Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'math'.

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
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 6 results

  1. Ok before i show the math problem, I just want to say im a new player not a troll account. ok here is my question: johny is reciting the number pi. He is very interested so he decides to take the 75th number of pi (not 6), divide it by 4, mulitoly it bye 3. That number will equal x. he squares x than takes the square root and adds one to so it. he x and adds it into the equation F(x)=9x²•(7x+2) -290 he then subtracts 100. then takes the square root of that number. than adds 3. and last he divides by 2 and squares it. What number does he get? I know the answer to this one Wait how do you get it on creative content
  2. Stun_Crazy


  3. xFr3akShowx

    New Event SPOILER

    Just figured out something cool for everyone on the event, with no effort or any extra points being made so fully free... Total time left in the event is 38,580 minutes, you gain 131 points/minute so multiply the two and you get 5,053,980 points, each bar in the ship builder is equal to 350K exp so divide the 5mil by 350k and you get 14.44 which translates into bars. So now we know a free player will earn Stage 3 reward 2 with no effort on Puerto Rico.
  4. So, I'm going to say it straight here - there is no "TL;DR" for this beyond I do not like the rework or the way it's going for any of the classes and I think they should scrap it. This is going to be a ton of text, numbers, etc, and with the sheer number of things and how it all interconnects beyond maybe some small notes or quick paragraphs, no way that comes to mind to keep things organized AND address everything related to it without getting confusing and talking in circles, so there's a chance someone sees something, goes to point something out, and I've addressed somewhere further down. Because I'm covering everything - fighters, bombers, damage, skills, modernization's, even for a couple ship lines that don't yet exist, all of it. This may also be somewhat WiP after I post it up because it's a ton of stuff. Some of this (damage numbers) is stuff that if I somehow got the exact right numbers the first try we could theoretically, implement in days. Some are going to take a while or can be partially implemented (lower tier ships getting more AA from getting later hull upgrades - technically we can add the numbers now and the hulls later), some may just take out right time. But at this point, I feel it's better to deal with the devil we know than the devil we don't after playing in both rounds of testing and full intentions to play in the 3rd and any others as well if I'm not banned from it. Though I also want people to remember as they read through this is more of a ground work to rebuild on - and generally when it came to numbers I went lower because it is usually easier to try and buff something that's weaker than nerf something that's stronger. And that were Wargaming to look at this and actually use it would still require testing by the community (sorry Wargaming, but you've kinda lost my faith in your own capabilities over the last year especially on CV's when it comes to testing in-house) to see what tweaks it would need in which directions. So, lets start with one of the bigger CV vs CV issues - FIGHTERS This one thing makes up most of the skill gap and causes the most issues - has since Alpha. It essentially comes down to two issues, Strafing and national fighter balance. Simply put - strafing's DPS boost is too high, resulting in planes being wiped from the sky in the blink of an eye. This one is arguably the easier fix in simply removing the DPS boost, and making it that it applies it's normal DPS to all groups in it's path. This means instead of flying out and deleting the enemy fighters and bombers with the press of a button. To get the most out of strafe on bombers, you have to know when to use it so as to scatter the bombers at the right so they are less effective as they attack. Barring the addition of a "timer" that after being strafed it takes x seconds for the groups to "reform" and have max accuracy again. In terms of fighter vs fighter, as I know "skill" will be a concern as many argue he current system requires it - it will be more about