huge rework to make the game balanced.
unless you  mean something else than i think you mean. 

These types of changes are the things you deal with for a late alpha build or a early beta build. Its a little late to do that.

Edited by Sonoskay, 16 March 2017 - 07:38 AM.

 

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


Pope_Shizzle #48 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:36 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,418
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostiChase, on 16 March 2017 - 02:32 AM, said:

 

you mean the game mechanics that actually don't work and instead make this a tanks game on water with ships as the skins? Honestly, if we want a naval game, we really should re-examine the mechanics and see if something better can be done

 

You're a smart guy.  You know better than to engage with that d-bag troll.  Much disappointment.

Sonoskay #49 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:38 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,564
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPope_Shizzle, on 15 March 2017 - 11:36 PM, said:

 

You're a smart guy.  You know better than to engage with that d-bag troll.  Much disappointment.

 

They make a good point in this case.

 

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


AdmiralQ #50 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:38 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 138
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostSonoskay, on 16 March 2017 - 07:36 AM, said:

 

This was going to be my point actualy. There was a reason its not that way now, and its  because it made game play really slow and tedious. Reducing everything down made the game much better, And the majority of people who were testing at the time agreed.

 

That makes a cruisers job that much harder. This is essentially a HUGE nerf to all cruisers. they would be relegated to HE spam. (more than they already are) There are some cruisers that are effective at hurting Battleships that broadside, And  some that are effective cruiser hunters. Not to mention you would have to rework how armor works with regular AP shells. this would require a huge rework to make the game balanced.
unless you  mean something else than i think you mean. 

 

actually it would be an armor buff for cruisers so they have more time to hit.

_V12 #51 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:38 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 405
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostAdmiralQ, on 16 March 2017 - 07:34 AM, said:

 

except it isn't. the N CAl and up shouldn't have such weak armor performance. Iowa was design to fight Yamato andthe guys that studied the real yamato say a fight between Iowa and yamato dpedned on weather. they were that close in real life.

 

Iowa had little to no immunity zone versus her own 16"/50s.  I imagine her immunity zone versus 18.1" Yamato shells was non-existent.  Sorry, you're wrong.


World of Tanks beta tester.  RIP NavyField, the most fun battle game that only worked once every few battles.  Second place Supremacy League, third season.


iChase #52 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:40 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 1,015
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostSonoskay, on 16 March 2017 - 02:36 AM, said:

 

This was going to be my point actualy. There was a reason its not that way now, and its  because it made game play really slow and tedious. Reducing everything down made the game much better, And the majority of people who were testing at the time agreed.

 

That makes a cruisers job that much harder. This is essentially a HUGE nerf to all cruisers. they would be relegated to HE spam. (more than they already are) There are some cruisers that are effective at hurting Battleships that broadside, And  some that are effective cruiser hunters. Not to mention you would have to rework how armor works with regular AP shells. this would require a huge rework to make the game balanced.
unless you  mean something else than i think you mean. 

I think the only rework to armour's interaction with AP might be things like making the autobounce window smaller, reducing that and making penetration values account for more. Cruisers APing BB broadside should still be effective, since superstructure and upper belt are pretty thin and that's where cruisers hit with AP anyways. Don't really see it as a nerf, might actually be a buff to cruiser survivability at range

 

View PostPope_Shizzle, on 16 March 2017 - 02:36 AM, said:

 

You're a smart guy.  You know better than to engage with that d-bag troll.  Much disappointment.

 

3:30am in the morning :P totally didn't notice, was just reading the post lol

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 |


Destroyer_Teruzuki #53 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:41 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,394
  • Member since:
    03-30-2015

essView PostiChase, on 15 March 2017 - 11:34 PM, said:

You mean how the German BBs are so balanced right now compared to all the other nations? 

 

In some cases, realism might actually provide an answer to how to balance things properly

Realism may provide a workable platform, but in the end it's going to be the balanced numbers and figures that make it what it is. If German battleships are unbalanced, look at where they are weak and strong and balance them accordingly so they fit in better with the game and their respectable class.

 

Having an unbalanced game, particularly in the way WoWS plays, would ruin it. WoWS is already quite a shaky table in many regards, throwing more realism and less balance isn't going to help stabilize it much. 



AdmiralQ #54 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:42 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 138
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostFog_Carrier_Shoukaku, on 16 March 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

 

Iowa had little to no immunity zone versus her own 16"/50s.  I imagine her immunity zone versus 18.1" Yamato shells was non-existent.  Sorry, you're wrong.

