More Info on AP Bombs

[bacononaboat]

 

I thought that with the recent release of iChase's video this would be good to put out there. If you don't want to watch, Stuntman says that during testing there's been cases where some of the more thickly armored DDs like Khabarovsk have received a pen every now and then from these AP bombs. His theory is that it bounced off a 45 degree surface back into the ship - it's really better if you watch to understand his explanation. He also says it's possible to pen or cit a cruiser with some luck. 

Stuntman also made a very good point about AP bombs causing flooding - imagine striking a cruiser with torpedo bombers, causing flooding, then coming back after damagecon is on cooldown, and riddling it with holes that cause flooding. Or imagine staggering your DB strikes (assuming you have more than 1 DB squad) on a destroyer so that you make them flood for the full 40 seconds before their DC is back up. This would kill or cripple most destroyers. 

I think it's up to the community and devs to decide if overpen flooding should be a thing but I'd remind everyone that this is an arcade game. Not everything has to be about realism; and IMO if the AP bombs really do have such a smash down on enemy BBs then I think it's like everything else in the game; if you choose to specialize towards a certain way to play, your ship will struggle in other aspects. You shouldn't be able to do everything with a single tool in a game. Remember, the devs said AP bombs will be like a module choice. You don't have to use them.

 

And let's please stay on topic I don't want to get in the Oktober Revolution Damage Con

 

Happy sailing!

-bacon

[pewpewpew42]

Flooding should be exceedingly rare but still a thing. Perhaps as little as 1% or less chance of flooding on an overpen.

[bacononaboat]

2 minutes ago, pewpewpew42 said:

Flooding should be exceedingly rare but still a thing. Perhaps as little as 1% or less chance of flooding on an overpen.

 

Eh, seems fair.

[JToney3449]

More that AP bombs should have their own type of flooding over pen damage, like 1/4th the damage of torpedo flooding.  It would be more in line with a fire dot, it should also have a high chance of doing it other wise you will have almost no real way of doing damage to light cruisers and destroyers.   They really need to fix USN CV before releasing the Enterprise, then rebalance the Saipan and the Enterprise once the trees are fixed.

 

WG needs to just stop with balancing ships through gimicks that is just a quagmire of problems.  At current my opinion is AP bombs atm are worse then HE bombs,  you simply give up to much to focus purely on getting big damage numbers off BB's.  If you get a game with few bb's you will be gimped.  If you get BB but they all have heavy deck armor you are gimped.  WG still didnt fix a core issue of the Ent that it has T7 planes against T10 AA, those DB will likely never reach their targets.

 

ichase as usual makes a video about how awesome something is in a training room in ideal conditions.   Hood AA is OP, and the rest of the hood? lol.  AP bombs are OP ya vs a t6 fuso.  Cause as T8 carrier you run into tons of fuso's every game.  WG would be better served making high end USN carriers have 2 DB squads with HE bombs, and 3rd DB squad with large AP bombs, and two fighter squads.  Make the USN focused  on AS/DB punching power, leave the IJN as Torpedo runners.

[Reymu]

2 minutes ago, JToney3449 said:

More that AP bombs should have their own type of flooding over pen damage, like 1/4th the damage of torpedo flooding.  It would be more in line with a fire dot, it should also have a high chance of doing it other wise you will have almost no real way of doing damage to light cruisers and destroyers.   They really need to fix USN CV before releasing the Enterprise, then rebalance the Saipan and the Enterprise once the trees are fixed.

 

WG needs to just stop with balancing ships through gimicks that is just a quagmire of problems.  At current my opinion is AP bombs atm are worse then HE bombs,  you simply give up to much to focus purely on getting big damage numbers off BB's.  If you get a game with few bb's you will be gimped.  If you get BB but they all have heavy deck armor you are gimped.  WG still didnt fix a core issue of the Ent that it has T7 planes against T10 AA, those DB will likely never reach their targets.

 

ichase as usual makes a video about how awesome something is in a training room in ideal conditions.   Hood AA is OP, and the rest of the hood? lol.  AP bombs are OP ya vs a t6 fuso.  Cause as T8 carrier you run into tons of fuso's every game.  WG would be better served making high end USN carriers have 2 DB squads with HE bombs, as 1 DB squads with large AP bombs, and two fighter squads.  Make the USN focused  on AS/DB punching power, leave the IJN as Torpedo runners.