aiding in picking how and when you engage, as well as with exit strafe, the ability to disengage and try to fight more on your terms. With the changes needed to balance out fighters better, some will likely be best used with a more "hit and run style" either engaging normally and then disengaging before ammo runs out or using strafe (which applies the same damage as clicking) to attack the planes and go past them to try and avoid the engagement directly. Where as others may prefer to try and just engage normally. More on that below. Part of this whole thing is sorting out DPS. As is USN has higher DPS overall, even when less per plane, in some cases as much or more speed, way more ammo, and less DPS drop off from losses vs IJN. The initial chance to down an IJN plane is sometimes 5-10% higher meaning 1 on 1, USN typically wins with fighter engagements. A similar example of this issue is GZ, that does to USN fighter groups what USN does to IJN. Below are the numbers I would use for HP and DPS, which unlike some of the others in this thread I used what Wargaming has as a basis, so I'm a little less sure on these ones and would certainly need testing. Tier/Nation USN (6 planes) IJN (4 planes) UK (5 planes) GER (8 planes) 3 21 DPS, 600 HP x 23 DPS, 650 HP x 4 23 DPS, 900 HP 25 DPS, 750 HP 28 DPS, 880 HP x 5 FM-2: 29 DPS, 1100 HP F4F-4: 31 DPS, 1100 HP 36 DPS, 960 HP 38 DPS, 1080 HP 22 DPS, 1110 HP 6 33 DPS, 1380 HP A6M2: 46 DPS, 1210 HP A6M5: 55 DPS, 1280 HP 42 DPS, 1300 HP 25 DPS, 1340 HP 7 35 DPS, 1560 HP 60 DPS, 1420 HP 47 DPS, 1500 HP 28 DPS, 1530 HP 8 38 DPS, 1700 HP 65 DPS, 1550 HP 50 DPS, 1600 HP 31 DPS, 1630 HP 9 40 DPS, 1910 HP 73 DPS, 1700 HP 53 DPS, 1800 HP 32/33 DPS, 1850 HP 10 43 DPS, 2100 HP 78 DPS,1850 HP 56 DPS, 1900 HP 35 DPS, 1900 HP Missing from here (because I was not making a 4th new table from scratch when I realized it) is tier 10 interceptors (Aka jets). I use the word Interceptor because unlike the last time they were in game, these would have for their tier reduced damage and HP, likely on par with the tier 9 planes, but that much more speed to try and catch bombers. These, and likely IJN possibly UK, would more likely prefer to use hit and run style tactics, With Jets being that they have speed, but lower damage/HP to engage and are at a disadvantage in a straight fight vs fighters, and IJN due to it's low ammo count, but higher damage. Which, without a full grasp o ammo's workings can't give exact numbers, but with IJN, UK, Germany and USN having the highest to lowest damage, ammo is essentially inverted with USN at the top having the most, followed by Germany, UK, and IJN. The chances to down planes are far closer as well, so, ideally, this would solve that portion of the balance issue, as well as with the strafing changes hopefully shift the focus off fighters a bit, but not out right remove skill and all. I'm sure everyone noticed 2 lines with 2 planes at a tier and are likely going "the hell?"- In the case of USN this is based on a simplifying of the aircraft at the tier, as well as the ship after it, or potentially. The FM-2 fits and is accurate to the Bogue, and pretty sure Independence. However, I would also propose Ranger being moved down a tier (like in the rework, but very different reasons) which between that, and transitions as they are regardless of the tier 6 ship, it's tier 5 instead would be the F4F, instead of the FM-2. Japan at tier 6 was partially a similar situation, but also a bit of difficulty keeping the A6M2 reigned in enough as a tier 6 at tier 5, but still go against the other tier 6's when getting to the next CV. So, yeah, cheated a bit by adding an upgraded A6M to research to go against the F6F. As to what the research line on fighters would be, it's in the spoiler below as It's not that important to the rest. That should cover the fighter portion. ATTACK PLANES AND LOADOUTS So one of the issues is sheer alpha strike, combined with manual drops with torps. On the opposite, DB's even when lined up perfectly can be an issue. And Manual drops aren't going away any time soon and are needed for some scenario's which leaves one option since can't really nerf accuracy on manual drops and solves multiple issues - nerf the alpha damage. And I'm not talking 10%, 15% but some very heavy nerfs. USN: 500 pound HE bomb - 2000 