RNCLs are unable to damage forts at ranges greater than 4km

[Compassghost]

I know we made fun of me last time for saying that a Minotaur can't sink a Taiho and that I should find a better target.

 

This time, a Minotaur can't do any damage at all to the new revamped forts with armor unless it pulls to within 4km. All rounds will either squash or bounce. At 3.5km they finally get enough pen to punch through, meaning that, of all T10 ships,the Minotaur has the shortest engagement range of 4km, as beyond 4km, it does 0 damage.

 

The next shortest engagement range at T10 is Shimakaze at 9.8km, because it can use HE.

 

Every other cruiser, when using HE, can engage it out to 15km.

 

Hooray.

 

[Final_Spark]

I did notice this in my Neptune. 

 

So I guess HE is the way to go for any non-BB? Is there any angling going on which could bounce BB rounds?

[Peregrinas]

Perhaps, maybe, uhm I don't know, ships aren't supposed to do everything equally??

[Compassghost]

Perhaps, maybe, uhm I don't know, ships aren't supposed to do everything equally??

 

We've gone over this before. They don't have to be equal, they just have to be possible.

 

A Langley has 4 dinky 127mm guns. 99.9% of the time, it will die to a DD. 0.1% of the time, maybe you'll get lucky, and it'll detonate the DD.

 

This isn't a black and white matter. It's not "Minotaurs should do no damage at all to forts ever." versus "Minotaurs should destroy forts."

 

I would like for "Minotaurs should have a 0.0001% fire chance on forts" is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable solution.

 

Imagine if HE didn't set fires unless it penetrated. Your counter of "Well, there has to be an offset to fire chance on a non-pen!"

 

Surprise, it's actually in the game. HE has a reduced chance of fire if it doesn't pen, but it still has a chance of fire.

 

 

It's like the lottery hypothesis. Currently, I have purchased 0 tickets. I will never win the lottery. I'd like the opportunity to purchase 1 ticket. I sure as hell won't win, but at least I can hope and try rather than know it's fruitless with zero tickets.

[Peregrinas]

 

We've gone over this before. They don't have to be equal, they just have to be possible.

 

A Langley has 4 dinky 127mm guns. 99.9% of the time, it will die to a DD. 0.1% of the time, maybe you'll get lucky, and it'll detonate the DD.

 

This isn't a black and white matter. It's not "Minotaurs should do no damage at all to forts ever." versus "Minotaurs should destroy forts."

 

I would like for "Minotaurs should have a 0.0001% fire chance on forts" is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable solution.

 

Imagine if HE didn't set fires unless it penetrated. Your counter of "Well, there has to be an offset to fire chance on a non-pen!"

 

Surprise, it's actually in the game. HE has a reduced chance of fire if it doesn't pen, but it still has a chance of fire.

 

 

It's like the lottery hypothesis. Currently, I have purchased 0 tickets. I will never win the lottery. I'd like the opportunity to purchase 1 ticket. I sure as hell won't win, but at least I can hope and try rather than know it's fruitless with zero tickets.

 

Still, it should be such that not every ship can fulfill a role as equally as any other ship. Otherwise what point would there be to have a mixed composition when you can have one ship that does it all? Besides, I fully ignore forts in my CAs (plus I stay far away from them; I remember the first time one wrecked my Hindy and I had no idea what was going on until it already took out half of my hp) so I don't shoot them unless there's nothing else for me to shoot. If I'm in a BB, however, I will prioritize forts so that lighter ships can support the capture of the objective.

 

Again, I have zero problem with the Minotaur not being able to deal any damage with forts beyond 4km. It's a role that should be taken up by other ships, primarily BBs.

[Compassghost]

 

Still, it should be such that not every ship can fulfill a role as equally as any other ship. Otherwise what point would there be to have a mixed composition when you can have one ship that does it all? Besides, I fully ignore forts in my CAs (plus I stay far away from them; I remember the first time one wrecked my Hindy and I had no idea what was going on until it already took out half of my hp) so I don't shoot them unless there's nothing else for me to shoot. If I'm in a BB, however, I will prioritize forts so that lighter ships can support the capture of the objective.

 

Again, I have zero problem with the Minotaur not being able to deal any damage with forts beyond 4km. It's a role that should be taken up by other ships, primarily BBs.

 

 

This was the Minotaur yesterday against a fort.

[Peregrinas]

-snip-

 

This was the Minotaur yesterday against a fort.