And it'd be what, about 20-40 seconds of flooding? Nothing wrong with that, but it needs to be reasonable given the bomb has its brutal base damage.

 

Might be more useful--thinking team player--if the AP bombs have a good chance to knock out the engine and/or steering. Save for DDs or RN/Kutuzov/Perth already slowing to use smoke, it's a good way to bait DCP. Otherwise having the HE DB or TB is kind of pointless.

 

Will need different icons to denote AP and HE DB, but can see this best working with a 2-3/1/2 loadout Lex, Essex, and Midway. Enough fighters to provide some air cover, and enough types of bombers to pull a nasty one-two punch on a key enemy ship and make it more vulnerable. Point of CV bombers is an alpha strike that makes for an easy kill. I have slammed BBs and CAs hard enough in my CVs so they're below 20% HP and then teammates finish them off--I promise you, a competent CV hammering reds this way is one of the most valuable assets in WOWS.

 

Plus, with HE DB and TB, the CV can attempt to hit DDs for reasonable damage, assuming AP bombs won't cut it.

[Darsh007]

On the one hand, flooding makes sense conceptually, as you leave a giant hole in the hull below the water line.  On the other hand, it doesn't jive well with the game mechanics. 

Here's the thing - you have to choose between HE and AP.  HE damage, and the associated DOT fires can be scrubbed with dmg ctl party, can be FULLY healed (assuming the victim has enough heals available).  Flooding damage functions similarly.  However, AP damage can only be healed by a percentage of the total.  If the mechanics shifted to allow for AP to cause flooding - the heal mechanics would need a solid rework.  Further, what prevents the CV drivers from just always going AP bombers, knowing they'll either get a citadel or a decent chance for flooding?  Take it to the next step, and why don't AP overpens that exit thru the waterline cause flooding for surface ships? 

Personally I'm good with the AP bombs not being 100% negated by a heal, whereas your HE fires can be (and subsequently giving you good reason to stagger your attacks to bait out damage control). 

[WanderingGhost]

4 minutes ago, JToney3449 said:

More that AP bombs should have their own type of flooding over pen damage, like 1/4th the damage of torpedo flooding.  It would be more in line with a fire dot, it should also have a high chance of doing it other wise you will have almost no real way of doing damage to light cruisers and destroyers.   They really need to fix USN CV before releasing the Enterprise, then rebalance the Saipan and the Enterprise once the trees are fixed.

 

WG needs to just stop with balancing ships through gimicks that is just a quagmire of problems.  At current my opinion is AP bombs atm are worse then HE bombs,  you simply give up to much to focus purely on getting big damage numbers off BB's.  If you get a game with few bb's you will be gimped.  If you get BB but they all have heavy deck armor you are gimped.  WG still didnt fix a core issue of the Ent that it has T7 planes against T10 AA, those DB will likely never reach their targets.

 

ichase as usual makes a video about how awesome something is in a training room in ideal conditions.   Hood AA is OP, and the rest of the hood? lol.  AP bombs are OP ya vs a t6 fuso.  Cause as T8 carrier you run into tons of fuso's every game.  WG would be better served making high end USN carriers have 2 DB squads with HE bombs, and 3rd DB squad with large AP bombs, and two fighter squads.  Make the USN focused  on AS/DB punching power, leave the IJN as Torpedo runners.

I'd debate squadron type/numbers but yeah, pretty much this. Hood vaporized my Saipan DB's before I could react. Giving E tier 7's isn't an issue and historically accurate just like Saipan but the out of control AA IS an issue linked to TB manual drops primarily, the main way Wargaming tried to balance that mechanic was "More AA", which screws over DB's, and more importantly the DB reliant USN tree. Reasons it needs to go. So we can make AA reasonable, it helps defend a ship, but not the level a ship by itself is immune, I don't care what it is. Even if that means a concession as well of reintegrating the AA/Secondary range modernization back together because if AA is at a reasonable level? I don't mind it being a double duty thing.

