Could We Discuss the Citadel Situation?

[2Floods1Ship]

I would like to bring up the subject of waterline and below the waterline citadels on battleships. In short I believe that the number of battleships with this trait needs to be culled, harshly. 

 

Currently the majority of tier IX's and X's in game that aren't CV's have either a waterline, sub waterline, or no citadel whatsoever. It was one thing when it was a German trait, even then it was noticable B.S. at the end tiers but at least that was balanced somewhat by garbage torpedo resistance characteristics. But Iowa had anything BUT a waterline citadel and I find it hard to believe Montana would have been any different. 

Keep in mind that a citadel by definition was supposed to contain enough volume that should the rest of the ship flood, the citadel would provide the buoyancy to keep it floating. I find it hard to believe any of the current tier X, or IX for that matter, sub-citadels have the volume to do that. Look at them, they are tiny. 

 

I don't think I need to even discuss the British cheese that is Conqueror having a citadel that low. 

 

Did Montana deserve a buff? Sure. This buff though? Hell no. I'd argue a health buff and a reload buff, maybe an AA buff as well. You could argue a 23 second reload both in game and in real life since US ammunition handling was very good and only getting better. Alternatively You could argue improved shell penetration from plunging fire since this was the purpose of the superheavy shells. Common misconception is that adding weight improves all performance. In direct fire it is velocity that dominates, not weight (Kinetic energy is 1/2*mass*velocity^2.) The British 15" supposedly had as good if not better direct fire performance compared to the MK 7 (granted the Brit 15" was f******* amazing). But in plunging fire almost every shell out there has lost most of it's velocity which means mass dominates. And that is where the MK 7 kicks [edited].* Coupled with US accuracy it means that the US rifles could hit a target that far, and that their ammunition was purpose built for demolishing armor at that range. You could model that in game whereby the minimum penetration of the shell at range is significantly higher then anyone else's. Give Monty a 27 second reload, that sort of penetration, and the accuracy of Yamato and you'll have a viable BB. 

 

But shrinking the citadel is a cop out answer. 

 

Initially the selling point on Montana was near immunity to air attacks. And if WG and the BB population had not chased off CV players with consistent nerfs maybe that would actually mean something. When you remove the citadel from the equation in game you take away one of the biggest mechanics in the game. This also screws over cruisers tremendously. It used to be a cruiser at 6 km could make good attempts on a citadel if broadside. Removing citadels takes one more tool out of their pockets. 

 

One of the single most blatant cases is the Alabama. Alabama had a notoriously high citadel, it probably would be the tallest of any T8,9 or 10 citadel because the cost of making her so short in length was to stack the turbines and boilers instead of laying them out lengthwise. Making for a perilously tall machinespace which was her Achilles heel. This is not reflected in any way, shape, or form in game. 

 

I get the argument of sacrificing historical accuracy for gameplay. But this is making gameplay worse. 

 

I will disclaim this, Yamato is my frist tier X bb (only one actually), and I really like her. And simple truth is she has gotten screwed by this power creep worse then any other tier X bb. That being said, I still think this is a valid complaint. My one rule in games is to never have a mechanic that prevents a player from playing the game. Having to go toe to toe with ships that are difficult, if not impossible to citadel while they can punch through my citadel is absolute crap. 

 

*To continue on the Mk7 tangent. One of the reasons why only the US went that far into the deep end with superheavy shells is that no one else figured out the most important part of the equation for making them. It's not hard adding weight to a shell. The hard part is ensuring that the additional impact forces don't destroy the penetrating head before it breaks through armor. Or alternatively in an angled hit, for the penetrating head to stay stiff and not deform away from impact since there's so much more weight behind it. The US was the first and only country to figure out a good way to heat treat the shell to avoid both of those happening. 

[TheKrimzonDemon]

 

That is all.

[2Floods1Ship]

7 minutes ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

 

That is all.

truth

[RipNuN2]

[TornadoADV]

There isn't enough popcorn in the world for this thread's outcome.

