Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Prkl8r

What's up with WG liking to flatten the aft of their made up RN ships?

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

43 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, lemekillmister said:

Speaking of dumb, why should anyone be bothered by a transom on a ship?  What's "dumb" about a transom?   

a flat [edited]is easier to penetrate than a round [edited]when you're trying to run away.  heyoooo!  :Smile_glasses:  (but in all seriousness... if you are trying to get out of dodge and are being focus fired, presenting a flatly angled surface to enemy AP in the process isn't exactly ideal)


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2017 at 4:20 AM, Prkl8r said:

Does that bother anybody else? I think it looks dumb.

 

They did it with the Neptune and Minotaur, and now they did it with the Lion and Conqueror.

 

None of the previous ships in either line had an aft that is just flat like that.

NeptuneMinotaur and Lion aren't fake; all three had transom sterns historically. 

"Conqueror" is based on Vanguard, which has a transom stern.

Open and shut case. 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mr3awsome said:

NeptuneMinotaur and Lion aren't fake; all three had transom sterns historically. 

"Conqueror" is based on Vanguard, which has a transom stern.

Open and shut case. 

The Neptune in game was planned but never built, I have never seen the designs so maybe that's true. The Minotaur in game is as far as I can find, a completely fabricated ship. There was an HMS Minotaur (infact there have been several) but they were not the one we have in game. There was even a planed Minotaur, but it was not going to be what we have in game. Again, unless I am missing something, which is very possible.

 

But yeah the Vanguard I did not previously know had the transom.

 

I was actually satisfied a while ago with the explanation.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prkl8r said:

The Neptune in game was planned but never built, I have never seen the designs so maybe that's true. The Minotaur in game is as far as I can find, a completely fabricated ship. There was an HMS Minotaur (infact there have been several) but they were not the one we have in game. There was even a planed Minotaur, but it was not going to be what we have in game. Again, unless I am missing something, which is very possible.

 

But yeah the Vanguard I did not previously know had the transom.

 

I was actually satisfied a while ago with the explanation.

PuxaqDm.jpg


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the mounting ares for their latest and greatest powerplant.

 

A transom mounted, 2 stroke, 3 horsepower, Evinrude.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the RAN we referred to the red paint as 'red lead' due to having lead as one of the ingredients. After is was phased out we used a black, tar like paint we called 'boot topping'. Boy was that stuff a sticky, black mess and we never bothered keeping the paint brushes or rollers after using that stuff.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shadeylark said:

a flat [edited]is easier to penetrate than a round [edited]when you're trying to run away.  heyoooo!  :Smile_glasses:  (but in all seriousness... if you are trying to get out of dodge and are being focus fired, presenting a flatly angled surface to enemy AP in the process isn't exactly ideal)

I know it's funny, it's almost as if naval warfare, ballistics, and penetration models as seen in game have 0 reflection in history or you know, physics. I feel like something should be done about that.

Edited by _RC1138

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Super_Dreadnought said:

PuxaqDm.jpg

 

Cool, I apparently had been missed something.

f9e.gif


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shadeylark said:

a flat [edited]is easier to penetrate than a round [edited]when you're trying to run away.  heyoooo!  :Smile_glasses:  (but in all seriousness... if you are trying to get out of dodge and are being focus fired, presenting a flatly angled surface to enemy AP in the process isn't exactly ideal)

LOL, armor in this game doesnt matter one ounce of crap, soooo, flat, round, it dont matter, your [edited]is gunna get shot up....


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, KnightFandragon said:

LOL, armor in this game doesnt matter one ounce of crap, soooo, flat, round, it dont matter, your [edited]is gunna get shot up....

you, um, you do know that there are things like auto-bounce angles and overmatch in this game, right?  yes, you're gonna get shot up, but armor and armor angling might mean the difference between having that HE shatter or do full damage, or that AP shell bouncing or citing you.  armor and angling matters because armor and angling means the difference between 0-1k damage from a shell, and 15k damage from a shell.

 

if you don't think armor and angling mean anything, you need to play a german bb and a usn bb and then come back and tell us about how they're both the same and it doesn't matter which one you're in because "your crap is gunna get shot up" no matter what.

Edited by Shadeylark

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

I know it's funny, it's almost as if naval warfare, ballistics, and penetration models as seen in game have 0 reflection in history or you know, physics. I feel like something should be done about that.

that's the thing.  because its a game and the mechanics in it are completely arbitrary, there is no benefit to a transom stern in the game, but there's a drawback.  fuel efficiency is a moot point, and since wargaming could make a cardboard box the fastest thing in the game if they wanted to, hull form is also moot.  but since wargaming did decide to port over their armor mechanics from WoT, armor angling does make a difference.

