3 millimeters

[Famous_and_Historical]

As many of you probably know now, the British tier 10 battleship will have 457 millimeter guns, while the Yamato has 460 millimeter guns. Now that means that the British battleship will be just as powerful as the Yamato, because the guns are only 3 millimeters smaller. That's less than a one percent difference. The British shells are also more than 100 pounds heavier than the Japanese 460 mm shells, weighing in at 3,320 pounds, compared to 3,218 pounds for the Yamato shells. By common ballistics and logic, the British shells would actually hit harder, but due to in-game mechanics, there is a huge difference between the potential damage a Yamato will due compared to the British ship. This is because shells have to be at least 459 millimeters in caliber to overmatch the angled 32 millimeter bows of all non-German battleship tiers 8-10. Just remember that if you hold three pennies between your fingers, that is about 3 millimeters. Now imagine shells that weigh more than your car hurling into warships. Can three pennies really mean the difference between crippling an enemy ship or doing noting at all?

***WARNING***

Yamato rant begins here.

Without even taking the overmatch mechanic into consideration, the Yamato already has an edge over all tier 10 battleships in almost every category. Yes, the Kurfurst has turtle-back armor which prevents citadels, and the Montana has the best AA. However, Kurfurst drivers will still eat citadel-like amounts of damage for showing their broadside, and carriers are non-existent at tier 10, rendering an AA advantage extremely situational, if not completely useless. The Yamato also has more secondaries and the same secondary range as the Kurfurst, but no one bothers to buff them because the main guns are so overpowered. Speaking of the main guns, the Yamato has the best sigma value in the game at 2.1, and also one of the best horizontal dispersion stats. The vertical dispersion is also good to, thanks to the medium-low but definitely usable gun velocity. The overmatch mechanic makes this combination of accuracy and hitting power extremely overpowered, if not downright broken. This game mechanic means that the Yamato can multi-citadel any non-German battleship straight through the bow and the stern for massive amounts of damage. And due to the high amount of penetration that the Yamato has, angling against it at close range does not help. The last ridiculously broken advantage that the Yamato has over the other battleships is its insanely powerful heal. Last time I checked, I remember the Yamato damage repair ability being able to heal over 750 health per second. This allows the Yamato to mitigate all damage from fire and heal back a significant amount from HE and AP damage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is over 50% more than the Montana's heal. I'm not sure how much the Kurfurst can heal, but the Yamato probably trumps it. With the buff of the Montana's citadel armor in 0.6.6, the Yamato will have the highest citadel of the tier 10 BB's, but it is also the most strongly armored. The citadel belt itself is 410 mm thick, with 350 mm slopes and a best-in-game 200 mm deck. However no competent Yamato driver is stupid enough to show their broadside to anyone at under 20km range (if you can find a screenshot of this, feel free to post it below). And let's not forget the 55% damage reduction torpedo belt that the Yamato has, which is 20% more than its closest tier 10 competitor. I know that people will post on this thread that the Yamato was the most powerful battleship ever built, and that it should be significantly stronger than the rest, but I don't think that the game mechanics should favor it so much. The Des Moines, which was the most powerful cruiser ever built, is not the best in-class in every category like the Yamato. If the Des Moines was balanced like the Yamato, it would have the heal of the Minotaur, the HE of the Zao, and the tankiness of the Moskva, as well as being able to overmatch every cruiser bow in the game. And while we are speaking of some of the most powerful ships in their respective classes, why don't we just give the Shimakaze 1.1 km concealment torps, 45 knot top speed, and a 3 second reload on her guns.

[Battleship_Dunkerque]

Soooo, are you wanting 3mm more for the RNBB T-X?  Or are you wanting Yammie nerfed?

[AVR_Project]

Saving all my Free XP for the Yamato.

 

[Famous_and_Historical]

Regardless of the angle, bow plating on any ship would have a hard time deflecting battleship caliber shells. So I think that all battleships should be able to overmatch angled bows, with the exception of the Germans. This is because the German armored belts extended all the way to the end of the bow.

[MrDeaf]

INB4 all 32mm armor is nerfed by 1mm, down to 31mm.

[FayFay731]

Yammy is supposed to have 457mm guns as it said in the WoWs Yamato video:

[Famous_and_Historical]

The Yamato had 460mm historically though

[Show_Me_Your_Cits]

Yammy is supposed to have 457mm guns as it said in the WoWs Yamato video:

No it's not. It had 460mm guns. 

 

Also, the Yammy Super Heal got nerfed a looooooong time ago OP. It has the same heal as any other normal BB in the game. 

