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

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

Do you want to hold the Iowa to its own standard unlike all of the other battleships which don't have all of their secondary magazines counted or not?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

Do you want to hold the Iowa to its own standard unlike all of the other battleships which don't have all of their secondary magazines counted or not?

 

Once again, even if the secondary magazines don't count, that area also houses all the boiler rooms as well. So that's still consistent with all the other nation's ships where their entire machinery is considered a citadel

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....

 

something ive never understood either. sure, you were able to bring more guns to bare when crossing the T, but you gave more ship to shoot at too. from how i understand it, it was more about just lading hits. a hit was a hit in real life. not like in game where penetration and damage is the issue. a hit in real life and you were killing people. so more guns firing= more hits= more death/destruction.

 

but then again, look at the HMS Hood. she turned, or at least started to, and that when she took the hit from the Bismarck


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the obsession on the 5in powder magazines? I realize the importance when it comes to reality but i don't recall secondary/auxillary powder storage counting as a citadel location in the game nor did the exhaust/uptake of the boilers. As far as gameplay mechanics go, the citadel is incorrectly placed. If anything the lowering of the citadel will encourage less bow on gameplay when it comes to short-mid range combat. Lower citadel means less citadel penetrations. That leads to a similar effect as German designs where shells are going to bounce off the top of the citadel and explode outside the citadel(33%) or over pen(10%). All of that not citadel damage is a lot more repairable than taking a shot to the citadel. That will ultimately lead to more heavy angling rather than bow on only.


3

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

 

Ichase. Consider this. there's going to be a PRem Hood at some point. and the current in game mechanic promots Bow on fightign which is the worse place for her considering her weak rear deck armor. Hell i nthe Hood vs Bismark he tried to cross Bismarks T but lost Bis and when re aquired Bis was crossign theior T and the hood tried to get clsoe to not fear plugnign fiore and tried to broadside where she be safe.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. Are you actualy advocating bigger maps and longer  engagement ranges?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the obsession on the 5in powder magazines? I realize the importance when it comes to reality but i don't recall secondary/auxillary powder storage counting as a citadel location in the game nor did the exhaust/uptake of the boilers. As far as gameplay mechanics go, the citadel is incorrectly placed. If anything the lowering of the citadel will encourage less bow on gameplay when it comes to short-mid range combat. Lower citadel means less citadel penetrations. That leads to a similar effect as German designs where shells are going to bounce off the top of the citadel and explode outside the citadel(33%) or over pen(10%). All of that not citadel damage is a lot more repairable than taking a shot to the citadel. That will ultimately lead to more heavy angling rather than bow on only.

 

that area Macabe held the boilers, not the exhaust, blueprints are quite clear about that. Still, Iowa's armour is actually fine, had WG actually done things correctly and scaled the realistic penetration to their scaled down ranges of engagement

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. Are you actualy advocating bigger maps and longer  engagement ranges?

 

No, I'm advocating for the same sized maps with the same engagement ranges, but with penetration and shell angle of fall scaled properly. So essentially treating 20km in game like it's 40km in real life and adjusting the guns penetration curve accordingly

 

[EDIT] not like right now, where we have penetration curves that reflect real life, while the in game actual combat distances are less than half of what typical engagement distances are irl

Edited by iChase

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. Are you actualy advocating bigger maps and longer  engagement ranges?

 

im pretty sure that wont happen because they don't want the battle to take too long. Already as it its, if you die early waiting 16-18 minutes to get your ship back can be quite long.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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. 

 

Source's wording failed me, I apologize.

 

The third deck is not clearly labeled about the boilers.  It is still the boiler room, I believe, but the machinery would all be below that point - it is the beginning of the uptake and just a not very clever subdivision or labeling on the source's part.

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. Are you actualy advocating bigger maps and longer  engagement ranges?

 

what he is saying adjsut the penetration values to match the range in game. right now they are in real life  stats yet the games battlefeidls are far smaller then the engagments in real life. The need to adjsut the pen values for this smalelr feild.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, I'm advocating for the same sized maps with the same engagement ranges, but with penetration and shell angle of fall scaled properly. So essentially treating 20km in game like it's 40km in real life and adjusting the guns penetration curve accordingly

 

[EDIT] not like right now, where we have penetration curves that reflect real life, while the in game actual combat distances are less than half of what typical engagement distances are irl

 

we need a dev to see this

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen compressed distances in Battlestations Pacific, the max range of the Yamato was 1.8miles, and the shells flew into high orbit when you fired at max range.  It was...odd to see ships so close flinging high arc shells from close range.