effective ~6000 listed, 1000 pound bomb - 2500 effective ~7500 listed, AP bombs - 2000, Torpedoes - 1000 damage. IJN: HE bombs - 1500 effective ~4500 listed, Torpedoes - 2000 damage. UK: Torpedoes - 2500, Bombs (if used) 1000, Rockets (unknown, preferred over bombs) Germany: HE SC250 - 1500 effective ~4500 listed, HE SC500 - 2000 effective ~6000 listed, Torps (where applicable) 1500, AP bombs - 1500 Listed refers to the numbers we see in port if the bomb were to hit the citadel which - doesn't actually happen with HE, the effective is the max it'll do when it pens. So, take something like AP Midway in it's current form, with AS, now at most it'd deal 40k damage to a Bismarck on sheer alpha if everything hits for max damage, plus any flooding. Is there a chance that these could still possibly deal heavy damage to cruisers and one shot DD's - yes. However most cruisers are equipped with DF AA to impede accuracy, and are more agile than BB's. And DD's if targeted are typically the most agile ships with a handful of exceptions. However, seeing as were giving up max damage per strike, we'd need some off sets. Top of the list, if possible, is aircraft speed, helping reduce the strike times a bit. Another things is on the HE DB's - Accuracy. Germany would remained untouched from the GZ model other than the SC500 having a slightly larger circle than that. IJN's would likely go a bit more like the current size of Kaga's, maybe a little bigger (but another tweak that it actually maybe hits, I'm guessing sigma). USN 1000 pound HE would shrink a bit, long enough to cover a cruiser end to end, maybe a bit of over hang, while the 500 pound USN bombs would would be that much smaller. So if the 1000 pound HE drop area is 220 m long by 100 meters wide, 500 pound bombs would be say 170 m x 80 m. Another thing would be the AS skill adding another TB to groups with damage low as it is (and changing the drop patterns slightly). Other things if needed. However, these are ground work numbers. If they are too low, we can raise them. I simply went off "what reduces damage to make it harder to one shot everything". But generally - I feel CV's damage wise should fall somewhere between Battleships and cruisers in how much they unload at a target, having maybe a bit higher alpha than a cruiser but still more reliant on DoT than a BB. As far as loadouts - it comes down to how many options we want on that front, but especially if we change the tier 6 CV's, everything after tier 5 should have at least 2 options - AS and strike. Whether or not we have variants of those, Wargaming or public opinion can figure that one out. But basically tiers 4 and 5 are all 1,x,x loadouts, tiers 6 and 7, possibly 8 are 2,x,x for AS and 1,x,x for strike, and tiers 9-10 is where you likely see 3,x,x AS and 2,x,x strike. Nation is irrelevant when it comes to the fighters portion of these you have the same number of groups, it's just a matter of do you have 1 less which if you choose that option - should be ready to adjust your tactics against same tier AS CV's. Aside from how fighters would hopefully work with their own flavour, the back bone of it is really in the strike force. Germany and UK would be the "Extremes" having one type of attack plane most likely. Maybe 1-2 of something smaller to break things up. But would be more specialized in targets -UK relying on torps in a chevron/arrow formation with spacing similar to IJN are really more geared at going after capital ships, with Germany meant to kinda pick on DD's with it's high accuracy bombs. Mean while USN and IJN are a bit of a mix albeit USN with it's higher attack plane HP and DB's is more a cruiser killer while IJN basically hunts targets of opportunity - ships with low AA from battle or just naturally low, but otherwise, leans a bit more capital ship like UK. With USN and Germany having between 3-6 squadrons, UK 3-7 and IJN 3-8 under their command. I'll also mention here that if possible - more option like how USN chooses AP or HE bombs would be nice. Maybe even change the types of targets it goes after. If possible I'd like to see rocket armed attack planes (beyond this reworks), Semi-AP bombs, depth charges if subs get added, things like that. Maybe on USN you can replace TB attack planes with rockets when you know DD's will be out in droves, running them and