 

And whilst I agree that the lolpen threshold and whatnot are dumb, Yamato may have the numbers advantage in most cases, but they rarely make much of a difference. I like my GK and my Montana far more than I like my Yams, they're both more flexible. 

[aethervox]

Saving all my Free XP for the Yamato.

 

 

 

That's what I did to get my 1st T10 BB.

[DukeRust]

First, you're ranting about a ship you don't know. Whose flavor you don't know. Whose (nearly) anything you don't know.

 

Yamato is an armored island. It reminds me of a powerful Tank Destroyer in WoT. Except you can see it from space or in other games. Players in Mario Kart are complaining my Yamato is blocking their scenery. I pretty much always win when fighting against any other T10 in a 1v1 match at medium+ range. But the game isn't just about fighting 1v1 at medium+ range. We're not carefully lining up across from each other and doing nothing but shooting. All those soft stats make a big difference. Right now, AA makes probably the least difference, but that's not BB's fault.

 

When I jump back in my Missouri, I get a huge relief about how agile I am by comparison to my Yamato. I just played a game where my Mo and a cruiser took a point, flanked the enemy and I got 3 kills. I'd never dream of doing that with my Yamato, which would get focused and lolled.

 

The flavor of the Yamato is it's got big guns. That's pretty much it. It's got solid AA. It's got solid health. It's got solid secondaries. But the Yamato is played because of it's guns of doom. You could take the secondaries completely off and people would still play because of the main guns. 

[Famous_and_Historical]

I never said that the Montana or the Kurfurst was bad. I actually do well in my Montana and enjoy it. Until i run into Yamatos. I can angle all I want, but their shells are still going to do hillarious (for them) damage to me. Also, I have played the Yamato on the test server many times. In fact, it is usually the ship that I grind out first and then play for XP to get more tier 10s. Now people are idiots on the test server, but that doesnt change the mechanics of the game, or the accuracy of the guns. My point is that the lolpen mechanic is unbalanced, and the Yamato doesnt suffer any negative effects from it. It still has great alpha and competitive DPM, first class protection, and awesome secondaries compared to the other tier 10 BBs. And the best accuracy by far. This is obviously enough for one ship to have, even without the lolpen mechanic.

[TenguBlade]

None of this debate about the Yamato has anything to do with Conqueror being unable to overmatch.

 

At any rate, her guns will be weaker than Yamato's for more reasons than simply that they can't lolpen: their velocity is worse (762m/s is the same as Iowa's guns, while Yamato has 780), which corresponds to worse angles of approach and weaker penetration.  Seeing as Japanese and British munition design philosophies were similar at this time (the IJN never evolved theirs), the shells will also have substantial drag and rather poor velocity retention for projectiles of such weight, exacerbating their already-subpar penetration.  I wouldn't be surprised if the USN 16"/50 MK7 has a superior AP penetration curve, especially at range.

 

The British guns will have one advantage, which is an edge in alpha, as their bursting charge is 5lbs heavier - this will likely push their alpha into the low 15k range despite their inferior striking energy compared to Yamato's shells.

[Phoenix_jz]

You know, they tried to nerf all the bows down so all BBs could overmatch.... And everyone threw a fit.

 

 

So I doubt they'll ever try that again.

[Edselman]

Most likely all other 18" guns added to the game will probably be 457mm in caliber, not 460mm like the Yamato. The Yamato has the magic number because a 460mm gun can overmatch 32mm of bow plating which happens to be the standard bow plating for BBs tier 8 and up. A 457mm gun cannot do this so there shouldn't be too much complaining if another 18" armed ship appears because they won't be able to overmatch 32mm bows like the Yamato can. The thing about the game is that penetration is more dependent on the caliber of the gun than the weight and velocity of the shell. For example, the U.S. experimented with an 18"/47 gun (longer barreled than Yamato's gun) and 18" Super Heavy Shell in the 30's that weighed 3,850 lbs. (over 600 lbs. heavier than Yamato shells). If we get a U.S.N. BB that uses these guns at tier 10 of a second line, they would probably do more damage hit for hit than the Yamato's guns because the U.S. SHS shell is a lot heavier but the Yamato would have better penetration because the caliber of the gun is 3 whole millimeters larger.

 

Now it seems like an annoyance but I'm sure there are probably some important balance reasons on why penetration is dependent on caliber over shell weight.

[Phoenix_jz]

Caliber is only beneficial as far as overmatch goes. In terms of penetration, the larger the round the worse off it is, as you want to pack as much mass and thus energy in as concentrated a form as possible. This is why the diameter of a shell is pretty much always in the division part of penetration formulas, as the larger the shell the more it detracts from the penetrative qualities of the shell.

