Hillslam

So, citadel fix in 6.5? Or more delay for reasons

  • You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

26 posts in this topic

Considering that the last thing I heard from Sub_Octavian was maybe 0.6.6, I'm gonna say no, no citadel 'fix' in 0.6.5.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Bloody hell, you people are impatient beyond belief...just let them get it right, and in the meantime work around the citadel and learn to play the ship so that once it is lowered, your stats and performance go up even further.

Edited by TenguBlade

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do just fine in the 'wa

 

Which h is entirely beside the point. There's no legitimate reason this ship should need to be played like a cruiser in this game.

 

It's entirely artificial and is way past time to be corrected.

 

WG won't "get it right" they'll get it where they want it to be based on how they think their customers want the ship to perform in game.

 

When it got set back in beta there were more customers that wanted a USN XP pinata than a tier leader. No telling if that's changed.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively, instead of lowering the citadel, WG could always just give Iowa and Montana the Decapping Plate Armor that they were equipped with which justified their armor scheme.

 

Of course, the way Decapping Plate Armor works is only if the shell hits it at an angle, so Broadsiders will still be punished, but you'll get a lot more room to angle and dodge than you have currently.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively, instead of lowering the citadel, WG could always just give Iowa and Montana the Decapping Plate Armor that they were equipped with which justified their armor scheme.

The 38mm upper bulge/torpedo bulkhead segments on the exterior hull already somewhat serve this purpose in-game.  The decapping plate is too thin to make much of a difference anyways, IIRC it's only 25mm thick.  Most BB shells would go through it regardless.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 38mm upper bulge/torpedo bulkhead segments on the exterior hull already somewhat serve this purpose in-game.  The decapping plate is too thin to make much of a difference anyways, IIRC it's only 25mm thick.  Most BB shells would go through it regardless.

 

"On the South Dakota's, this shell plating is 1.25" thick (3.2 cm) and on the Iowa's it is 1.5" thick (3.81 cm). Using Nathan's formula above, the South Dakota's plating would be sufficient to decap any projectile up to 15.5" (39.4 cm) and the Iowa's plating would be sufficient to decap any projectile up to 18.6" (47.3 cm). This would imply that the Japanese Type 91 18.1" (46 cm) APC projectiles fired by the Yamato would be decapped by the Iowa's shell plating before they reached the main armor belt." 

 

Also, I was talking about decapping when the ship was angled. Your statement is correct: when a shell is travelling into a broadside-on battleship, the shell's velocity and pressure is perpendicular to the armor, so it will punch right through. The same is true with plunging fire. But a shell that's fired at an angled battleship will most likely be decapped and then shatter on the angled belt armor of the ship.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, any time they get around to it is fine. Modeling the citadels unhistorical like that did actually kind of make sense a while ago when it was only the U.S.N. and Japanese battleships. The Yamato's citadel is raised like that and the Izumo just kind of sucked so the Iowa and Montana having citadels like that didn't really matter . . . as much as it does now. Now we have the Germans, that are just overpowered in terms of armor making the U.S.N. look weaker. The citadel lowering is kind of needed now to balance things out. But the whole thing's waited this long, it can watch a few more patches.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I mean, I'm perfectly OK with getting a Citadel buff on my high tier American BBs...but the part they're removing from the citadel (if I remember correctly they're planning on removing Third deck from the citadel area and dropping it to first platform) contains the secondary battery magazines and the tops of the boilers...I'm pretty sure IRL that would be considered citadel space.

 

Edited by Viper5delta

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I'm perfectly OK with getting a Citadel buff on my high tier American BBs...but the part they're removing from the citadel (if I remember correctly they're planning on removing Third deck from the citadel area and dropping it to first platform) contains the secondary battery magazines and the tops of the boilers...I'm pretty sure IRL that would be considered citadel space.

 

Almost as if WG bases their games off historical accuracy...


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...except for the performance and stats of the majority of ships in the game, but yeah...

 

Anyhow - we now know no buff in 6.5


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I'm perfectly OK with getting a Citadel buff on my high tier American BBs...but the part they're removing from the citadel (if I remember correctly they're planning on removing Third deck from the citadel area and dropping it to first platform) contains the secondary battery magazines and the tops of the boilers...I'm pretty sure IRL that would be considered citadel space.

It does contain the 5" magazines, but the engine room doesn't extend above the third deck, which will likely be the upper bound of the citadel after the rework.  Secondary battery barbettes and magazines aren't modeled in this game for multiple reasons, chief among them being to avoid seeing really screwy AP behavior as a result of autobounce mechanics.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the lowering of citadels don't come by 6.6, then we may have permission to rage. Until then, just wait.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't come soon enough. I want to love my new Iowa, I really do, but man it can't take a hit for crap. It's supposed to be one of the most heavily armored ships, nearly as armored as the Yamato given steel and weld quality etc. but it's just a floating citadel with large guns, or at best a very large, unmaneuverable cruiser with no torpedoes or smoke. I just can't make the ship work. It bounces nothing, angling doesn't seem to do anything, you have to make sure you never show broadside which means you can't lead the charge like a lot of derp dds and cruisers want you to, and while the AA is fantastic how often are CVs seen? One in 8 games maybe?