 

There is also the fact ship movment has an effect too, Ichase literally took the best case it was meant to counter, not a moving target that turns to throw it off. CV's should have been fixed before Kaga was released, hell, before Saipan, but Wargaming is acting like fools on this stuff unfortunately.

 

4 minutes ago, Reymu said:

And it'd be what, about 20-40 seconds of flooding? Nothing wrong with that, but it needs to be reasonable given the bomb has its brutal base damage.

 

I believe the discussion is "flooding on over pens only", which would be maybe 730 damage because over pen is I believe 1/10 max damage, so that they maintain some effectiveness over lighter cruisers and DD's. Which putting it in line with fires give it's not a huge hole like a torp makes sense. Plus, some of us, when we don't leave single squads to AA because were high enough tiered, already stack up fire with HE bombs so either you let that first burn, or you put it out and I possibly set you right back on fire. 

 

I do think though that the option should be there for say Ranger and Lex for AS to have 1 of each DB type, and a mix set up to have 1 fighter, 1 TB, and one of each DB type or 1 fighter, 2 HE DB one AP DB. I think AP only or HE only for USN really just adds to it's main issue - it's too all or nothing. IJN and USN should both have even ability to contest the air without strafing, while maintaining a decent enough strike ability, which allows for effective attacks on all ship types, but IJN gets more a focus on larger ships, due to torpedoes, and USN a focus on the smaller ships with more accurate DB's with either a TB or AP group to help against larger ships.

[MarioKartMaster]

Nah, don't nerf AP bombs at all. They are supposed to be for USN CV, right? If so, then they need that to be able to match IJN CV, which way outclass USN CV, even in AS (i.e. with cap perks, AS Ranger gets 14 fighters and 14 DB squads, AS Hiryu (with cap perks) gets 15 fighters, 4 TB, and 10 DB...)

[BlazerSparta]

Making AP bombs with their current drop circle stronger is completely ridiculous.

 

Manual bombing is so much easier than manual torping - the delay goes from like 3+ seconds between commit and impact to a second or less.

 

All AP bombs show is that WG still has no idea what the problem with CVs is or how to fix it.

 

Either AP bombs are useless and nothing changes, or they're OP and USN returns to being the meta CVs.

 

Nothing good will come of this.

[Cobraclutch]

For those curious as to what a 500 lb GP BOMB overpen does to a destroyer. 

 

Please note this is a GP bomb, and not an AP bomb. AP Bombs were generally considered ineffective against DD's. 

 

 

Destroyer Report

Gunfire, Bomb and Kamikaze Damage Including Losses in Action 17 October, 1941 to 15 August, 1945

 

8-1 While standing out of the harbor of Palermo during an air raid before dawn on the morning of 4 August 1943, SHUBRICK was struck by one of a pattern of three bombs. The hit passed through the after fireroom and detonated under the bottom, flooding two machinery spaces and disrupting all power. After 4 days at Palermo where emergency repairs were carried out, the ship was towed to Malta for drydocking. Upon completion of extensive structural repairs at Malta she proceeded to Navy Yard, New York under her own power on one shaft arriving 10 October 1943. Permanent repairs were completed on 6 December 1943.

 

Photo 8-4: SHUBRICK (DD639). Hole in main deck at frame 101 made by bomb which was 13-1/2 inches in diameter.

 

Photo 8-2: SHUBRICK (DD639) Close-up of hole in port side looking up into after fireroom.

[Hurlbut]

It doesn't say what kind of bomb did that damage. I would presume it was the SAP Type 99 No. 25? SAP standing for?

[Cobraclutch]

18 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

It doesn't say what kind of bomb did that damage. I would presume it was the SAP Type 99 No. 25? SAP standing for?

I don't know the exact model. 

 

But I believe that was a GP Stuka 500lb bomb. 

 

Went right through and denotated 15 feet under the ship. 

[DDJohnston]

35 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

It doesn't say what kind of bomb did that damage. I would presume it was the SAP Type 99 No. 25? SAP standing for?

31 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

It doesn't say what kind of bomb did that damage. I would presume it was the SAP Type 99 No. 25? SAP standing for?

Since it was standing out of Palermo harbor, no.  The named bomb is a Japanese bomb, and you wouldn't see those dropped on a DD near Italy...