[Hillslam]

OP- don't waste your breath it'll never change in this game. WG serves their fan base.

[Famous_and_Historical]

None of this debate about the Yamato has anything to do with Conqueror being unable to overmatch.

 

At any rate, her guns will be weaker than Yamato's for more reasons than simply that they can't lolpen: their velocity is worse (762m/s is the same as Iowa's guns, while Yamato has 780), which corresponds to worse angles of approach and weaker penetration.  Seeing as Japanese and British munition design philosophies were similar at this time (the IJN never evolved theirs), the shells will also have substantial drag and rather poor velocity retention for projectiles of such weight, exacerbating their already-subpar penetration.  I wouldn't be surprised if the USN 16"/50 MK7 has a superior AP penetration curve, especially at range.

 

The British guns will have one advantage, which is an edge in alpha, as their bursting charge is 5lbs heavier - this will likely push their alpha into the low 15k range despite their inferior striking energy compared to Yamato's shells.

 

You have a good point about the British guns being worse than the Yamato guns historically, but it still doesn't explain why 3 millimeters makes such a big difference and why this is part of the game mechanics. In my opinion, It is not necessary to balance an already powerful ship with game mechanics that allow it to lolpen anything.

Most likely all other 18" guns added to the game will probably be 457mm in caliber, not 460mm like the Yamato. The Yamato has the magic number because a 460mm gun can overmatch 32mm of bow plating which happens to be the standard bow plating for BBs tier 8 and up. A 457mm gun cannot do this so there shouldn't be too much complaining if another 18" armed ship appears because they won't be able to overmatch 32mm bows like the Yamato can. The thing about the game is that penetration is more dependent on the caliber of the gun than the weight and velocity of the shell. For example, the U.S. experimented with an 18"/47 gun (longer barreled than Yamato's gun) and 18" Super Heavy Shell in the 30's that weighed 3,850 lbs. (over 600 lbs. heavier than Yamato shells). If we get a U.S.N. BB that uses these guns at tier 10 of a second line, they would probably do more damage hit for hit than the Yamato's guns because the U.S. SHS shell is a lot heavier but the Yamato would have better penetration because the caliber of the gun is 3 whole millimeters larger.

 

 

Now it seems like an annoyance but I'm sure there are probably some important balance reasons on why penetration is dependent on caliber over shell weight.

 

Gun caliber has very little to do with shell penetration. It is almost entirely due to the weight, velocity, and penetrator design of the shell. Historically, USN 16" 50 cal superheavy shells had similar medium to long range penetration as the Yamato's 18" shells. Modern tank guns and ammunition also contradict the overmatch mechanic in WOWS. APDS shells used by modern tanks break apart after being fired by the gun, leaving a smaller penetrator with the same kinetic energy as a full-sized shell. I also believe that if WG scaled back the penetration curves of battleship main guns and reduced the bow armor tier 8-10 battleships to 25mm, we would have a game that does a better job of reflecting historical accuracy. Battleships would no longer be afraid to show their broadsides at mid-long range, and this would change the current stationary playstyle of many battleships.

[Phoenix_jz]

 

You have a good point about the British guns being worse than the Yamato guns historically, but it still doesn't explain why 3 millimeters makes such a big difference and why this is part of the game mechanics. In my opinion, It is not necessary to balance an already powerful ship with game mechanics that allow it to lolpen anything.

Gun caliber has very little to do with shell penetration. It is almost entirely due to the weight, velocity, and penetrator design of the shell. Historically, USN 16" 50 cal superheavy shells had similar medium to long range penetration as the Yamato's 18" shells. Modern tank guns and ammunition also contradict the overmatch mechanic in WOWS. APDS shells used by modern tanks break apart after being fired by the gun, leaving a smaller penetrator with the same kinetic energy as a full-sized shell. I also believe that if WG scaled back the penetration curves of battleship main guns and reduced the bow armor tier 8-10 battleships to 25mm, we would have a game that does a better job of reflecting historical accuracy. Battleships would no longer be afraid to show their broadsides at mid-long range, and this would change the current stationary playstyle of many battleships.

 

They tried to scale back bow armor... last summer, I think it was? Yeah, that did not get good reception, so they pulled that. Apparently it didn't go well in testing too.

 

But as I mentioned above, caliber does indeed have an effect on penetration. The bigger the shell (in not specifically in volume, but rather in diameter), the more is detracts from the penetrative ability of the shell. If you think of the penetration formula as one big fraction, while stuff like mass, velocity at impact, Krupp, etc, are all in the numerator, caliber is in the denominator. The bigger the denominator in a fraction, obviously, the smaller the overall value of the fraction is. The same logic applies here, and this is indeed accurately represented in WoWs as far as penetration goes.

