Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'citadel'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 75 results

  1. Respect for Emerald Drivers

    I haven't played the British cruiser line so my impressions of it have been what I've seen in game. I knew they had a reputation for being squishy but I don't think I fully appreciated how squishy squishy could be. I just had a match where I was in my Myoko and was firing at an Emerald. One of my salvo's of HE ended up citadeling the Emerald. My jaw nearly dropped. What drunked cockney shipwright dreamed up this floating pinata!? Anyway please let me extend my respect and condolences for all who have suffered through such misery. Your sacrifice is appreciated.
  2. The Most Roma Match Ever

    I want to preface by saying that I quite enjoy the Roma. When she performs, she REALLY performs. However, because she's so temperamental, when she sucks, she REALLY sucks
  3. Apparently a well placed round can. I would have thought only AP could do it.
  4. Thought -- Good... Finished that one off with one to spare using the Lexington with AP bombs.... NOT
  5. Citadelling Battleships in Cruisers

    Right now, my highest tier cruiser is the New Orleans at tier 8, and while I'm somewhat ashamed to admit it, I think I underutilize cruiser AP against battleships a lot (the exception would be Cleveland and the British cruisers, only because of the high rate of fire and British's lack of HE) So I've watched all those videos of Moskvas and Henri IVs citadelling Yamatos, Iowas, etc. Yet I've tried it with New Orleans in the training room (someone once told me in chat that New Orleans can citadel Iowa/Yamato at single digit range) and failed to get any citadels. Could someone compile a list of which cruisers can citadel which battleships? I prefer not to be fruitlessly firing and shattering HE at 7 km while the battleship casually lines up an AP salvo to my citadel.
  6. A great game in my Baltimore on North. The 197k damage was ok but ... 21 citadels. This is what happens when the enemy comes around the island one by one by one by one. The torp beats at the end were epic, too. Luckily, she's skinny enough to avoid full Neptune volley from 6 km. 20180327_001115_PASC017-Baltimore-1944_15_NE_north.wowsreplay
  7. Underwater Citadel Penetrations

    So, we do have an increased chance of penetrating certain citadels since the last patch dropped. I kind of feel like this is a good thing, what say you?
  8. Here are some citadel hits on several of the high tier battleships, take what you will from it First the North Carolina: North Carolina Notes: This ship has a weak point in the middle of it's citadel box of 50mm right were I'm aiming at this distance is where I got most my citadels Overall this ship was the hardest to citadel. GKurfurst: Gkurfurst Notes: This ship has a turtle back that makes it nearly impossible to citadel under normal circumstances. Around 12 km Is where I found some very rare citadel hits 13 - 14 km is where I got the bulk of citadel hits, sometimes 2-3 in the same salvo Overall, I found this ship surprisingly easy to citadel, even more so than the republique (though it may be luck and RNG). I've even had a double citadel in a Random battle using this new found knowledge recently. Republique: Republique Notes: From the armor viewer, this thing has a turtle back of sorts similar to the Gkurfurst above. In my testing this ship sits about a medium difficulty to citadel. Iowa: Iowa Notes: I noticed it doesn't have the same weakness that the North Carolina, but the citadel box isn't thick enough to shatter shells. Somehow, I found it easier to hit than the North Carolina but harder than the Republique. I put this one at a medium difficulty.
  9. Citadel questions

    I need to start getting citadels for upcoming challenges and missions. I never have focused on cits. I have the Texas, Omaha, Cleveland and Pensacola. Those are my ships best suited for cits. I am best at playing the Omaha but normally fire HE. Her AP is not powerful enough to breech most armor. Suggestions or tips? Icy
  10. What's up with the very [edited]end of a Kutozov? How many times have you thought you successfully dodged a volley and have great angling only to see one little random shell catch the very tip of your stern and do massive damage. I experience this often in the Kuto and it seems unique to this ship. Anyone else notice this? I am talking about the very tip of the [edited]end now.
