Dear WG: Khabarovsk

[Ace_04]

Dear WG:

 

Despite your recent nerfs, Khabarovsk is still proving to be immensely more powerful than any other T10 DD (see two week stats below):

 

https://na.warships.today/vehicles

 

Not only overall, but in the past two weeks, she is averaging 20k more damage and a full 3% win rate higher than the rest of the T10 DD's.  I'm normally not one to cry wolf over this sort of thing, but seeing these stats, I don't think there is much argument that she needs to be reigned in quite a bit.

 

A simple rudder shift nerf is clearly not the answer.  I certainly hope there is a plan to bring her in check with the rest of her contemporaries.

[4bRbyHSSzZ6pk]

Like maybe giving it a normal belt armor, that'd be a great start. It will still outgun every DD and outspeed everything on its tier so it wouldn't lose it's identity just for taking normal damage like everything else.

[Doctor_Vopper]

For some reason it seems that the Khab is impervious to WG's nerfing 

[VTAdmiral]

Once I get it, they'll nerf it. That's the way of things.

[Lord_Magus]

8 minutes ago, CruiserQuincy said:

Like maybe giving it a normal belt armor, that'd be a great start. It will still outgun every DD and outspeed everything on its tier so it wouldn't lose it's identity just for taking normal damage like everything else.

Removing the belt armor would also make Kebab into a physically possible design.

[Shadowrigger1]

And here we go,   Again 

[yashma]

I can second removing the Khaba's belt armor.

[renegadestatuz]

14 minutes ago, Destroyer_Kiyoshimo said:

Once I get it, they'll nerf it. That's the way of things.

Then don't come anywhere near my Khab :)

[Umikami]

58 minutes ago, Lord_Magus said:

Removing the belt armor would also make Kebab into a physically possible design.

please do explain to me how a paper design can be imposssible

[MrDeaf]

3 options

1. Cruiser like protection, so cruiser like speed of 33 knots
2. Cruiser like protection, so cruiser citadel attached
3. Ditch cruiser like protection, so that it is now a destroyer

[MrDeaf]

8 minutes ago, Umikami said:

please do explain to me how a paper design can be imposssible

It has to do with tonnage.

Same engine as Tashkent
Similar hull as Tashkent
Adds another 50t turret
Further adds 50mm plating (at least 500t of armor)
Somehow goes 0.5 knots faster than Tashkent... How???

Stalin Math

[VTAdmiral]

13 minutes ago, Umikami said:

please do explain to me how a paper design can be imposssible

Oh, by all means.

 

Khabarovsk as-designed uses the same powerplant as Tashkent, with a few minor technological improvements that brings its ShP from 49,000 to 52,000

 

Khabarovsk has 1 more turret than Tashkent (+~100 tons or so)

Khabarovsk is physically larger than Tashkent (+~300 tons)

Khabarovsk has a 50mm belt along the entire length of the ship (+~500 tons)

 

Despite being ~900 tons heavier than Tashkent, Khabarovsk is faster than Tashkent, with only 3000 more shp produced by its engine.

 

It literally is physically impossible and can only exist in a game.

 

With that armor belt, some doubt it could even float.

[Umikami]

2 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

It has to do with tonnage.

Same engine as Tashkent
Similar hull as Tashkent
Adds another 50t turret
Further adds 50mm plating (at least 500t of armor)
Somehow goes 0.5 knots faster than Tashkent... How???

Stalin Math

if you want a real challenge, do the math and find out how top heavy the tier 10 IJN CV is.

CLUE: in real life it would capsize!

and you're worried about one little impossible DD! shame on you!

[VTAdmiral]

1 minute ago, Umikami said:

if you want a real challenge, do the math and find out how top heavy the tier 10 IJN CV is.

CLUE: in real life it would capsize!

 

Not really. It has a similar situation as Taiho and would just have a heavier draft than normal. This is the tradeoff of an armored flight deck.

[Umikami]

5 minutes ago, Destroyer_Kiyoshimo said:

Not really. It has a similar situation as Taiho and would just have a heavier draft than normal. This is the tradeoff of an armored flight deck.

IRL Taiho had a 70 mm flight deck; in game it's 90, and tier 10's is even larger. 20 mm more armor across the entire deck.

the math is hairy. but you can't just keep adding tons and tons of weight, armored weight, to the top of something without there being an "equal and opposite reaction". All tht potential energy must be controlled somehow (stability) and as a ship gets heavier and heavier on top she becomes more and more prone to turning turtle.

read up on the escort carriers during the Murmansk convoys; one of the greatest dangers they faced was capsizing because of ice weight.

I know it's a game, and it doesn't really mean anything, but impossibility makes for a very good defense against plunging fire.