 

Overmatch is an entirely different mechanic, and that's more done to help balance out auto bounce mechanics rather to be historically accurate to anything. Autobounce mechanics exist so that every battleship doesn't lolcit anything within standard (for WoWs) engagement ranges. Because for the most part they would. If you think going broadside is bad... well, bow-on is actually worse as transverse bulkheads are rarely as thick as main belts, and nor do they have as many bulkheads behind them... making them way more vulnerable.

[Famous_and_Historical]

The reason why reducing bow armor didn't work was because there was no corresponding drop in penetration. If the game was completely historical, shells would take 30+ seconds to hit. The problem with penetration in the game is that firing ranges are reduced to compensate for flight time, but there is not a corresponding drop in penetration. It seems that the solution would be to reduce penetration in correspondence with the reduction in range, and make bow armor penetrable. ichase did an excellent video on this called Iowa citadel problems

 

[Famous_and_Historical]

Also, in addition to weaker armor in the bulkhead, going nose on in a battleship in real life would increase the likelihood of a magazine hit.

[byronicasian]

The reason why reducing bow armor didn't work was because there was no corresponding drop in penetration. If the game was completely historical, shells would take 30+ seconds to hit. The problem with penetration in the game is that firing ranges are reduced to compensate for flight time, but there is not a corresponding drop in penetration. It seems that the solution would be to reduce penetration in correspondence with the reduction in range, and make bow armor penetrable. ichase did an excellent video on this called Iowa citadel problems

 

Reducing pen increases time to kill, which is the opposite goal of what the devs have tried to shape the game into since Alpha test.

 

The 14.3 autobounce seemed to be a gross simplification of this formula.

 

 

As for where Wargaming got the 14.3 coefficient, historically one of the main armor penetration formulas was the De Marre Nickel-Steel Armor Penetration Formula:

T/D = (0.00005021)D^0.07144[(W/D³)(V/C)²Cos³(Ob)]^0.71429 (I said armor penetration was complicated)

Or more simply:

T = (K)V^1.42857

"where T is the plate thickness barely penetrated at striking velocity V and K is a constant for a given plate type and projectile design and obliquity of impact."

Take that coefficient, multiply by 10, and round and you have the in game overmatch parameter 14.3.

 

[Napalm_Stix_2Kids]

In regards to the OP, I don't think you'll ever see WG nerf Yamato. That said, I don't think one set of guns should have every positive attribute in the game. Yammy should either get the hardest hitting guns (hard to argue against that) or the most accurate guns, not both. And since it's debatable as to whether or not those 460mm shells ever made contact with an opposing ship AND was using outdated (compared to the Americans) fire control methods, I think Yammys sigma should be dropped to 1.8, the Germans T7 and up  should bump up to 1.9 or 2.0, and the Monty, Iowa, and Mo should take the Yammy's 2.1 sigma. Balanced AND historical, but that's just my $0.02.

[Famous_and_Historical]

In regards to the OP, I don't think you'll ever see WG nerf Yamato. That said, I don't think one set of guns should have every positive attribute in the game. Yammy should either get the hardest hitting guns (hard to argue against that) or the most accurate guns, not both. And since it's debatable as to whether or not those 460mm shells ever made contact with an opposing ship AND was using outdated (compared to the Americans) fire control methods, I think Yammys sigma should be dropped to 1.8, the Germans T7 and up  should bump up to 1.9 or 2.0, and the Monty, Iowa, and Mo should take the Yammy's 2.1 sigma. Balanced AND historical, but that's just my $0.02.

That was one of the points that I tried to state in my original post. It's simply too op for one ship's guns to have everything. As for the changes you proposed, i think 2.1 plus the dispersion module on Montana would be way too OP.

[Famous_and_Historical]

 

Reducing pen increases time to kill, which is the opposite goal of what the devs have tried to shape the game into since Alpha test.

 

The 14.3 autobounce seemed to be a gross simplification of this formula.

 

 

That is a good catch, but try explaining to me why EVERY tier 8 to 10 battleship has 32mm bow armor. The Germans were the only nation that armored their bows after WWI, and this was because one of their battlecruisers sunk due to bow flooding. By the Nevada class, US designers had already introduced an armored citadel with enough buoyancy to keep the ship afloat if it was damaged. If bow armor was reduced at the same time as penetration drop, these two might cancel each other out.

[Napalm_Stix_2Kids]

Even after 6.6 she still has the easiest to reach citadel and the lowest caliber guns of all 3 T10 BBs. So maybe put the Germans at 1.9 and US BBs starting at T8 with a 2.0 instead of 2.1