  11. Foreword: I am operating under the assumption that shell normalization affects the exit trajectory after a non-overmatching penetration. If it's demonstrated that this isn't the case in WOWS, then disregard what I've written here. Over all the experience I've had shooting Iowas and Missouris, there feels like a difference in terms consistency and reliability in hitting their citadels, even though their citadel heights are identical, i.e. right at the waterline. Namely, the Iowa feels moderately easier to citadel than the Missouri, enough to be noticeable. I strongly suspect that the 38 mm hull plate on the Missouri (versus 25 mm on Iowa) is responsible for this, due to shell normalization. Let me try to illustrate this below. To my understanding, WOWS penetration mechanics is such that any shell that doesn't penetrate via overmatch has its exit obliquity reduced by a small angle; I believe this is what the game refers to as "normalization" and the specific angle is generally by shell caliber. For instance, the 406 mm shells have a normalization angle of 6 degrees, meaning that if the shell strikes a plate with 20 degrees obliquity, in other words, 20 degrees from the normal (or perpendicular) vector, then (if the shell doesn't overmatch the plate) upon impact the trajectory of the shell will be changed such that it exits with 14 degrees obliquity. The following diagram visually illustrates what I mean. What does this mean? The 38 mm lower hull plate (which is historically accurate) on the Missouri means that no gun in the game can overmatch that plate, so every shell that penetrates it will have its trajectory altered by the normalization angle. Conversely, the Iowa's 25 mm lower hull plate is overmatched by nearly every battleship in its matchmaking spread, so shells that penetrate that plate won't have its trajectory altered. This means that shells striking slightly above the waterline are less likely to plunge into Missouri's citadel compared to the Iowa's. I believe it's normalization that makes the Missouri moderately more difficult to citadel than the Iowa; remember, a shell penetrating the Missouri's belt is "normalized" twice, once through the outer hull plate and again through the belt (whereas it's only "normalized" once through the main belt on the Iowa), which reduces the shell plunge by 12 degrees, a fairly substantial amount. In my opinion, this makes the Missouri's broadside moderately tankier than the Iowa's. Well, so what Mr. Fart? I'm sure many here are aware of my pro-USN leanings (hey, I'm proud of my country), but everything I've posted, whether it's historical commentary or gameplay balancing, draws from facts and statistics, and I try to remain as objective as I can to the best of my knowledge in my analysis (and I'm willing to change my views when given sufficient and convincing evidence). I'm also well aware that the need for gameplay balance rightfully takes precedence over historical accuracy in a situation where the two are incompatible. With that being said, I think right now the Missouri is unduly tanky for how much firepower and utility she has. Sure, even with the Missouri's benefit of double normalization compared to the Iowa's single normalization, the Missouri is still easier to citadel than the FDG and Lion (the latter of which should have parts of its citadel raised), but I still think that it's too difficult to properly punish a Missouri for making a mistake or recklessly showing broadside. I'm not advocating a return of the old skyscraper citadel, but I do feel that the double normalization and current citadel on the Missouri makes it a tad too forgiving, whereas I think the Iowa strikes the right balance in terms of how difficult it is to citadel. So here's my proposal for the Missouri: the volume under the splinter deck over the length of the machinery spaces counts towards the citadel volume. This is in contrast with the current Missouri citadel height that only includes the volume under the third deck/first platform. My proposal is somewhat similar to what I've been proposing for the British battleships to make their citadels more accessible, though here it actually includes a bit more volume lengthwise, but I think it's reasonable for the Missouri (and possibly Montana). The resulting citadel height would look like this, with the bottom image showing the proposed cross sections over the machinery spaces with uptakes and other items under the splinter deck included; note that even the proposed raised portions are still not as high as the original Iowa/Missouri citadel, and it's only half as long. Green - current citadel Orange - proposed raised section Red - old citadel Note how far the proposed sections are inboard; this should ensure that a well-angled Missouri is less likely to be hit in those areas compared to one that's fully broadside. I believe this change would be beneficial for game balancing; those who play the Missouri well and angle should not feel much difference, while those who sail broadside recklessly are more likely to take the consequences. I think it's at least worthwhile for WG to test this out to see what difference it makes. Now, I know that WG has a policy of not "nerfing" premiums, but here I think the argument can be made that since the initial citadel lowering wasn't one of the advertised features, and the Missouri itself doesn't necessarily have to be bought with real money, adjusting the lowering hopefully should avoid any legal troubles. @Sub_Octavian @ArdRaeiss
  12. Guys I started this topic because I am new in game, just with an lvl 4 American battleship, and I wanna know how to shoot all the bullets at once , doing this I get to take their citadels and get hit kill