 

nope I am right. the 18.1 are  big but have a lower velcoity then the iowa's 16 inch. then at in Iowa's  better accuracy that would help the  Yamato gusy sau the Yamao would have the edge in good weather and Iowa the edge in bad weather.

iChase #55 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:43 AM

    Ensign

  • WoWS Community Contributors

  • 1,015
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013

View PostFog_Carrier_Shoukaku, on 16 March 2017 - 02:38 AM, said:

 

Iowa had little to no immunity zone versus her own 16"/50s.  I imagine her immunity zone versus 18.1" Yamato shells was non-existent.  Sorry, you're wrong.

 

She had a very small immunity window against her own 16"/50s with the SHS between 23,600 yards and 27,400 yards. 


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 |


icyplanetnhc #56 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:45 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 273
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

Your analysis of armor penetration values is flawed. What the Navweaps table lists as deck armor penetration (i.e. 6.65" at 30000 yards) represents the amount of horizontal armor that the shell will penetrate. In other words, it has already taken into account the fact that the shell will be striking the plate at an angle. Now, the listed belt armor penetration value (i.e. 14.97" at 30000 yards) represents how much vertical armor it will penetrate, and for that you do need to take into account the belt armor's inclination angle from the vertical. Of course, a battleship's protection scheme also includes hull plating; for instance, the Iowa's 1.5" STS weather deck, so that will add a bit to the main armored deck in protection.

 

Now, I will agree that the Iowa's current citadel representation is more realistic than, say, the North Carolina and majority of other battleships in the game. If the game wants more "realism" and authenticity, then all battleships should have citadels similar to the Iowa (the exception being the Germans due to their panzerdeck design). The problem is that such a change would promote an even greater amount of static bow-on gameplay, as you've pointed out. For the sake of gameplay, I think lowering it for the Iowa, Montana, etc. is the better option.


Edited by icyplanetnhc, 16 March 2017 - 07:52 AM.


AdmiralQ #57 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:47 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 138
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View Posticyplanetnhc, on 16 March 2017 - 07:45 AM, said:

Your analysis of armor penetration values is flawed. What the Navweaps table lists as deck armor penetration (i.e. 6.65" at 30000 yards) represents the amount of horizontal armor that the shell will penetrate. In other words, it has already taken into account the fact that the shell will be striking the plate at an angle. Now, the listed belt armor penetration value (i.e. 14.97" at 30000 yards) represents how much vertical armor it will penetrate, and for that you do need to take into account the belt armor's inclination angle from the vertical.

 

Now, I will agree that the Iowa's current citadel representation is more realistic than, say, the North Carolina and majority of other battleships. If the game wants more "realism", then all battleships should have citadels similar to the Iowa. The problem is that such a change would promote an even greater amount of static bow-on gameplay, as you've pointed out. For the sake of gameplay, I think lowering it for the Iowa, Montana, etc. is the better option.

 

but changing pen values helps mroe then BBs but all ships. You know how much CA Captains hate the  instantr death they get. that won't happen so easily withthe change in pen values.

dngrcnnn #58 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:53 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,594
  • Member since:
    07-27-2015

I hope they don't change the Iowa armor scheme. It's the most fun ship in the game.

 

To one shot.



Snaekolf #59 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:53 AM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 37
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Great vid!  Thanks for pointing out a real problem. I've always felt like WoWS played like the OK Corral being fought using M249 SAWs. LOL  Still love it, but yeah...  

My Current Top 5: Scharnhorst, Yugumo, New Orleans, Tashkent, Edinburgh

 


Chobittsu #60 Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:54 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,279
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

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.

 

He's only a gamer, sure... but are YOU a WW2 naval architect?

 

View PostAdmiralQ, on 16 March 2017 - 02:42 AM, said:

 

nope I am right. the 18.1 are  big but have a lower velcoity then the iowa's 16 inch. then at in Iowa's  better accuracy that would help the  Yamato gusy sau the Yamao would have the edge in good weather and Iowa the edge in bad weather.


The good weather/bad weather argument is pretty plausible. The Yamato would cause more damage to the lighter and thinner Iowa, however, Iowa would be able to manage the damage better than her Japanese counterpart.
In the theoretical 1v1 duel, Yamato would be able to dish out the damage and tank the hits, but Iowa's damage control would very likely be able to keep pace to make up for the lesser armour.

But, again, this is a battle that will never happen, and because of American codebreaking and avoiding places Yamato was unless they had a massive advantage (EG, more planes than were used at the entire battle of Pearl Harbor to take on far less ships) like the plaque... it never did happen.
It's a discussion that has happened so often that I need an aspirin...


Edited by Chobittsu, 16 March 2017 - 08:03 AM.


CorgiFleet_33 - Dec 18, 2016    -    Corgi_Fleet_71 - Feb 17, 2017






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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users