DB's to try and target them better. Or maybe SAP bombs in the IJN line shift it to a light cruiser hunter. You've said in video's Wargaming you want players to have options - these would actually afford CV players some. These could also be the basis of alternate lines such as the second IJN line has less TB focus, more DB focus and uses SAP, Bogue can do what it's best known for hunt subs if they are added, and you add rockets and depth charges, etc. Choices are good, ad if anything - this rework Wargaming proposes strips us of more than it gives. AA AND SHIP CHANGES So, one of the bigger issues with CV's is AA. While planes needed a rework both for history and gameplay reasons this rework created an inherent problem. Prior to it, tiers 4-6/7 used biplanes, and it wasn't till 7 or 8 you saw mono planes and before you knew it jets at at least tier 10 (I can't remember if the top planes on tier 9's were jets or not) and AA was balanced more appropriately for those both in damage numbers and what AA the ships had. Problem is that the plane rework added higher HP planes that were faster at low tiers, and slower planes with similar or lower HP at high tiers. Creating an issue that many low tier ships are pretty much sitting ducks, especially against +2 CV's, Other than newer lines that came after the change that default to some later builds, and a point where same tier or -2 CV's just have their planes shredded by AA. Ships around tiers 7/8 got caught kinda in the middle and as is are a case by case basis. My solution is to more or less Standardize AA. Step one, Ships tier 4-7 are upgraded to later hull models (if needed, something made up like on Bis) or at the very least, tiers 5-7. That means Wyoming upgraded to the standards of Arkansas by mid-late war. Otherwise I'd have to suggest essentially shielding tier 4 from carriers unless Tier 4 CV's were themselves shielded from tier 5 and higher battles (so plane HP can be kept low enough). Colorado essentially becoming Maryland, etc. I essentially have 2 goals with this. The first is directly leveling the AA playing field. You won't have the massive power gaps between tiers as most ships will have similar armaments, though still less than ships a tier above usually due to size and space, which means it still improves as you go up and creates a smoother transition through tiers, meaning with a similar transition in plane HP your going to have more consistent averages on chance per second to down a plane through a 5 tier spread. Lower tier ships will be threatened a bit less by planes, higher tier ships maybe a little more or close to the same as now. The other hope would be that maybe in changing lower tier ships to later modernization's can also maybe close the ship vs ship power gaps between tiers so maybe being stuck -2 is a bit less painful. The second step is the AA itself. I know we can get into the same argument on these as normal AP/HE shells for the main battery and all but I think it's better to have a universal damage system on this one. A 20 mm round is a 20 mm round, a 127 mm round is a 127 mm round. There will still be differences - UK's 40 mm pom pom having lower range than the 40 mm bofors, IJN's use of almost exclusively 25 mm rounds as opposed to heavier 40 mm guns dragging it down, etc. If for some reason a minor tweak is needed or wanted, fine, but generally same across the board. Which, would also make it easier when figuring out a ship's AA when suggesting ships and moves us away a bit from this "AA flavour" bit. Air Defense should have really just been air defense and based on what the ships AA firepower is. What I've worked out is - Weapon Caliber Damage Per Second <20 mm 2 20 mm 2.5 25 mm 3.3 28 mm 3.5 40 mm 5 55 mm 7.4 76 mm 10 100 mm 11 113 mm 12.6 127 mm 15 152 mm 24 Which, when you give ships tier 4-7 the later upgrades, closes the gaps in DPS up a bit. Along with that attack planes would have a "Baseline" HP that goes up through the tiers as well. Which would be Tier TB DB 4 1500 1600 5 1600 1700 6 1700 1800 7 1800 1900 8 1900 2000 9 2000 2100 10 2100 2200 What this is is that if we added say, a Russian carrier, and they decided they wanted "average" endurance planes at tier 6 - they'd have 1700/1800 HP. Personally when it comes to flavour and all I recommend average +/- 50 so as an example if