  13. Simply put, the citadel height of the King George V is currently modeled wrong, as shown below. While it is true that the ship's powder magazines and shell rooms are located quite deep and a fair bit below the waterline, the same can't be said for the machinery spaces. Here is the current in-game KGV citadel, with the citadel roof all sitting at one level. Here is reproduction of a picture of the King George V's boiler room (frame 200) from National Maritime Museum. The engine and especially boiler rooms sit taller than the magazines. In fact, the boiler room height is one deck higher than the engine rooms, and poke above the waterline. The turbine/engine rooms sits a bit lower than the boiler rooms, just below waterline level, but still higher than the magazines. EDIT: Garzke and Dulin 28" draft line in their diagram is too high and incorrect. I've provided a primary source drawing on the KGV boiler room section below. As a result, the KGV citadel height should really look something like this. Here's the arrangement for the Lion. This arrangement should apply to the King George V, Monarch, and Lion. The Monarch's hull is nearly identical to the KGV, so naturally it should share the citadel characteristics, while the in-game Lion is the 1938 design, which duplicated the machinery arrangement of the KGV. In game, I think this is a way to better balance the British battleships. They are currently unduly forgiving of showing broadside, and they are the most difficult ships to citadel after the German battleships. Given that one of WG's advertised weaknesses of the British tier 7+ battleship is their more vulnerable broadside, their citadel should be raised and adjusted along these lines to actually reflect that. As a side note, I would also advocate for a simultaneous toning down of KGV's HE, while raising her weather deck to 32 mm. As others have mentioned, this, as well as the citadel adjustment, raises the skill ceiling. Broadside would be more punishing while angling would be more effective. EDIT: @Sub_Octavian, @Jazzyblaster, @WolfofWarship. Hopefully pinging some WG staff can bring more attention to this.
  14. This change really needs to be undone. This is up near the top of the list of the dumbest changes to the game. It has completely ruined fighting Iowa / Montana. This allows complete potatoes to just sail full broadside and ignore what should be massive damage. Instead, they only take 20-30k damage, when it should be 50-60k+ damage. So many times now I have been in a situation where an enemy Montana lived even though I should have deleted him. A full Montana salvo and I only do 20-30k damage against a full broadside battleship beyond dumb. If players are going to make low tier mistakes in high tier ships, they need to be punished for it. The citadel change removed even more skill from the equation, as it gives potatoes a more even ground against skilled players. The "buff" to Montana's citadel needs to go.
  15. Hi, This topic is specific to hot cruiser on cruiser action at close range. In my Moskva, I've had good success hitting the citadel on German cruisers at range >10km; however, at close range my volleys have been disappointing. I realize German cruisers have turtle back, so if the shells are not plunging, then they will not likely penetrate into the citadel. Given this, where should I aim to maximize damage? Keep in mind the Moskva has very punchy 220mm guns with strong AP. Should I adopt the same strategy used against BB's and aim for the armor belt? Is it realistic to find a citadel through the barbettes under the turrets? Help me Obi Wan Kenobi. You are my only hope...
  16. Seriously, cruiser captains. Keep doing this. jackpot.mp4
  17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeeIJPHfcsY&t=2782s A couple of days ago a salvo from my Bismarck rolled for over 50k damage on the mostly flat and above water portion of a Yamato's citadel at relative close range with 4 citadels and 2 normal penetrations. It was a surprise as I would assume the Yamato's citadel is essentially immune to penetration by a 15 incher. How much luck and RNG were in my favor when this happened? It also made me wonder why the Yamato has a above water citadel in game and if it's historically accurate. I recall that the Iowa and Montana also had chunks of their citadel above water until fairly recently and used to get freakish citadels regularly... Is this something that's based on historical blueprints and diagrams or more of a flexible parameter that can be adjusted depending on in game performance? Recently I also found out the hard way that when my Ranger is discovered, it essentially have a very short shelf life and would take extreme damage from everything. it's too slow to really run away, and its hull and superstructure is apparently so thin skinned that HE will pen; and since for some reason it has a raised citadel, HE can also citadel it. Is there even any legitimate reason to designate that part of the ship's hull citadel? As I look more into this, I found out that the Midway also has a above water citadel armor belt, which for some reason is designated as just a regular armor belt of the same thickness when it's below water. Is this even something that corresponds to the design of the actual ship or just a thing to balance a ship in game? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
  18. So the question of the day is: can a Minotaur citadel a Montana? The answer is... Btw, I'd already seen and targeted the Monty before firing, even though the first pic seems to be me firing into nowhere