 

alot of real world decisions that made sense and served a beneficial purpose in reality are nothing but detrimental in-game, and alot of real world decisions that carried heavy drawbacks are nothing but beneficial.  usn muzzle velocity vs soviet and ijn muzzle velocities has been a particular instance of arbitrary game mechanics disproportionately benefiting a flawed real world design decision over a good real world design decision.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shadeylark said:

 but since wargaming did decide to port over their armor mechanics from WoT, armor angling does make a difference.

 

 

It's not the armor angling that's the issue. There is a scientific, mathematical rational to that and would be just as valid on a real ship. The *problem* is that while maintaining a realism of armor qualities, they *failed* to give a realistic ballistic model and penetration model. But penetration is the same thing as armor right? NO. Armor is how the angling and armor work. Penetration is how much it can penetrate at what range. As it stands, they compress the ranges (so that traveling 20 nautical miles at 20 knots doesn't take an hour) but for some reason they *failed* to compress penetration ranges. The reality is most BB should be more or less incapable of penetrating the belts (and thus score citadels) of at Tier competitors at ranges, again, because of compression, greater than ~12-13 km. Now I get why they didn't do this, and would be sorta okay on it's own, but then they combined it with flipping the accuracy cone, where shells fall more longitudinal as opposed to lengthwise. As such, a bow on ship will ALWAYS be safer than a broadside, as both the lengthwise ellipsis will result in fewer hits, the armor mechanics, which are realistic, allow for near immortal stances.  The reality is the ellipsis needs to be flipped 90 degrees, so that shells fall lengthwise. Basically so that if a bow on ship is being shot at, it should be difficult not to land 75% of the shots on it. If they fixed that, a bunch of other problems would fall into line.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

The *problem* is that while maintaining a realism of armor qualities, they *failed* to give a realistic ballistic model and penetration model.

Extremity armor at least (which contributes hugely overall to ship survivability) is highly unrealistic, being largely set by tier and class, followed by nation and balance.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mofton said:

Extremity armor at least (which contributes hugely overall to ship survivability) is highly unrealistic, being largely set by tier and class, followed by nation and balance.

That has more to do with autobounce mechanics. The reality is 'extremity' armor doesn't really exist the way it does in game. The reality is, bow in, only that transverse Bulkhead should matter, and with realistic penetration ranges, it either would or wouldn't matter depending on the range. As it stands, the transver bulkhead *never* matters, all that matters is the angle on the extremety armor. If a shot can pen that angle, it will pen the transverse. That's the real problem.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, but separating autobounce from overall armor effectiveness seems a fools errand.

There's also the rather basic damage modelling scheme of 10%, 33% and 100% for AP.

The transverse bulkhead is presumably what stops any bow overmatch turning into a citadel.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shadeylark said:

you, um, you do know that there are things like auto-bounce angles and overmatch in this game, right?  yes, you're gonna get shot up, but armor and armor angling might mean the difference between having that HE shatter or do full damage, or that AP shell bouncing or citing you.  armor and angling matters because armor and angling means the difference between 0-1k damage from a shell, and 15k damage from a shell.

 

if you don't think armor and angling mean anything, you need to play a german bb and a usn bb and then come back and tell us about how they're both the same and it doesn't matter which one you're in because "your crap is gunna get shot up" no matter what.

Yeah, the armor means crap, its only all about the "angle".  The "Angle" matters, your armor means crapall.  357mm belt and unless its angled, its penned like a soup can. 

Plus, ive sat mostly bow on, wiggled and angled and had times where its auto pen regardless......

Armor dont mean that much.....its more angle and RNG luck.  Ive had my Arizona shot right up it's [edited]mid turn and survived multiple broadsides, while right before I got nuked to like 12,000 health by multiple broadsides by the same ships...so, yeah, this game is so RNG its sick.  All depends on how the RNG is feeling towards you that day..


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2017 at 9:04 PM, Captain_Dorja said:

 

As ship design advanced over time, it was realized that a transom stern, which is what that flat type of stern on Lion and Conqueror is called, allows for a higher speed without increasing weight or fuel consumption. If you're actually interested in listening, I can give a more in depth explaination - it's a very complex, but I can give you the basics. 

 

It is also of note that at the very least, Lion isn't made up. HMS Vanguard is built on the hull of a Lion Class ship. I don't mean to sound too rude here, but before you rant, do your research.

Also, HMS Hood would like a word with the OP.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.