USN, Germany, UK and IJN have highest to lowest HP at tier 8 with tier 8 planes - USN 1950/2050, GER 1910/2010, UK 1890/1990, and IJN 1850/1950. which if you keep the consistency, would mean that the weakest plane of a type at worst, is the same as the strongest of the tier below, and the strongest the same as the weakest a tier above. I have not done every ship and every variation possible, it'd take me forever doing it by myself manually but having done a few ships - BB's unupgraded (no skills/mods) should have no less than 20% chance and less than 40% chance to down a plane - regardless of whether the plane is + or - 2. Which is better than the sub 20% some get, and along with some other changes reign in the ones that are short of no fly zones. Cruisers would see fairly limited change, not to mention most having DF AA to boost AA anyway. And DD's that had any real AA to begin with would see a slight buff. I also think that even if they were more limited in ability some DD's that had some ability to use main batteries as AA but currently don't in game (I know IJN has 1 or 2) should actually get those capabilities added in. Another benefit is that temporarily, based on the number of each gun ships will have in the later hull models, if this were to go through but the hulls aren't done cause they take time, they could raise the numbers to what they would be for the new hull, and then simply redistribute it once work is finally done. However - I will also say there is one element of the rework I feel should be implemented in this category - sector AA. It's really kinda pointless in the rework - really just have to turn one side of the ship to the enemy and your good because they can only hit from one side - in the current gameplay, it actually means that you have to carefully choose because you can in fact be hit from more than one side regardless of number of CV's. CAPTAIN SKILLS AND MODERNIZATION This I feel may be the thing that divides most people even if they like any of what I have above. But, one of the complaints has been the fact that it costs too much to invest in an AA build when the number of CV's is limited. And seeing as no change can guarantee increasing the population of CV's - the goal should be to make it less costly to upgrade AA. But, I need others thoughts anyway so before laying into me on these - this is what I came up on my own and is likely not perfect and in need of other input. Manual AA - This skill would be entirely removed (most ships that would take it practically have it built in with the DPS changes I propose) and would instead be replaced by a skill to decrease the time it takes to switch AA fire sectors. Emergency Takeoff - skill changed to a baseline mechanic/natural skill (ala the one that let you know when spotted) and is replaced by a skill that lowers the penalty. Air Supremacy - No longer adds an additional fighter, now adds additional TB, which will alter the drop pattern of the TB group as well. The additional fighter creates too many issues and has made the skill mandatory. With alpha damaged nerfed sufficiently an additional TB per group should not be a cause to freak out over. Increases max damage per group - but risks more planes doing so. And some may feel the non enhanced drop pattern is better. Expert Rear Gunner - Either swaps places with Dogfighting Expert or the skill needs to be increased to 20% DPS and forward firing weapons accounted for in the planes defensive DPS, possibly with the skill renamed (Defensive Formation?) Dogfighting Expert - places switched or ERG changed as said above Evasive Maneuvers - Reduce Plane detectability 10%, Reduce Speed 10%, increase plane HP 20% - applies both directions not just on the return. AA guns Mod 2 - The solo mod completely removed from the game. Secondary Armament Mod 2 - Removed from Battleships - Replaced with "Auxiliary Armaments Mod 2" which increases secondary battery and AA firing range 20%, and decreases secondary battery dispersion 20% Aiming System Modification 1 (Destroyers/possibly cruisers with DP main batteries like Atlanta and Minotaur) - added bonus of increases AA range 20%, possibly trade off the secondary battery bonuses if it's felt this is too powerful otherwise. Possibly renamed (Main Armaments Mod 2?) AA guns Mod 3 - removed from the game With the AA