Edited by Sventex

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen compressed distances in Battlestations Pacific, the max range of the Yamato was 1.8km, and flew into high orbit when you fired at max range.  It was...odd

 

all i can imagine is the barrels pointing straight up :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what the hell the specifics of he history is?

 

The ships look like the originals, that's good enough for 90% of the playerbase.

 

The game mechanics are solid for the game it is.

 

Just make ahistoric modifications to the ships themselves to make them work with the mechanics, and presto.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what the hell the specifics of he history is?

 

The ships look like the originals, that's good enough for 90% of the playerbase.

 

The game mechanics are solid for the game it is.

 

Just make ahistoric modifications to the ships themselves to make them work with the mechanics, and presto.

 

you mean the game mechanics that actually don't work and instead make this a tanks game on water with ships as the skins? Honestly, if we want a naval game, we really should re-examine the mechanics and see if something better can be done

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

all i can imagine is the barrels pointing straight up :D

 

Here's a taste of it:


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't WG say that magazines for 5" shells don't count as citadel space(excluding the Atlanta).  I could be very wrong, but isn't that part of the reason why DD's don't have citadels and there was that one really angry post about how a RN(?) CL had it citadel extended to a 5"magazine?  He said something along the lines of "I thought we went over this WG, 5" shell magazines don't count as citadel space" or something like that.  Of course DD's don't have citadels because of balance reasons also and I could be very wrong about the whole 5" shell magazines not counting towards citadel space.

 

I do agree that part of the problem is the disproportionate relation of range and penetration, but at the same time I feel like having immunity zones would be a too complex mechanic for most to understand.  Thinking about it from a more layman point of view, it wouldn't make sense, for example, that I can penetrate you from 0 to 12km, but as soon as you reach 12km I can't do any damage until you get out to 18km.  I personally don't know how large an immunity zone be, but I feel like it would be too realistic of a mechanic that would require a much higher level of understanding that most players won't have.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balance > Realism.

 

You mean how the German BBs are so balanced right now compared to all the other nations? 

 

In some cases, realism might actually provide an answer to how to balance things properly


4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what the hell the specifics of he history is?

 

The ships look like the originals, that's good enough for 90% of the playerbase.

 

The game mechanics are solid for the game it is.

 

Just make ahistoric modifications to the ships themselves to make them work with the mechanics, and presto.

 

except it isn't. the N CAl and up shouldn't have such weak armor performance. Iowa was design to fight Yamato andthe guys that studied the real yamato say a fight between Iowa and yamato dpedned on weather. they were that close in real life.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

im pretty sure that wont happen because they don't want the battle to take too long. Already as it its, if you die early waiting 16-18 minutes to get your ship back can be quite long.

 

This was going to be my point actualy. There was a reason its not that way now, and its  because it made game play really slow and tedious. Reducing everything down made the game much better, And the majority of people who were testing at the time agreed.

 

No, I'm advocating for the same sized maps with the same engagement ranges, but with penetration and shell angle of fall scaled properly. So essentially treating 20km in game like it's 40km in real life and adjusting the guns penetration curve accordingly

 

[EDIT] not like right now, where we have penetration curves that reflect real life, while the in game actual combat distances are less than half of what typical engagement distances are irl

 

That makes a cruisers job that much harder. This is essentially a HUGE nerf to all cruisers. they would be relegated to HE spam. (more than they already are) There are some cruisers that are effective at hurting Battleships that broadside, And  some that are effective cruiser hunters. Not to mention you would have to rework how armor works with regular AP shells. this would require a huge rework to make the game balanced.

unless you  mean something else than i think you mean. 

 

These types of changes are the things you deal with for a late alpha build or a early beta build. Its a little late to do that.

Edited by Sonoskay

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

you mean the game mechanics that actually don't work and instead make this a tanks game on water with ships as the skins? Honestly, if we want a naval game, we really should re-examine the mechanics and see if something better can be done

 

You're a smart guy.  You know better than to engage with that d-bag troll.  Much disappointment.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're a smart guy.  You know better than to engage with that d-bag troll.  Much disappointment.

 

They make a good point in this case.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This was going to be my point actualy. There was a reason its not that way now, and its  because it made game play really slow and tedious. Reducing everything down made the game much better, And the majority of people who were testing at the time agreed.

 

That makes a cruisers job that much harder. This is essentially a HUGE nerf to all cruisers. they would be relegated to HE spam. (more than they already are) There are some cruisers that are effective at hurting Battleships that broadside, And  some that are effective cruiser hunters. Not to mention you would have to rework how armor works with regular AP shells. this would require a huge rework to make the game balanced.

unless you  mean something else than i think you mean. 

 

actually it would be an armor buff for cruisers so they have more time to hit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.