 

Okay, so now they have a slight change in role. Maybe it's unintended, or perhaps the developers adding armor to the forts was to induce an intended effect on engaging forts? Why else would they go through the trouble of giving forts armor? Armor applies to ships so why not to forts? I see no complaints about Minotaur not being able to citadel BBs (I don't know if they can at really close ranges).

[Compassghost]

 

Okay, so now they have a slight change in role. Maybe it's unintended, or perhaps the developers adding armor to the forts was to induce an intended effect on engaging forts? Why else would they go through the trouble of giving forts armor? Armor applies to ships so why not to forts? I see no complaints about Minotaur not being able to citadel BBs (I don't know if they can at really close ranges).

 

Ah yes, a slight reduction of damage from 100% to 0%. It's like bringing an Atlanta to Ocean, it's pretty much not going to help with the objective anymore. Every single ship line in the game can damage the fort at their maximum range by setting it on fire except for the RNCL. Aircraft carriers can now set forts on fire. DDs no longer have to pepper and do minimal damage, because they can set it on fire. RNCLs, they... get to do other things apparently.

[Peregrinas]

 

Ah yes, a slight reduction of damage from 100% to 0%. It's like bringing an Atlanta to Ocean, it's pretty much not going to help with the objective anymore. Every single ship line in the game can damage the fort at their maximum range by setting it on fire except for the RNCL. Aircraft carriers can now set forts on fire. DDs no longer have to pepper and do minimal damage, because they can set it on fire. RNCLs, they... get to do other things apparently.

 

I'll leave you with this. Some DDs can stealth torp and others can't. This doesn't mean that one is overall better than the other. Do what your ship does best and you can't complain. Try to do something your ship can't or isn't meant to be doing, then you'll find yourself in a world of pain.

[Special_Kay]

A Langley has 4 dinky 127mm guns. 99.9% of the time, it will die to a DD. 0.1% of the time, maybe you'll get lucky, and it'll detonate the DD.

 

Not that your point depends upon it, but this is a poor example. We've got a carrier in-game with no artillery capable of engaging surface targets: Saipan.

 

 

Perhaps, maybe, uhm I don't know, ships aren't supposed to do everything equally??

 

This is specious logic. Town-class cruisers were certainly capable of bombarding coastal installations, as evidenced by Newcastle, Glasgow, Southampton, Gloucester, and perhaps others. If the appeal to separation of roles is allowed to justify completely nullifying a ship's ability to perform a role it was capable of in a previous version, then that opens the door to all manner of asinine changes, which ought to be proof enough that it's a foolish argument.

[ValkyrWarframe]

Well, that means you leave the forts to the battleships and cruisers, while you go sit in smoke and spam.

[this_might_be_slak__]

A small price to pay for magic AP and a super heal....

[WhatIsTheOdds]

Maybe giving the ability for a ship that can put out 7k damage every 3 seconds against any enemy in 16km to also penetrate forts at any range is a bad idea? Personally I think this game mode is really flawed in the way your aiming works and hitting structures in general, it needs a different rework than just making penetration and values matter. 

[Compassghost]

Maybe giving the ability for a ship that can put out 7k damage every 3 seconds against any enemy in 16km to also penetrate forts at any range is a bad idea? Personally I think this game mode is really flawed in the way your aiming works and hitting structures in general, it needs a different rework than just making penetration and values matter. 

 

I'd also like to point out that Khabarovsk HE does full damage to the fort. Killed this one in 1 minute 30 seconds. Actually looks like all HE in general still does normal damage, so the only change is that AP is no longer as effective versus forts.

 

 

 

[WhatIsTheOdds]

 

I'd also like to point out that Khabarovsk HE does full damage to the fort. Killed this one in 1 minute 30 seconds. Actually looks like all HE in general still does normal damage, so the only change is that AP is no longer as effective versus forts.

 

Just adding damage reduction based on shell caliber would have been a much better way of implementating this.

[Final_Spark]

Sort of a random update, but after having another Bastion game in my Neptune I found a decent bandaid.

 

Forts are as blind as a bat without their Surveillance Stations, which are pretty easy to knock out. Doing so lets you get in close to a fort before being detected and shot at by the fort so that you'll be able to suppress it with RN CL guns. I'm not sure if the loss of the station also has an effect on accuracy or not, although it likely doesn't matter due to how close you need to be for the fort to spot anything.