Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'italian navy'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Programs Corner
  • Feedback and Support
    • Support
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Clan and Divisions Hub
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 2 results

  1. Hi Where are all the Italian navy collection ribbons? How are we to finish the collection if nothing is being given? Even when I complete all the tasks there are still no collection ribbons being given?
  2. TheDgamesD

    The Roma Problem

    This is a forum post to go in-depth about every single issue I have found with the Roma as it stands currently in-game, be it either historical discrepancies, or just all around major flaws with her in her current state, that absolutely require some attention on Wargaming's end. Let's get the easiest thing out of the way first: Her camouflage. As it currently stands in-game it's obvious they based her in-game permanent camouflage on her historical one, and good on them for almost getting it right... Almost. You see they practically nailed it on it's head when it comes to her camouflage and I'm happy to say that the only thing they screwed up.. was her primary turrets. You see, in-game Roma's turrets all have the same design camouflage-wise, when historically this was not the case. In-game all her turrets mimick that of her historical Foremost turret, when it really should have each turrets individual "dazzle" design. For me it wouldn't be as much of an issue if the design's of the turrets camouflage historically weren't so drastically/noticeably different: what I'm saying is for wargaming to fix and correct this error on Roma. Now we move from the Aesthetics into the area of gameplay-vs-history. In-game Roma has by far the worst dispersion/accuracy of every battleship at her tier km for km. As it might not seem that bad at a glance when compared to her counterparts: For example here are two of the most inaccurate tech-tree battleships at tier VIII; Richelieu with a Max Firing Range of 25.27 km. and a Maximum Dispersion of 313 m. and 1.8 Sigma, and Bismarck with a Maximum Firing Range of 21.21 km. and a Maximum Dispersion of 273 m and a Sigma of 1.8, And Roma has a Maximum Firing Range of 18.12 km. and a Maximum Dispersion of 243 m. and a Sigma of 1.8. Although there may be no immediate issue with these numbers keep in mind Maximum dispersion is dispersion at the very extreme/limit of your firing range, and doesn't give us a clear comparison on a Km-by-Km scale. To do so I have to apply some easy math, which results in: Roma has a 13.4105960265m/km dispersion ratio Bismarck has a 12.8712871287m/km dispersion ratio Richelieu has a 12.3862287297m/km dispersion ratio North Carolina has a 11.6509028375m/km dispersion ratio Amagi has a 11.4185110664m/km dispersion ratio Now with this information, we can not only more easily and clearly see the actual difference in dispersion between ships, but in a way it can be easily measured and compared on equal terms. being able to multiply the ratio by any given distance to comparatively see how their max dispersions would compare. And with this in mind its clear to see Roma has the worst dispersion at her tier Roma's maximum range makes no sense, given the historical context that her guns (the Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 ) had the longest range of any rifles ever mounted on a battleship, the 884.8 kg AP rounds able to reach 42.8 km at the maximum elevation of +36º.This out-ranged the 46cm/45 Type 94 of the Yamato-class by almost 800 meters, and the 16"/50 Mk.7 of the Iowa-class by over 4000 meters. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannone_da_381/50_Ansaldo_M1934) And as such giving the battleship that actually held the record for having the longest ranged guns on a battleship the shortest range in her tier, is not only insulting, but a slap in the face of her legacy and title, and makes absolutely zero sense. Of course, I'm not asking them to make it her historical 42.8km range, but something more reflective of her title instead of her nonsensical range as it stands currently in-game. This wouldn't be so bad if they didn't give you the drawback of bad dispersion because of "the high velocity", which the Littorio Class' case wouldn't really make sense historically because it actually wasn't the high velocity of the guns that were the cause of the class sometimes suffering from bad accuracy, rather it was figured out during postwar trials of remaining ammunition for Littorio and Vittorio Veneto's Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 guns, they checked for compliance with design specifications on mass, dimensions, and assembly and through these inspections it was found an overwhelming majority failed inspection in some form or another. As such the glaring disparity of the gun's performance during Vittorio Veneto suffered from wildly misplaced groups during her Guado encounter on the 28th March 1941, and at 24,000 yards only scored one near miss against RN cruisers, during 25 minutes of firing, when compared to Littorio's Involvement during the first battle of Sirte Gulf, in which using only one of her primary turrets, starting from a range of 35,000 yards (Source; Robert O. Dulin & William H. Garzke: Battleships Axis and Neutral Battleships of WWII, page 397) Littorio using her fire control director system was able to determine the destroyers range and speed, train the main battery on target, and deliver accurate salvos against the British Destroyers causing splinter damage to them, and it wasn't just a lucky opening shot like with Bismarck vs Hood, As it was repeated on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th salvos fired whilst being over 35,000 yards away, delivering so much accurate fire at the british destroyers, who were, mind you, traveling at over 30knts, with a shell travel time to target of aprx 65 seconds. Forcing the British to withdraw. In her current state, the properties of her gun's are that of an infuriating paradoxical situation, I.E. She has very high velocity that would make her great for reaching out and hitting targets at 20km quickly, and having more than enough penetration to hurt them at that range effectively due to the relatively low arcs of the shells when compared to her counterparts, and the very high penetration values thanks again to her high velocity. Yet don't be fooled as you can't ever make proper use of that high velocity due to her atrocious dispersion ratio, sigma nerfed from 1.9 in testing to 1.8 (WG please buff it back to 1.9, It would make her almost tolerable to play.), and the shortest maximum firing range at her tier, Which don't be fooled, the spotter plane wont fix, as if you barely manage to land 2/9 hits at 15km good luck hitting anything at 20-23km. So ok, you just gotta get in close and use her as