[WanderingGhost]

I tend to agree that maybe, they went a little overboard on the citadel changes to BB's. Though, I will note that unless there is something radically different about tier 9 and 10 German BB's, they should have the same flaw of the earlier ships - that while they have amazing side citadel protection, protection against plunging fire is atrocious. I wish I had the screenshot of my Arizona scoring 2 citadel hit's on a Bismarck down range. Also why German BB's are getting shredded by AP bombs. The German BB's still had a weakness that opened up the citadel to being hit, it was just harder because the shell had to go down and the goal of German BB's was to get close that you couldn't gt downward arcs.

[ksix]

Few things.

Citadel damage on a BB is 90% permanent. Making them further susceptible to it will enforce camping at the back when BBs should really be tanking damage. Secondly BBs take full damage penetrations as opposed to constant overpens, so regardless they can get wacked hard. They're also very easy to burn and torp-especially at tier 10. And finally the hull citadel is not the only way to score citadel damage. All BBs are blessed with some fairly large barbettes which, when penetrated, are taken as citadel damage. If you haven't got the point yet there are many more ways to deal devastating damage to a BB than any other class in the game. 

Montana is not bad in her own right. Yamato wins on horizontal dispersion and Sigma but Montana fires 3 more guns and has some of the best vertical dispersion in the game so the latter can, believe it or not, feel quite a bit more accurate and satisfying to play.

On an aside Conqueror is now the best protected BB from aircraft and best fleet protector. A tad lower overall DPS vs Montana but unlike Montana none of it is in useless 2km Orlikons. This makes no sense historically speaking but this is what the devs have done.

[Big_Spud]

Alabama didn't have boilers stacked on machinery, it was arranged en echelon like normal, just more compacted. The only part of the engine space piercing the third deck are the boiler uptakes, which are present on every ship.

[ValkyrWarframe]

23 hours ago, 1An0maly1 said:

I will disclaim this, Yamato is my frist tier X bb (only one actually)

And your argument was invalidated by this single admission.  Having never played another T10 BB or even a non-Japanese BB past T4 gives you a highly-biased, or at least incomplete, perspective of battleship balance.  Moreover, the primary if not sole beneficiary of high citadels at T8-10 is the Yamato, and just because you lost your ability to wipe out a half-health Montana through the front at 15km doesn't mean the decision wasn't in the best interest of the game or unbalanced.

 

Moreover, the Iowa and Montana are still extremely-easy to citadel at 10km and below with how accurate T10 battleship guns are.  Aim closer to the waterline.  If you want bullcrap citadel placement, look at the British BBs with their citadels at least half a deck below the waterline or deeper.

[RobertViktor68]

Um...... arcade game.....historical accuracy only applied to exterior.  Move along.

[waterman165]

Game balance trumps all.....in theory.

 

If you want realism, Citadel hits shouldn't even exist, instead, module damage should be much more common.

[AlcatrazNC]

On 05/09/2017 at 4:14 AM, 1An0maly1 said:

 

I will disclaim this, Yamato is my frist tier X bb (only one actually), and I really like her. And simple truth is she has gotten screwed by this power creep worse then any other tier X bb. That being said, I still think this is a valid complaint. My one rule in games is to never have a mechanic that prevents a player from playing the game. Having to go toe to toe with ships that are difficult, if not impossible to citadel while they can punch through my citadel is absolute crap. 

 

 

 

Yamato is not screwed by any kind of power creep because she's the only ship able to pen every other ship in the game. You can angle, it doesn't give a crap, if you're lucky you'll eat a pen or an overpen.

On that regard i think she's ok.

 

That being said, even if a ship like Conqueror with very low citadel or ship like Kurfust with.turtleback armor can not be citadeled, they still eat tons of pen damage. Sure you can heal a certain % of pen damage and RN BB have powerfull heal but when they are being focused they sink quickly.

 

To me Montana is a cruiser hunter. She's not the best at fighting BB (even though she can deal some good damage) but she excells at fighting cruiser. On that regard, Montana is pretty ok. 

[ksix]

Kurfurst and other German BBs can indeed bow on and bounce Yamato so no it cant pen "every" ship.