changes above, AAGM3 becomes a bit too much overkill, and any other changes would make it not worth the credits cost so better to just remove it. At that point players can focus on just improving anti-ship abilities with how AA is now. Also with manual AA no longer needed, points don't have to be spent there on an AA build, simply a choice of faster sector switch, similar to if you want to switch shell types faster. With AAGM2 and SAM2 combined back into a single upgrade - investing in better AA range on a BB at least means also better secondaries as well, making it more part of a general "point defense" build against anything that comes close. And the ASM change makes sense for most of the ships of the type due to having DP main batteries and is frequently taken by them anyway, while possibly removing a bonus that's had little, if any value. The only thing it's hard to actually attach to another upgrade is Heavy cruisers as their main batteries are not meant for AA and the secondaries aren't exactly great, to which I would suggest so that they don't have to give up the AA range maybe they have it built in already. So if they take AFT, they get max AA range they have now. Open to suggestions on that one. MECHANICS/GAMEPLAY Should be the last area I'm covering with all this mess. Because some things do need to change, in CV's favour and non-CV's, most notably - DD's favour. CV's on fire - As I indicated above - EmTa needs to be made the baseline mechanic. If a CV is on fire, it can't lunch planes as fast, but can still launch, recover, and arm with the penalty. And a skill to lower the penalty a bit. Hangers - Again, concepts I like from the rework but hate the execution - unlimited planes. The hanger should be the same as we have now essentially, however once the last spare plane is used in a group, a timer starts ticking down till the reserves are resupplied. By which I mean if Midway has 24 planes in reserve, aside from the 12 lets say DB's on deck, when it hits 0 and manages to be resupplied it gets 24 more DB's. As to the amount of time that would be fair and balanced - that needs work. likely in the 2:30-3 minute range at minimum. But generally, the idea is to have it low enough that say, a tier 6 Independence (were it to stay there) is not spending ages doing nothing in a tier 8 match while waiting on resupplies due to AA and the hangers limits, but long enough that when your top or even tier - you want to avoid throwing planes away because not having any planes at the wrong time could cost you the game. It's likely going to be based by tier, could even have an element of flavour to it just like the rearm times, and hard to find the right balance - but I think worth it for all as CV's won't be able to be completely taken out of combat for the entire match from plane losses, but the other ships can still make it the CV runs out and is unable to attack for a time. Spotting - one of the more contested issues is the CV's ability to spot. There's a dozen arguments on how good is their spotting, how important is it they spot over a DD doing that job, etc. Wargaming initially said they wanted to take the ability of CV's to spot everything down, and I'm more than willing to go with that thinking because I don't think CV's should be the ship top of the list to spot, that should be DD's and maybe cruisers. To that end - Aerial spotting ranges of DD's reduced to ~1 km. This means that say on Shima, instead of a 6.8 km circle around your ship a plane can spot you, you have say maybe a 1.8 km circle. This will make it harder for a CV to spot and stay on the DD, as they will have to more often move the planes to keep it lit, which even if they do takes away from other tasks, while also forcing the plane to stay inside of an AA range even the worst AA guns fire in, meaning they are subjected to the DD's max DPS and have a better chance of shooting planes down. Aerial spotting range on cruisers reduced to ~4-5 km. Still easier to spot, but also a better chance that if you've spotted it, you've wandered into it's AA range. Which is the last place you want to be. Aerial spotting range on BB's reduced to ~10 km. This is somewhat unnecessary in my opinion given that BB's are almost perma spotted anyway by ships, but, odds are there'd be a rage over them not getting to benefit too. And