iChase

Iowa's Citadel is Actually Correct, but shows Warships real problem

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

335 posts in this topic

Watched two and a half minutes until I realized the limited scope of your background in naval architecture. Disregarded.


18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

nice video chase. as always, enjoyed the content and agree with what your saying overall, its potentially the mechanics and not individual modelling that may be at the heart of the issue

Edited by Vossie

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched two and a half minutes until I realized the limited scope of your background in naval architecture. Disregarded.

 

And you utterly missed all the important bits later on, good job though watching only the intro

20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Wait, but in your diagram, the 5" magazines only cover a small part of the above deck citadel.  Shouldn't the vulnerable damage sections be serrated like a saw instead of a uniform deck? When a BB shell hits the washroom, it shouldn't cause catastrophic citadel damage, right?

Edited by Sventex

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, but in your diagram, the 5" magazines only cover a small part of the above deck citadel.  Shouldn't the vulnerable damage sections be serrated like a saw instead of uniform deck? When a BB shell hits the washroom, it shouldn't cause catastrophic citadel damage, right?

 

There are multiple 5" magazines, in between the upper portions of the boiler rooms. Any AP shell hit into that middle section and you're talking huge amounts of damage

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, but in your diagram, the 5" magazines only cover a small part of the above deck citadel.  Shouldn't the vulnerable damage sections be serrated like a saw instead of uniform deck? When a BB shell hits the washroom, it shouldn't cause catastrophic citadel damage, right?

 

agreed. i also thought the same thing, that the citadel model should reflect the powder rooms, but only them and other key ares. the current in game model covers way more than just them. they need to modeled, and they are above the water line, but its not as big as in game

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I'm really glad that someone with clout in the community is drawing attention to this. Trying to combine historical design factors (ship designs, penetration values, etc.) with arcade mechanics (compressed ranges, overmatch mechanics, etc.) has resulted in some really weird and boring (and ahistorical) gameplay. I agree that decompressing the range or scaling the penetration values would fix a lot of problems in the game.

 

Here's the diagrams that I'm pretty sure iChase is using, if anyone wants to take a closer look: https://maritime.org/doc/plans/bb63.pdf. It's technically the Missouri in 1950, but nothing would be significantly different from the Iowa's WW2 configuration.

Edited by Terran_Crusader

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No other BB (as far as I'm aware of) in this game has their secondary ammunition/powder rooms modeled as citadel space unless already encompassed by the citadel. That is why this is bunk.


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched two and a half minutes until I realized the limited scope of your background in naval architecture. Disregarded.

 

Shrink the NorCal to accurate represented size in game and in accordance with the supposedly set ranges and you'll see that he's correct about the game's inaccuracy conflicting with the accurately copied, real-life armor scheme's effectiveness.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No other BB (as far as I'm aware of) in this game has their secondary ammunition/powder rooms modeled as citadel space unless already encompassed by the citadel. That is why this is bunk.

 

Even then, you also notice that in that same exact space is the upper portions of the Babcock and Wilson M-Type boilers? Which essentially are part of the ships machinery and that is in fact citadel space for all the other nation's ships. Furthermore, completely ignoring the rest of the video means you actually missed out the real important bit that I was talking about which you know takes place after the 2 and a half minutes you watched. 

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shrink the NorCal to accurate represented size in game and in accordance with the supposedly set ranges and you'll see that he's correct about the game's inaccuracy conflicting with the accurately copied, real-life armor scheme's effectiveness.

 

I'm really glad that someone with clout in the community is drawing attention to this. Trying to combine historical design factors (ship designs, penetration values, etc.) with arcade mechanics (compressed ranges, overmatch mechanics, etc.) has resulted in some really weird and boring (and ahistorical) gameplay. I agree that decompressing the range or scaling the penetration values would fix a lot of problems in the game.

 

Here's the diagrams that I'm pretty sure iChase is using, if anyone wants to take a closer look: https://maritime.org/doc/plans/bb63.pdf. It's technically the Missouri in 1950, but nothing would be significantly different from the Iowa's WW2 configuration.

 

i wonder how scaling would work out though. im pretty sure it couldnt be scaled linearly, as there are a potential ton of variables that may factor in. but its about the best option for modeling historically accurate vessels with accurate mechanics

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if they do what you propose, the game would be a lot more HE based, on every ship... and we all know how annoying that can be

Edited by Jorge_Beaven

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if they do what you propose, the game would be a lot more HE based, on every ship... and we all knos how annoying that can be

 

Might be, might not be, we won't fully know until changes like these are made. Don't forget a lot of what we have right now in terms of HE mechanics and whatnot exist because of the current mechanics of the game. Cruisers will shoot HE at BBs and APs on full broadsides because there's no accurate way to know when your AP will actually do something reliable, so since HE is more reliable right now in the current mechanics, then keep spamming HE. Now imagine if you knew at exactly what range and what angle your AP will reliably pen for more damage, don't you think that's the ammo you'd switch to?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rest is irrelevant, as I'm specifically talking about the Iowa's citadel space - you know, that bit you titled the thread after. The gameplay realities of it are already apparent to someone who's played the Iowa often recently.