 

Probably an Italian or German bomb in this case.  As the previous poster said, likely a 250-KG (550-lb) Stuka bomb.  

 

Why this particular ship hit was prefaced with data on a Japanese bomb, I'm not sure...

 

[Cobraclutch]

5 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

Since it was standing out of Palermo harbor, no.  The named bomb is a Japanese bomb, and you wouldn't see those dropped on a DD near Italy...

 

Probably an Italian or German bomb in this case.  As the previous poster said, likely a 250-KG (550-lb) Stuka bomb.  

 

Why this particular ship hit was prefaced with data on a Japanese bomb, I'm not sure...

 

Just wanted to highlight that AP bombs were considered highly ineffective by the IJN againts DD's. Removed it. 

[Slimeball91]

I assume this has already been discussed.  If the AP bombs were able to be selected in game as we do for the other ships classes would that allow them to balanced much easier?  As it stands now, as a module choice there are more things to factor in to make these bombs both a viable choice and still be balanced.  If it was an in game choice there wouldn't be any need to even discuss possible flooding, pen damage to cruisers or DDs.  All that would be needed is to strike a fair balance of the damage they do to BBs.  If they did little or no damage to DDs or cruisers all you'd need to do is choose HE to strike them.  I suppose it could give USN CVs an edge over IJN.  If so maybe limit the ability to choose AP or HE to only one squadron.

 

[Slimeball91]

3 hours ago, Cobraclutch said:

For those curious as to what a 500 lb GP BOMB overpen does to a destroyer. 

 

Please note this is a GP bomb, and not an AP bomb. AP Bombs were generally considered ineffective against DD's.

My grandfather served on the USN DD Mayrant in WWII.  It is his ship Cobraclutch's post is referring to, you can see the illustration of the damaged DD in the image is listed as Mayrant.  He was a machinist and was in the engineering space where most of the damage was sustained.  I remember as a kid his recounting the story of the men frantically stuffing mattresses in where the hull was torn open.  It seemed like a really dramatic story and I never knew how much was truth or just an embellished war story.  Its nice to have his story corroborated in Wikipedia. 

Edit:  It was a near miss, not an overpen on the Mayrant.

[intixw]

Why do people insist on bringing up real life in a discussion about video game mechanics?

[Hurlbut]

Because WG does use historical data to develop their game mechanics off.

[Cruxdei]

i get the feeling french BBs with strong deck armor will benefit a lot from this while german BBs might bet citadels.

[Tzarevitch]

Here's USS Savannah (Brooklyn class CL) after getting hit by a Fritz X glide bomb.

Spoiler

Here's the damage report if anyone cares to read it. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/WDR/U.S.S. SAVANNAH (CL-42), BOMB DAMAGE - Gulf of Salerno, Italy, September 11, 1943.pdf The ship took it surprisingly well given the size of the bomb (3,000lb AP bomb) and the fact that it went into a magazine. The STS bulkheads apparently limited the blast and I suspect vented it out the bottom somewhat rather than into the remainder of the ship. I

[SpeedingBus]

3 hours ago, issm said:

Making AP bombs with their current drop circle stronger is completely ridiculous.

 

Manual bombing is so much easier than manual torping - the delay goes from like 3+ seconds between commit and impact to a second or less.

 

All AP bombs show is that WG still has no idea what the problem with CVs is or how to fix it.

 

Either AP bombs are useless and nothing changes, or they're OP and USN returns to being the meta CVs.

 

Nothing good will come of this.

Probably the only time I have ever agreed with you.

 

I don't understand why WG is doing this when they haven't addressed the mechanics of CV's. Maybe AP bombs are "balanced" with the CV rework but their shoving the cart way ahead of the horse this time. WG hasn't even hinted at whats going to change mechanic wise for CVs so you know its far away.

[mofton]

On 6/16/2017 at 10:53 AM, JToney3449 said:

ichase as usual makes a video about how awesome something is in a training room in ideal conditions.   Hood AA is OP, and the rest of the hood? lol.  AP bombs are OP ya vs a t6 fuso.  Cause as T8 carrier you run into tons of fuso's every game.  WG would be better served making high end USN carriers have 2 DB squads with HE bombs, and 3rd DB squad with large AP bombs, and two fighter squads.  Make the USN focused  on AS/DB punching power, leave the IJN as Torpedo runners.