it does mean they are a tad harder for a CV to find when the last ship. CV's - also reduced, not sure on a range for those though. I am however, a believer that they should have BOTH spotting ranges reduced a little. When ANY ship is in smoke/storm, if it has AA on after roughly 5 seconds it is spotted - simply put that change to AA not giving away a ship in smoke as executed was unacceptable, but I understand the issue that planes just camped the DD's smoke. But Mino, Iowa, all the rest being unspotted with AA at full tilt, no. With changes to AA and spotting, I think giving a ship 5 seconds to shut off AA to stay hidden in smoke is more than fair, and means a DD can at least take a shot at knocking a couple down every so often. Which, part of why I suggest these ranges and change in smoke spotting is I feel that operating stealthily should be rewarded, and choosing not to punished. Obviously in the case of BB's, and possibly CV's unless in the middle of a storm or smoke, even with AA on they will end up spotted, but CV's rely on being further away and BB's rely on their HP and armour, not stealth. However, by disabling the AA on a cruiser and DD, you can make it harder for the CV to find you, while at the same time when he does, having his planes deeper in AA to try and knock out of the air. Basically - if AA is off, they have to fly in closer to actually ID you as a red ship, you start shooting at them with AA - kind of a giveaway your a red ship. Manual Drops - As I've said in many places and ways, I hate the reworks gameplay as a replacement to RTS. However, if a way could be found to implement the ability to control planes, like in the rework, as a replacement to manual drops - THAT would actually be fun and offer a nice change. Obviously the whole "Dodging AA" thing would have to go, which lets be real here even the rework your still just praying to RNG on that front anyway, but occasionally taking direct control of one of my airborne squadrons while the rest use pre set/auto drops is in fact interesting to me. Such as when I say set up a torp attack on a BB, but have sent DB's after a wile DD that has been dodging normal attacks therefor switch to flying the planes myself, or perhaps want to hit the bow of the BB that is not yet on fire. In small doses, when I choose, fun and amusing - as standard gameplay, boring as hell. And no looping around attack runs, you fly in the 4,6,8, 9001 attack planes, and all drop together as a group, and then either choose another group or do other things. This could also be good in removing sudden massive multi group manual drops on ships like what we have now that tends to devastate ships and would still have some possibility of doing so even with my rather low proposed alpha numbers. A side benefit would be in a sense that someone that like me, who for CV's prefers RTS for historical and other reasons (even though I typically hate RTS games I actually enjoy it in WoWs), and while they would need to at least put fighters over ships (maybe in fighters you could manually control the strafe point or something?) but otherwise, could play standard CV's similar to how they play in the rework (select a group, take off, fly to target, attack, then select the next as the other returns). And if you actually read through all this madness - have an upvote I think I covered everything, keyword - think. I've spent whatever time I've had free the last 3 days typing this up off the top of my head so there's a good chance among all the various things on changes I forgot to include one, or forgot some detail, or any other number of other things because while I lit a fire on crunching numbers to post this after starting that a week or so ago, a lot of this is ideas that have rattled about in my head the last year or more and never managed to write down in one spot. So if I remember anything, or I see a suggestion in responses I think works better and all, I'll try and update this post with it. One thing I'm considering is instead of what Wargaming started with on fighters and building off that as I did, much like with bombers HP just tearing down fighters HP and DPS and rebuilding ground up so there's less of a huge HP gap between fighters and attack planes. But this is how I think we at least lay a groundwork to rebuild and fix the RTS CV's.