 

Your picture does a very poor job of distinguishing between the boilers and their uptakes - something every ship in the game tends to have.

 

This picture, while not particularly academic, shows distinctly where the boilers end in relation to the waterline - below it.

 

222b2f862fa08ff1b3b731ddb44646c6.jpg

Edited by Fog_Carrier_Shoukaku

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if they do what you propose, the game would be a lot more HE based, on every ship... and we all knos how annoying that can be

 

If the worst thing the Iowa had to worry about was HE shells, it would last a heck of a lot longer and be able to actually turn in the face of the enemy.  This would be a huge improvement, since the ship would now possess tactical options. Edited by Sventex

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo. in history the Iowa's never feared showign broadside. hoenstly why did Wg take this into outcount from the begining.

 

Hell this is why the Tiger has a hard time in WOT because she engage the enemy at farther range in real life and didn't face it's fellow T 7 tanks


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes me sad that I havent been able to play my (IRL) awesome US BB's..... ive been relegated to Kutuzov, Zao, and Belfast :/ 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo. in history the Iowa's never feared showign broadside. hoenstly why did Wg take this into outcount from the begining.

 

Hell this is why the Tiger has a hard time in WOT because she engage the enemy at farther range in real life and didn't face it's fellow T 7 tanks

 

here you raise a great example of what the fundamental problem with both WOT and WOWS is.... they are games. arcade games at that. look, im not saying i dont agree with you, bc i do. i wsih we could have 100% accurate mechanics and models that would behave as they would in reality. but sometimes, its just not possible and so decisions are made for the sake of game play, not realism. doesnt mean we have to like it tho...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rest is irrelevant, as I'm specifically talking about the Iowa's citadel space - you know, that bit you titled the thread after. The gameplay realities of it are already apparent to someone who's played the Iowa often recently.

 

Your picture does a very poor job of distinguishing between the boilers and their uptakes - something every ship in the game tends to have.

 

This picture, while not particularly academic, shows distinctly where the boilers end in relation to the waterline - below it.

 

222b2f862fa08ff1b3b731ddb44646c6.jpg

 

You linked me a picture that's not even the Iowa class? Really? The Iowa and the North Carolina have completely different machinery spaces.

 

If you want to prove anything, use these actual blueprints 

 

https://maritime.org/doc/plans/bb63.pdf

 

The section I point out is clearly labelled as the boiler room. An entire deck up and that's where you see intakes being clearly labelled. 


7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rest is irrelevant, as I'm specifically talking about the Iowa's citadel space - you know, that bit you titled the thread after. The gameplay realities of it are already apparent to someone who's played the Iowa often recently.

 

Your picture does a very poor job of distinguishing between the boilers and their uptakes - something every ship in the game tends to have.

 

This picture, while not particularly academic, shows distinctly where the boilers end in relation to the waterline - below it.

 

222b2f862fa08ff1b3b731ddb44646c6.jpg

 

Yeah this game encourages bow on attacks with HISTORICALLY is the worst place to be and the real issue  is not adjusted the guns for the condense playfield of the game

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that i've never understood - naval forces wanted to "Cross the T" giving the enemy nothing but broadsides in an effort to get all of their guns to bear on enemy (bow on) ships.... The strat for this game is the exact opposite....


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

here you raise a great example of what the fundamental problem with both WOT and WOWS is.... they are games. arcade games at that. look, im not saying i dont agree with you, bc i do. i wsih we could have 100% accurate mechanics and models that would behave as they would in reality. but sometimes, its just not possible and so decisions are made for the sake of game play, not realism. doesnt mean we have to like it tho...

 

You also realized that WG CEO has already come out and stated that he forced warships to be like tanks, hence why so many warships battles looks like a tank battle happening on water. Scaling the proper penetration and shell angle of fall into the game with the condensed distances, so shell flight times and stuff stay the same, will allow ships to actually engage like ships. Maneuver warfare at sea. Not the current bow in, tanks like play we see all too much

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

here you raise a great example of what the fundamental problem with both WOT and WOWS is.... they are games. arcade games at that. look, im not saying i dont agree with you, bc i do. i wsih we could have 100% accurate mechanics and models that would behave as they would in reality. but sometimes, its just not possible and so decisions are made for the sake of game play, not realism. doesnt mean we have to like it tho...

 

I can understand up tierign the Tiger a bit since she  curb stomp Shermans but they need to adjust for  condensign thigns. this made be an arcade game but usign historic ships or tanks they should try to be close hsitorical  but modified for the limits ofthe game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You also realized that WG CEO has already come out and stated that he forced warships to be like tanks, hence why so many warships battles looks like a tank battle happening on water. Scaling the proper penetration and shell angle of fall into the game with the condensed distances, so shell flight times and stuff stay the same, will allow ships to actually engage like ships. Maneuver warfare at sea. Not the current bow in, tanks like play we see all too much

 

To add on: Bow-tanking is similar to the "hull-down" tactic in WoT - you just sit there with your vital parts covered while the enemy helplessly attempts to deal damage to you through your weak spots. And there's no easy way to get around the enemy without also risking showing your vital parts either.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.