WG seems to not want US battleships and carriers to be competitive. Maybe that's some Russian playerbase thing. Maybe they want the US ships to be unhistorically nerfed. I don't know. but this is not fun.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the citadel issue. I'm frustrated with my Iowa. I get blown up by DD rounds and that's not right. ASlso the fire power of the secondaries sucks. Why a DD with a 5" gun can do so much more damage than an Iowa with 5" secondaries is beyond me. Time to get real with the cit location and secondary fire power.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.worldofwarships.asia/index.php?/topic/24911-about-the-montana-buff-requirement-i-have-read-for-days/page__pid__312863#entry312863

 

Regardless of whatever else the poster says, I think the poster there has a point about not only should Montana get a lower citadel, but Montana should also get Iowa's top engine and possibly even reduced rudder shift time, which would grant her more mobility compared to her peers (better acceleration, bleeds less speed on turns, quicker WASD).


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of whatever else the poster says, I think the poster there has a point about not only should Montana get a lower citadel, but Montana should also get Iowa's top engine and possibly even reduced rudder shift time, which would grant her more mobility compared to her peers (better acceleration, bleeds less speed on turns, quicker WASD).

Montana already has the 212000HP engine from Iowa.  That's why she has a 30-knot top speed, not her historical 28.  WG was just lazy and didn't up the horsepower value to match the higher speed - seeing that she already bleeds less speed in a turn than Grosser Kurfuerst (the only other T10 BB with 30-knot top speed), I don't see why it's absolutely necessary even though it makes their buff job look sloppy.  Giving her faster rudder shift and a smaller turning circle is also another snub to Yamato that wouldn't really buff the Montana in return. Yamato is already a full 3 knots slower than the other two T10 BBs and has the lowest horsepower/weight ratio (H-40B was estimated at around 60000 tons - originally GK had 88500HP for reference) and thus the worst throttle response.  Her smaller size and marginally-quicker rudder response are tradeoffs for this.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Montana already has the 212000HP engine from Iowa.  That's why she has a 30-knot top speed, not her historical 28.  WG was just lazy and didn't up the horsepower value to match the higher speed - seeing that she already bleeds less speed in a turn than Grosser Kurfuerst (the only other T10 BB with 30-knot top speed), I don't see why it's absolutely necessary even though it makes their buff job look sloppy.  Giving her faster rudder shift and a smaller turning circle is also another snub to Yamato that wouldn't really buff the Montana in return. Yamato is already a full 3 knots slower than the other two T10 BBs and has the lowest horsepower/weight ratio (H-40B was estimated at around 60000 tons - originally GK had 88500HP for reference) and thus the worst throttle response.  Her smaller size and marginally-quicker rudder response are tradeoffs for this.

I thought Yamato's trade off was being able to ignore armor... 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Yamato's trade off was being able to ignore armor... 

 

And Moskva's trade-off is being able to ignore Yamato.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Yamato's trade off was being able to ignore armor... 

I'm talking specifically within the context of handling.  There are legitimate tradeoffs for lolpen ability even with in the performance of her main battery - fewer guns, lower broadside alpha strike, absolutely-anemic turret traverse.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I was talking about decapping when the ship was angled. Your statement is correct: when a shell is travelling into a broadside-on battleship, the shell's velocity and pressure is perpendicular to the armor, so it will punch right through. The same is true with plunging fire. But a shell that's fired at an angled battleship will most likely be decapped and then shatter on the angled belt armor of the ship.

 

 

With autobounce rules the way they are, adding the decapping plate to do exactly as you described wouldn't affect much, if anything at all. At any angle worth while Yamato's shells gain a chance to autobounce already, with a steeper angle giving a higher chance, up until 100% autobounce.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of course means the autobounce code is, well, poorly written code.  Or to be fair, not poorly written, just lazy.  Well maybe not even lazy. WG doesn't monetize autobounce code after all. They monetize pretty shiny new ships for us to buy. 

 

Game is working as designed.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I'm talking specifically within the context of handling.  There are legitimate tradeoffs for lolpen ability even with in the performance of her main battery - fewer guns, lower broadside alpha strike, absolutely-anemic turret traverse.

 

I think the ability to completely ignore armor is an advantage that no amount of weaknesses can truly over come.  Must be how the Germans in WWII felt, or the Abrams in Desert storm....just ignore the armor and click, pen....

 

Lower broadside Alpha, except that alpha includes a citadel cuz lol pen all the armor. I think that makes up for the less guns then a Monty, its still just as many as the other T8-9s it faces...

Edited by KnightFandragon

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yammer "weaknesses" are an obfuscation not a tradeoff.

 

She easily sits comfortably at the top of the T10s - by day, week, 2weeks, All... By damage, WR, XP, KD, Srv... pffft

 

That's like saying the tradeoff for buying a Porsche 911 is that you don't get a Kia badge on your trunk.

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yammer "weaknesses" are an obfuscation not a tradeoff.

 

She easily sits comfortably at the top of the T10s - by day, week, 2weeks, All... By damage, WR, XP, KD, Srv... pffft

 

That's like saying the tradeoff for buying a Porsche 911 is that you don't get a Kia badge on your trunk.

That's why I said it's acceptable to leave her at she is, and if you read anything about what I said elsewhere, the high citadel should remain.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.