  5. Occasionally when browsing threads, you come accross statements about how far apart a ship's turrets are spaced influences accuracy (particularly where it concerns Hood). It got me wondering: How much does turret distance influence accuracy? At what ranges is it relevant? Keep reading, and we'll find out. Be aware, there will be a fair bit of math involved. To start out, it's important to state the obvious: Each shell from each gun in each turret has its own individually calculated trajectory using the dispersion formula WG uses. This means that every shell from every gun on your ship has the same potential dispersion pattern centered on the same aim point, but the dispersion patterns don't fully overlap. They are each at the angle of each gun relative to the target. We'll illustrate this using this poor sketch (don't worry, I have better quality stuff later): As we can see, the closer the angle of origin, the more overlap of the individual gun dispersion ellipses-ie, better dispersion/less are to disperse to. You might also notice a few other things; 1. the drawing has a very close target, and 2. it also influences the angle a shell will hit an enemy at, which can determine a bounce or shatter. This will be the focus of our little investigation. We'll use 3 ships: Hood, Colorado, and Nelson for our case studies, as they represent 3 types of turret arrangement: Long, Stubby, and Clustered. We'll start with Hood. To determine the change in dispersion patterns and angle, we must first find that angle. To do this, we must first determine what scale the ships and distances in WOWS are relative to each other. We know the ships in WOWS are bigger so that they can be hit more realiably, but how much bigger? We also know that the ships are relatively accurately modeled in relation to each other. For this we need a top down view-an aircraft carrier. I used Kaga: We know that distance is calculated from the center of a ship, so the distance to the planes (4.7km) is approximately 9.5 Kagas (possibly a little more at 9.7). We know that Kaga is 782 ft, or around 238 m in length. We divide 4700 m by 9.5 to find the length in game: 495m; by 9.7 we get 482m. This is roughly double the lenght of historical Kaga. Therefore we can say Kaga is twice as big in game as in real life. Let's now apply this to HMS Hood to find the distance between the foremost and aftmost turret: If you use the scale provided, we find this distance to be around 500 ft. In game this becomes 1000 ft, or 300 m due to the ships being twice the size. Now we can solve for the angles by using the quadratic equation and arcsin. Let's select a target dead perpendicular to the ship perfectly centered between the fore and aft turrets. We'll also only solve for the outside (relative to the center of the ship) gun of each turret; we're interested in maximum effect, after all. Let's chose a target 4km away. Now we have a triangle: We need to solve for two things to determine our angle: h (the hypotenuse) and θ, our angle. The total difference between the turrets will be 2*θ. We find h using the quadratic equasion of a^2+b^2=c^2, where h=c and b=150m so that 4000^2+150^2=h^2. Therefore h^2=16,022,500m^2 or h=4002.8m. Now we solve for θ. sinθ = opposite/hypotenuse, or sinθ = 150/4002.8. Therefore arcsin(150/4002.8)= θ. θ therefore is equal to approximately 2.15 degrees. 2*θ=4.29 degrees. We can use this same equasion for all ranges, so I plugged it into an spreadsheet: Here we see that the angle is quite large at close range, but is around 2 degrees or below at ranges exceeding 8km. How about Colorado and Nelson? How does Hood stack up? Colorado has a distance between turrets of about 330 ft, or 100 m; Nelson 50 m. If we plug this into our spreadsheet, we get the following: As can be seen, at close ranges, Nelson has a notable advantage in both dispersion and unified angles. However, the difference between Colorado and Hood outside 7km is less than 1 degree, and outside 11km, the difference between Nelson and Hood is also less than 1 degree. Besides bounce angles, what does this mean? Well, I've compiled a chart of identical dispersion patterns offset by several of the degrees we came up with in our spreadsheet: As can be seen, anything below 2 degrees is practically meaningless, but it is noticable at greater than 5 degrees. Our conclusion then is that outside of brawling ranges, there is no relevant difference, though one does exist. How is this applicable in game? Well, there are some tricks. You remember how for the sake of simplicity, our ship was entirely broadside? If you angle to 60 degrees (ie, bounce angles) to the enemy ship, this decreases the relative distance between your guns by half, and therefore that angle by half. Simple trigonometry: The other thing is that widely spaced guns can be an advantage or disadvantage in certain situations. Yup, it's a mixed bag. It can be the difference between a bounce or a penetration on an enemy ship. Have two last terrible sketches to illustrate: Increasing the angle may mean some guns pen that would otherwise bounce. The inverse is also true. This is not to say you should go broadside when brawling-unless you're on the enemy team. TLDR: Distance between guns is irrelevant in most situations concerning bounce angles and dispersion, but when at close range, closely spaced guns offer a noticable advantage. This advantage can be halved/doubled by simply angling to bounce angles. At usual engagement ranges, however, it's a non issue, so stop arguing that Hood has a massive disadvantage in dispersion and bounce angles due to length.