  19. I had to do something special with it...
  20. Iowa citadel lowering thoughts

    I've had time to mess around with the Iowa for quite a few matches in the 0.6.6 PTS to get a better feel for the citadel lowering compared to what it is currently. I saw some vocal voices on both reddit and on this forum that apparently this citadel lowering is a "massive buff" that is "completely unnecessary" and will make the Iowa overpowered. Or that this change is meant to cater to USN mouthbreathers and negatively affect gameplay. So here's the new Iowa citadel. As you can see, the citadel is now at the waterline level, so basically how the NC and Alabama currently is like. Also, the deck over the magazines is 25 mm, which can be overmatched by almost every battleship gun at Tier 7+. Incidentally the Alabama should also have a 25 mm deck over the magazines instead of the current 38 mm. Anyways, here are my observations from gameplay and some training room testing. Since shells plunge, at 12 km or more the citadel lowering makes absolutely no difference in gameplay difference. Even at closer ranges, aiming at the waterline still results is fairly reliable citadels, which is not surprising since this buff basically made the Iowa as "tanky" as the NC when side on. Only at very close ranges of 5 km or less do I notice a difference, and now it's difficult to outright delete Iowas at point blank range. The biggest difference is facing heavy cruisers, as their guns don't have the caliber to overmatch the 19-25 mm deck above the magazines and machinery. They'll have to aim at the waterline to hope for citadels. So how does the gameplay for the Iowa change from this citadel lowering? Well, I can tell you that if you're sucking at the Iowa, then this buff most likely won't be of much help. Showing broadside will still result in you taking massive damage even at medium ranges, and I'd say the improvement in survivability for the average potato is marginal to modest at best. Those who show broadside will still struggle. However, the biggest benefit of this change will be for the more aggressive (and probably the more competent) Iowa players who aren't afraid to take her into medium-to-close range and brawl a bit. I definitely noticed an improvement in survivability when up close, though it's hardly game changing. Although dueling another Iowa like on Yuro's video won't work as reliably now, which personally is a bit of a shame since I thought it was pretty fun to do even if it's pretty rare. But honestly, in the end this citadel lowering doesn't fundamentally change the Iowa, she still plays almost the exact same as before, and whatever worked against her before still works now, except at very close ranges. So for people who are crying foul about this change or upset that it's going to be unbalanced, I'm just not seeing that. So, potatoes showing broadside will still get punished heavily and see very little benefit, while aggressive players will enjoy it the most and can be more flexible. In other words, decent players who push forward and play aggressively will see the most benefit. Overall not a big change and doesn't make the Iowa that much different. I bet potatoes will still complain about getting deleted after this citadel lowering. Say I say this is an overall good change. Good day.
  21. this kind of thing won't happen after 0.6.6 drop. Oh well, but i do have Iowa too, gotta enjoy it anyway.
