#1 · Posted March 12 · Report post Well, I had hoped I wouldn't need to do this, but good lord this is just too massive of an error to pass up talking about. First let me say something: This thread is not in regards to the height of Alabama's citadel. WG has stated that its necessary in order to balance its incredible maneuverability and TDS value. Okay, I'm fine with that. What I'm NOT fine with however, is this. Oh lordy, what the hell have you done WG? Firstly, I understand that WG is incapable of modeling armor faces of tapering thickness. That's okay, calculating the exact thickness at any given point on a tapering plate would be ridiculous. WG normally solves this with "bands" of thickness averaged from the section of plate they sample along its face. Usually this works semi-acceptably for things like barbettes that decrease in thickness beneath protective decks or behind belt armor. Bayern is a good showcase of this working properly. The varying armor "bands" are clear to see. Where this system begins to become a problem is with the belts of high tier USN battleships. WG has also now under-modeled massive sections of armor on Alabama. The issue exists because of the tapering thickness on the belts/bulkheads of these ships. On Alabama, the main belt is 12.2" of class A armor plate resting above a lower plate of class B armor plate, which tapers from 12" down to 1.5" or so at the bottom of the side, far below the waterline. The upper belt was 3.2 meters tall, and the 12" section of the lower belt was roughly 1.2 meters tall before tapering to 6", then 4" and finally 1.5". The Iowa class also essentially mimics this armor scheme. Here's a visual aid, with a blue line showing the waterline at around standard displacement. Now unfortunately, WG has decided on the Alabama, that the upper section of 12" class B plate shouldn't be its own band, and has tossed in the average of the taper in that area below it. Whats this means is that Alabama's armor model essentially "skips" over a huge chunk of the primary belt armor, and instantly transitions from 310mm (12.2") to 184mm (7.2"), just below the waterline. Since this is bad resolution and blown up horribly from youtube, ENHANCE: That right there is how WG has the belt armor modeled currently... WHY DID THEY DO THIS!? Frankly, this armor model looks unfinished, but this is from right after the NDA was lifted, and no other changes to the ship have been posted as of yet. There are no multiple bands of thickness on the entire belt, just an instant transition from 310mm to 184mm where it should transition to 310mm and begin tapering down in thickness not above or at the waterline, but a nearly 2 meters BELOW it. That section there should look more like this: ^^^^^^^^^^^ THAT'S what the belt armor section on Alabama SHOULD look like. The overall thickness of the plate is decreased underwater, but the 12.2" section of the belt actually extends below the waterline down to where it should be before tapering. This is a fairly glaring issue and should be fixed as soon as possible, otherwise Alabama is going to make the citadel issues that plagued Warspite look small-time, and be open to citpens through her belt from 8" cruiser guns as far away as 14km. It also makes angling the ship a ridiculously fine line between utter failure and success versus enemy battleships, even more so than the notoriously difficult to handle Iowa. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the issues here, especially when WG has been actively implementing changes to encourage aggressive battleship play as of late. WG, pls fix. 73 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#2 · Posted March 12 · Report post So this is where the next Alabamadrama is huh? We going to need a new thread every few minutes this time around or will a handful of threads suffice? 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#3 · Posted March 12 · Report post Even Nixon is getting jealous at the amount of drama that Alabama is generating... Seriously though, as much as people bringing up 14" shell hits irrelevant to the citadel is annoying, this is definitely a flaw that should be fixed. At the very least, the 12" band should be modelled... But below that it's actually thinner than 7.2", so be careful what you wish for... 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#4 · Posted March 12 · Report post So this is where the next Alabamadrama is huh? We going to need a new thread every few minutes this time around or will a handful of threads suffice? Doubt it. Most people are going to be complaining about the citadel height, not the incorrect belt armor thickness. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#5 · Posted March 13 · Report post Even Nixon is getting jealous at the amount of drama that Alabama is generating... Seriously though, as much as people bringing up 14" shell hits irrelevant to the citadel is annoying, this is definitely a flaw that should be fixed. At the very least, the 12" band should be modelled... But below that it's actually thinner than 7.2", so be careful what you wish for... I don't really think the lower armor belt really matters that much, but the 184mm section that starts at/above the waterline is extremely concerning with its blatant incorrectness. In terms of belt armor thickness, I would much prefer it to be accurate over some minuscule game-play advantage that is derived from it being wrong. In this case though, it makes Alabama vulnerable to CRUISER guns out to almost 15 kilometers. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#6 · Posted March 13 · Report post So this is where the next Alabamadrama is huh? We going to need a new thread every few minutes this time around or will a handful of threads suffice? Actually, I think this is a pretty relevant thread. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#7 · Posted March 13 · Report post Hi Spud Another good catch might be time to send this info to pigeon and hope that he can get them to sought this one out quick before she goes on sail. Having said that I still plan to buy her when she comes out hopefully not in this state though. cheers 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#8 · Posted March 13 (edited) · Report post You make a good point. I'm sorry to see some are lumping this in with other thread topics. Edited March 13 by Wulfgarn 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#9 · Posted March 13 · Report post And this is how you make a good suggestion. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#10 · Posted March 13 · Report post And this is how you make a good suggestion. I've been waiting to hear that from you! 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#11 · Posted March 13 · Report post I'm all for letting Alabama's cit be that high, but ONLY if this issue gets fixed. Proper armor modeling can go a long way to making skill an important factor in the game. Being lazy about it like what WG has done right here, just makes the game a sloppy mess. WG, please don't be Gaijoob. Model the armor correctly. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#12 · Posted March 13 (edited) · Report post Here's an idea....don't buy it? It boggles my mind what players demand in an arcade game. If they modeled it that way, they did it for balance purposes, and in an arcade game, balance takes precedence..... I can understand the outrage if you had already bought the ship...but there is a simple solution to this issue... Edited March 13 by awiggin 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#13 · Posted March 13 · Report post Here's an idea....don't buy it? It boggles my mind what players demand in an arcade game. If they modeled it that way, they did it for balance purposes, and in an arcade game, balance takes precedence..... Wargaming's staff are the ones who constantly hold up their armoring system as if it's based upon real-life considerations. They're to blame if people have expectations that precedents will be upheld - not those who complain. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#14 · Posted March 13 · Report post Here's an idea....don't buy it? It boggles my mind what players demand in an arcade game. If they modeled it that way, they did it for balance purposes, and in an arcade game, balance takes precedence..... I can understand the outrage if you had already bought the ship...but there is a simple solution to this issue... The point __________ Your head 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#15 · Posted March 13 · Report post Who the hell cares. Deal with it, or don't buy the ship. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#16 · Posted March 13 · Report post As somebody who has watched the Battleship community cry until Wargaming nerfed every other class in the game: 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#17 · Posted March 13 · Report post Lots of points flying over many heads. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#18 · Posted March 13 · Report post Who the hell cares. Deal with it, or don't buy the ship. Who the hell cares? Deal with it, or don't comment. There. Now we've contributed equally to the discussion. 12 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#19 · Posted March 13 · Report post I get the point. I just don't give a fuck. And? You gave enough to come and [edited]post about it. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#20 · Posted March 13 (edited) · Report post It's a USN bb so of course it's armor is all fubar, nothing new. Seriously though..... I'm so tired of WG's apparent hate on for usn ships. Edited March 13 by Hangoverhomey 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#21 · Posted March 13 · Report post Just rename it as "South Dakota".... Problem solved 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#22 · Posted March 13 · Report post I get the point. I just don't give a fuck. Your reply isn't convincing. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#23 · Posted March 13 · Report post Who the hell cares? Deal with it, or don't comment. There. Now we've contributed equally to the discussion. Sure, you want an actual argument? GAME. REAL LIFE. DIFFERENT. If balance dictate Alabama doesn't get that extra strip of 305mm armor, then that's what the game is. By all appearances, WG's way of balancing Alabama as "NC but better" is to make it more vulnerable to main battery cit pens. This armour model is consistent with that apparent goal. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#24 · Posted March 13 · Report post Good catch Spud.. Keep those eyes out on all the new ships.. your analysis is always spot on. They half [edited]too much when it comes to making correct armor modeling. You'd think by now they would realize people are going to dissect everything they do. Do it right the first time. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
#25 · Posted March 13 · Report post Sure, you want an actual argument? GAME. REAL LIFE. DIFFERENT. If balance dictate Alabama doesn't get that extra strip of 305mm armor, then that's what the game is. By all appearances, WG's way of balancing Alabama as "NC but better" is to make it more vulnerable to main battery cit pens. This armour model is consistent with that apparent goal. Or they screwed up the armor model by accident, as they have in many other ships. But no, lets just accept likely mistakes and never talk about anything because you think its pointless as it doesn't play into one of your agendas. Your attempt of stiffening discussion you don't like doesn't help anything at all. 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