Aeroon's AP bombs vid showed Enterprise deleting a Bismarck and a Tirpitz on separate occasions, against real players - 59k and 63k strikes with 2 squadrons. Given that multi TB squadrons were supposedly removed to avoid that it seems odd to give Enterprise that capability.

On 6/16/2017 at 10:13 AM, pewpewpew42 said:

Flooding should be exceedingly rare but still a thing. Perhaps as little as 1% or less chance of flooding on an overpen.

Low chance, very RNG, annoying as heck? Sounds like Detonation 2.0.

[DDJohnston]

2 hours ago, Cobraclutch said:

Just wanted to highlight that AP bombs were considered highly ineffective by the IJN againts DD's. Removed it. 

Perfectly fine.  I was mostly curious of the including of the two differing elements.  As you say, AP bombs aren't good against DDs.  However, a delay-fused (not sure if AP) bomb or two made a real mess on the Enterprise at Eastern Solomons.  

 

 

[DDJohnston]

1 hour ago, mofton said:

Aeroon's AP bombs vid showed Enterprise deleting a Bismarck and a Tirpitz on separate occasions, against real players - 59k and 63k strikes with 2 squadrons. Given that multi TB squadrons were supposedly removed to avoid that it seems odd to give Enterprise that capability.

Low chance, very RNG, annoying as heck? Sounds like Detonation 2.0.

Actually, AP bombs 'deleting' BBs is not exactly WWII reality.  Musashi and Yamato both took a lot of torps to do the job...while bombs set fires, they didn't find a magazine or anything.  Sure, the Yamato blew up, but that was only as she rolled over, and she'd been on fire for quite some time.  Magazines never got flooded.

 

Looking a little deeper, the only WWII incident of a BB blowing the hell up because of an AP bomb that I think of...wasn't a bomb at all.  Was an 'AP bomb' dropped on the Arizona at Pearl Harbor.   The Type 99 Number 80 Mark 5, used at Pearl Harbor, was remanufactured from obsolete 16" battleship shells.   That found a magazine, and indeed, Arizona exploded.

 

However, the list is pretty small other than that:

Hood: (battlecruiser, but relevant to WoWS discussion).  Shell from Bismarck or Prinz Eugen, through the deck. 

Barham: Submarine, not a bomb

The rest of the Pearl Harbor fleet got torped pretty well, or took a bomb or two, but nothing like the Arizona did.

Roma took an aerial hit, but it wasn't an AP bomb...one of the first command-guided bombs, and it was 3000 pounds or so.  Ouch.

Fuso and Yamashiro were set on by the PT boats and the destroyers on the way to the Strait, and the reconstituted Pearl Harbor BB fleet finished off the rest.

Tirpitz was capsized by aerial bombs, but they were 12,000 pound ones.  Not going to find those hanging off the WoWS carrier aircraft. Or I sure hope not, anyway.  Bismarck got her rudder blown off by a ragbag biplane, and then pounded to slag by the British battle fleet.  

Kongo blew up after a sub torpedo hit.  Kirishima was deleted by North Carolina's sister ship Washington while South Dakota got her topsides messed up.  Hiei got the crap beat out of her by a bunch of DDs and cruisers, then a few torps from aircraft finished the job.  Haruna got caught by the fast carriers while in port at Kure, and died there, but no catastrophic explosions.

 

After all that, it seems that  AP bombs could be interesting, but they didn't really hurt BBs historically, except for the Arizona.  You want to blow up a BB's magazine,a submarine gives a better chance, it seems.  

 

[Herr_Reitz]

As far as Enterprise, I'd bet if they leave her with that horrific torp pattern "the flying M" then most the time she'll be leaning heavy on AP bombs if they are available. I'd expect the AP to be adjusted for the tiers being played, wouldn't you? 

 

If the neuter the crap out of them because of this group or that group it would be disappointing. I'm new to carriers but can already see the USN grind would not be fun beyond T6... I do hope they move forward with them as close to as possible as their original design/intent. 

 

They just got to fix the dang torp pattern.