  22. Before I answer the main question, whether the Mo is as bad as they say, I want to get another topic out of the way: the citadel buffs the US bbs are getting. As a Mizzo owner, I'm against it. Why? Because it removes a way to punish noobs. I like deleting Iowas in my Mizzo as they just broadside me. At the same time, I like baiting people to shoot my juicy broadside in the hopes of multi-citadeling me while I bounce their shells and laugh. Though the citadel-lowering will lower the skill floor, I don't believe this will cause the noobs who bow camp all day to actually start moving and contributing. They'll camp and complain while ignoring the real way to play Mizzo; using a stealth build to sneak up on cruisers and give them a nice helping of citadels (12.2km? concealment is incredibly useful, don't you know?). If they're gonna buff the US bbs, buff their agility or concealment; let them be real battlecruisers/fast bbs. Buff their speed, rudder shift, acceleration, or concealment. The Iowa-class and Montana should give up armor for their speed, and if a buff is necessary, I'd rather they buff the speed to 34 or 35 knots. Failing that, maybe add engine boost to them (standard version found on dds). Or buff the rudder by 2-3 secs, increase the acceleration to help keep more speed in a turn, or lower the concealment by 1-2km. If that increases their performance too much, nerf their range by 5km or something. Shooting at anything over 18km is a lottery anyways. And failing that, buff the torpedo protection. It doesn't have to be Alabama levels, but would 35-40% torp protection really hurt? Now on to the main topic: is Missouri that bad. Short answer: no. Long answer: It depends on your playstyle. If you love bow camping, if your way to play a bb is to throw it in reverse all the time, every time, great! You'll hate Mo. In that regard, she's nothing but an inferior version of Yammy that makes questionably better credits (assuming said Yammy has prem camo). And even then, you're playing Yammy wrong. If you like assassinating people from the shadows then fading to nothingness, you'll love Mo to bits. You'll fire your guns, delete a cruiser, then vanish. Rinse and repeat. I'm still working on this playstyle myself, but it's way more fun than bow-camping, because you get to use all your guns and kite instead of having to withstand a barrage of he and ap. You'll also be able to go full-speed ahead to flee if things aren't looking too well, whereas if you're bow on in reverse, you'll get a third of your max speed at best. By fading away, you're also less likely to be focused, letting you deal more damage. By sneaking up on ships, you get the first say and can dictate the engagement. Warning: you have to be patient. This is where the playstyle part comes in. If you're the impatient type, you may struggle with this. It's nice to shoot as soon as your guns are loaded, but that angled ship might turn and angle against another, visible threat, unaware that you're there. Then you can pounce, and rip a nice 20k+ salvo into their side (bonus if a cruiser). I find that as long as I don't go full potato and charge the enemy or overextend (it's so easy to do it cuz she's so fast), I end up with nice dmg totals which can easily head north of 100k. And this is while I spend a significant amount of time shooting cruisers too. As to my build, I run Main Battery Mod 1 (only reasonable choice, though a case could be made for aa mod), AA Mod 2 (only other real choice is range mod, but with 23km base range, any further is pointless), main battery accuracy mod (cuz I like my nukes to be accurate), Dmg Control Mod 1 (all are useless, this one less so), Dmg Control Mod 2 (you're a bb, so cruisers will he spam you), and finally Concealment Mod (cuz I like sneaking up on said cruisers). Captain skills are pretty basic, since I have an 11 pt cap. Priority Target (let's you know when to get the hell outta dodge), AR (self-explanatory), BoS (to reduce fire chance even more), and Concealment Expert (12.2 km here I come!). Once I get to 12, I'll be taking EM (self-explanatory). 13+, there are less obviously useful choices. I'm debating speccing for aa with aft and bft or doing a partial spec with aft and vigilance. As to why I don't use SI, it's because I rarely need the extra heal; that and I run prem heal. 4 heals is plenty, and I use prem mainly for the reduced cooldown. The only ships that would need the 5th charge (prem and SI) on even a semi-regular basis would be German bbs (who run secondary builds anyways), but that's for another time. So there you have it. Feel free to agree or disagree with me in the comments. Though if you do disagree, at least say why. I like to think that I'm open to discussion, and if you have any helpful advice or tips, tell me! I'd love to know how to improve my playstyle.
  23. Original RU Forum link: http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?/topic/84011-%D0%B0%D0%BF-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B/page__p__3398767#entry3398767 Q. There were rumors that in 0.6.4 Montana citadel would not be so high, so that it is not so easily beaten. Is this true? A. The truth is that we are considering such an opportunity, but it is certainly not in 0.6.4.
  24. The C in CA and CL stands for citadel rite? Ok. Now that that's done, does anyone wanna talk about what frigates and PT boats are? =) Would it be possible for us to get these?