[VTAdmiral]

4 minutes ago, Umikami said:

the math is hairy. but you can't just keep adding tons and tons of weight, armored weight, to the top of something without there being an "equal and opposite reaction". All tht potential energy must be controlled somehow (stability) and as a ship gets heavier and heavier on top she becomes more and more prone to turning turtle.

 

If only there was a way to create below-waterline weight to offset the weight of the flight deck.

 

Like Taiho had concrete which doubled as protection around its AvGas tanks.

 

And most ships have a bilge.

 

Not saying it's not a top-heavy design, but there already existed ways to mitigate the risks that came with it. Many Japanese ships were top-heavy.

 

EDIT: And remember you're arguing that a paper ship as-designed would be in danger of capsizing if maneuvering too hard, as a way to oppose nerfing a ship which very likely wouldn't even float if built as-designed.

[chewonit]

On 30/06/2017 at 10:28 PM, Destroyer_Kiyoshimo said:

Once I get it, they'll nerf it. That's the way of things.

Can you just [edited]ing free XP to it? Gee...

[Raptor_alcor]

I don't care how arcade a game is, if ships such as the fletcher is limited to the real top speed that physics limits it to, then the khab, with all of it's extra armor, extra guns and other such additions over the tier 9 should be SLOWER not faster than her predicessor if they have roughly the same engine power. 

 

Either the speed needs to go down or that armor needs to be reduced because I personally find it unnatural that there is a DD that has enough armor that she can angle and bounce YAMATO shells. 

[twitch133]

Khab is fine

 

Buff the others.

 

 

[Umikami]

4 minutes ago, Destroyer_Kiyoshimo said:

 

If only there was a way to create below-waterline weight to offset the weight of the flight deck.

 

Like Taiho had concrete which doubled as protection around its AvGas tanks.

 

And most ships have a bilge.

 

Not saying it's not a top-heavy design, but there already existed ways to mitigate the risks that came with it. Many Japanese ships were top-heavy.

 

EDIT: And remember you're arguing that a paper ship as-designed would be in danger of capsizing if maneuvering too hard, as a way to oppose nerfing a ship which very likely wouldn't even float if built as-designed.

I gotta say, for a nation which had led the world in so many different areas of ship design and innovation, they sure got CV's wrong, and that with years more combat experience than the USN had. The Imperial Japanese Navy launched the first sea launched air attack in Sept 5, 1914; that's 25 years of naval aviation experience when they started bumping heads with the USN in 1939. But they didn't get damage control, nor fuel discipline, nor a number of other safety and operational plateaus the IJN either scrimped on or ignored.

In so many battles it seems USN ships made it through and back again because of the US focus on safety and damage control, something it seems wasn't as big a priority with our enemies.

Yeah, you can certainly add ballast; but that gets quickly to a point of diminishing returns, as your propulsion systems can only drive so much weight through the water. America invented the nuclear reactor for subs; it went on carriers because they needed the extra oomph!

Maybe that is why Khab can still be so fast; that prototype nuclear powerplant Stalin had installed.

[Defiler_of_Reds]

29 minutes ago, Raptor_alcor said:

I don't care how arcade a game is, if ships such as the fletcher is limited to the real top speed that physics limits it to, then the khab, with all of it's extra armor, extra guns and other such additions over the tier 9 should be SLOWER not faster than her predicessor if they have roughly the same engine power. 

 

Either the speed needs to go down or that armor needs to be reduced because I personally find it unnatural that there is a DD that has enough armor that she can angle and bounce YAMATO shells. 

 

While I like the idea of reducing it's top speed to 32 knots, reducing it's armour is more in line with in-game Russian destroyer design practice. I have the Khab, but don't run it. I tend to avoid T10 anyway just because the fantasy designs are all so outrageous while the historical designs are bound to their historical performance. I fully expect the Russian T10 BB to completely outclass the Yamoto. 

[Shadowrigger1]

I'd like to see all these internet naval architect and engineering degrees you all have.

[VTAdmiral]

1 minute ago, Shadowrigger1 said:

I'd like to see all these internet naval architect and engineering degrees you all have.

Don't need a degree when common sense will do.

[Shadowrigger1]

Just now, Destroyer_Kiyoshimo said:

Don't need a degree when common sense will do.

Common sense has no place in Engineering  Physics, fluid dynamics, and all other sort of interesting factors weave themselves together to form anything but common sense.

[VTAdmiral]

8 minutes ago, Shadowrigger1 said:

Common sense has no place in Engineering  Physics, fluid dynamics, and all other sort of interesting factors weave themselves together to form anything but common sense.

Then please explain how a ship that weighs more goes as fast or faster than another ship when they both have the exact same engine.

 

Keep in mind also that Khab has a clipper bow, when a clipper bulge bow would be far more hydrodynamic at high speeds.