a brawler then right? WRONG. Her penetration values are so ludicrously high that at close range/sub-10km you'll constantly either overpen every cruiser you look at (besides RN.. most of the time) due to the shell entering in with such high velocity it just punches straight through the ships hull, sure you'll do much better against more armored enemy battleships but even then, I've had matches where at distances of less than 10km, firing at a fully broadside Grosser Kurfurst, and had every single shell miss, just falling everywhere around the giant battleship except where I aimed. That's without the fact your like a Yamato in that you can't get close to your targets like a brawler since your side armor is so vulnerable to getting citadeled, not just at close range, but any range, which shouldn't be the case as the almost dual-turtleback internal splinter plates are completely removed, and all of the other staggered armor placements, that was designed to lessen the shells penetration as it penetrated a layer to the next (aka Decapping plates) are just mashed together into two values; the belt armor, and citadel armor, which ruins the entire point of her simplistically-elaborate armor layout. Which absolutely needs to be corrected asap. Sure you can stay bow-in and it lessens the pain of her armor, as her bow is quite well-angled, and has increased armor on the bow "cheeks" (referencing the same location as Yamato's weakpoint that allows other Yamato's to citadel them when angled) which I won't deny is nice, but far from enough to make up for everything else. Sure she has very fast turning turrets unlike that of Yamato whom I've been comparing Roma to, and Although it makes her comfortable to change targets quickly at close range, you shouldn't ever be making use of it that way because of her atrocious side armor in-game. Which has left her feeling as though she has a mashup of drastically opposing playstyles, yet inheriting all the negative sides of both, and those same negatives prevent her from properly performing any of those playstyles without feeling so heavily crippled, and as if your constantly being punished: You have high-velocity shells, but not the range to go with it, (not to mention insultingly short range for you know, mounting the guns that held the record for the longest ranged guns ever mounted on a battleship.) You have short maximum range, which forces you to get close to your enemies and usually being forced to resort to brawling, but you don't have your historical double-turtleback/Staggered armor scheme to be able to withstand some hits like other brawling battleships like Bismarck and Tirpitz. Instead, if anything gets your side that isn't a destroyer you can practically kiss half your health goodbye, if not all of it since your citadel is so easy to hit. Since you have 381mm guns you can't overmatch some/most heavy cruisers bows like that of Des Moines, or any other 27mm+ armored bow ship, unlike most of your counterparts, yet you don't get the Improved reload time like that of Bismarck or Tirpitz to compensate for having smaller caliber guns (Richelieu makes sense as she has all 8 of her guns situated in two turrets in her bow). While you may jump to conclude this is due to her having triple turrets, that doesn't make sense, as Roma had a very elaborate and efficient loading system, that even American naval staff after the war regarded as more advanced than the loading system used aboard the Iowa class. I'm not asking for her to have Bismarck/Tirpitz's 26 second reload but more like Dunkerque and Monarch's 28 second reload. Roma's Loading system (I apologize as the audio is in Italian but the visual 3D breakdown of her entire system is more than enough to comprehend whats going on.) Also, I find the fact she carries High Explosive rounds for her main battery in-game quite puzzling, as she never once carried nor used any historically, nor did any ship that used the Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 ever carry or use any HE. While and although an HE shell was developed and tested it was thought that the Nose Fuse was too sensitive, and as such was never used. Rather they carried two separate types of Armor Piercing: AP rounds called "Palla" or "Proiettile Perforante", and Semi-AP rounds called "Granata Perforante". What I'd like, and doubt I'd see, is the removal of HE from Roma and it being replaced with a second AP shot similar to that of the British Light Cruisers. Details on the shells themselves (via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannone_da_381/50_Ansaldo_M1934): "AP: The primary armor-piercing round, in Italian these rounds were known as "Palla" (literally; "ball") or "Proiettile Perforante" (Piercing Shot"). They were heavy for their caliber at 884.8 kg (1,951 lb), with a small bursting charge of only 10.16 kg TNT (1.15%). The shells were made of nickel-chrome steel, with a steel cap and a Silumin ballistic cap. The total length was 170 cm (67 in), or 4.46 calibers. SAP: A semi armor-piercing round named "Granata Perforante" ("Piercing Shell") designed for use against lightly armored targets such as cruisers and destroyers. They were lighter than the AP shells with a greater bursting charge (3.57%) and had a significantly lesser penetrative ability. During the war, they showed an unfortunate tendency to fuse later than they had been set to, which lead to over-penetrations of their targets. HE: High explosive shells, these weighed only 774 kilograms (1,710 lb). Although designed and tested for these guns, they were never actually used aboard any of the ships that mounted these guns. The nose fuse was thought to be too sensitive." "The 381 mm guns had a maximum elevation of 35 degrees, which allowed them to engage targets out to 42,260 m (138,650 ft). The guns fired a 885 kg (1,951 lb) armor-piercing (AP) shell at a muzzle velocity of 870 meters per second (2,900 ft/s). However, this was reduced to 850 m/s (2,800 ft/s) in order to reduce dispersion and increase barrel service life. The 824.3 kg (1,817 lb) semi-armor piercing shells formed the secondary ammunition of the 381mm/50, which had a 29.51 kg (65.1 lb) bursting charge. Although high explosive shells weighing 774 kg (1,706 lb) were developed for the 381 mm guns, they never saw service on the Littorio-class. Their ammunition load was 495 AP shells and 171 SAP shells, with 4,320 propellant charges (666 rounds total, or 74 rounds per gun split 55 AP & 19 SAP)" Seriously after playing 192 battles as of writing this, (check for yourself here: https://na.wows-numbers.com/player/1006533382,TheDgamesD/) I can no longer ignore these glaring issues, Wargaming needs to address them, and severely fix this ship. I don't want to trade her in, I don't want a refund. I want a ship worthy of the title Roma, for her to actually be good, and unreliant on such temperamental and infuriating luck constantly.
×