Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Drago_Ryder

IJN cruiser torpedoes

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
150 posts
2,332 battles

Considering the fact that every other ship line in the game has forward firing torpedoes on the ships armed with said weapon, why are all the IJN tech tree cruisers after the furutaka limited to only a rear-facing firing arc? It seems a bit pointless having a weapon that would only be useful in a retreat.

 

tldr: Were the torp firing arcs on IJN cruisers the same in real life as they are in the game?

Edited by Drago_Ryder
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,328 posts
6,609 battles

Those Torpedoes may have awkward angles, but you shouldn't be rushing with these ships anyway. IJN Cruisers are good at kiting, and for that the firing angles are great.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,508
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,497 posts
3,435 battles

For the most part yes, though IIRC, they may have had better angles than what we're given in-game. Someone did a detailed comparison/discussion over them. I forgot the exact results of the comparison, but I believe it was from Myoko onwards that should have had some half-decent arcs, similar to Atago's rear-arc torpedoes.

 

While we're at it, all IJN cruisers should have the old torpedo reload booster consumable as their exclusive (the one that cut down reload time to 30s but then had its own CD of about 1:30), as most (if not all) IJN cruisers did have some quick-reload facilities for them, just like the IJN DDs with the torpedo storage and quick-reload boxes somewhere on their deck.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
2,332 battles
5 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

Those Torpedoes may have awkward angles, but you shouldn't be rushing with these ships anyway. IJN Cruisers are good at kiting, and for that the firing angles are great.

Makes sense. It's just harder to do in the mogami and ibuki because of the different gun layout in terms of the c turrent when compared to the myoko, takao, and atago. That, and the mogami doesn't get the range boost that ibuki does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,386
[RLGN]
Members
8,283 posts
17,328 battles
7 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

Those Torpedoes may have awkward angles, but you shouldn't be rushing with these ships anyway.

 

Yes you shouldn't charge with IJN cruisers...

 

...however...

 

...those 'awkward' torpedo angles are absolutely perfect when the choice is 'TOTSUGEKI!!!' and maybe die, or try to turn to run and definitely die.

 

Bore into a target completely or nearly head on, (especially if the don't have torpedoes to counter-attack you with,) then either break away slightly and torp them as you pass, or pass them, swing to the side, and launch your torps then.

 

Suicidal? Maybe; but at least it gives you the chance to take someone with you instead of trying to turn and run and getting insta-deleted by citadels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,418 posts
51 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

Those Torpedoes may have awkward angles, but you shouldn't be rushing with these ships anyway. IJN Cruisers are good at kiting, and for that the firing angles are great.

The problem is those firing angles are not 'good' for aft. They're identical to any other torpedo arcs but with the forward portion chopped off. The fact that in order to fire them you have to angle the IJN cruisers so much you expose your citadels to easy hits makes them not 'optimized' for kiting.

Firing them from stealth it would make no difference though.. but its in those knife fight torp moments that the lack of the forward arcs really cripple the IJN cruisers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,127
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,981 posts
7,530 battles
23 minutes ago, Skyfaller said:

The problem is those firing angles are not 'good' for aft. They're identical to any other torpedo arcs but with the forward portion chopped off. The fact that in order to fire them you have to angle the IJN cruisers so much you expose your citadels to easy hits makes them not 'optimized' for kiting.

Firing them from stealth it would make no difference though.. but its in those knife fight torp moments that the lack of the forward arcs really cripple the IJN cruisers.

If you're knife fighting with an IJN cruiser over T5, you are most definitely doing it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,418 posts
1 hour ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

If you're knife fighting with an IJN cruiser over T5, you are most definitely doing it wrong.

true but shtuff happens ya know :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
699
[OO7]
Members
2,092 posts
8,210 battles

"National flavor" :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
2,332 battles
1 minute ago, FireAndHEspam said:

"National flavor" :Smile_teethhappy:

Nah, that's the HE. Wait, never mind, I forgot that was for the british bbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,893
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,732 posts
7,721 battles

IJN CAs get a much larger torpedo broadside than other cruisers and very high damage long range torpedoes. Having somewhat awkward firing angles is kind of balancing aspect. 

3 hours ago, Skyfaller said:

The problem is those firing angles are not 'good' for aft. They're identical to any other torpedo arcs but with the forward portion chopped off. The fact that in order to fire them you have to angle the IJN cruisers so much you expose your citadels to easy hits makes them not 'optimized' for kiting.

Firing them from stealth it would make no difference though.. but its in those knife fight torp moments that the lack of the forward arcs really cripple the IJN cruisers.

The torps are great for kiting because they are meant to be fired while you are sailing away from ships, the combination of the firing arc of the IJN CA guns and the torpedoes happens to line up well because you dont want ships directly behind you but somewhat off to one side and behind. As for knife fighting the IJN CAs are meant to be fighting at range and so you should expect to be at a disadvantage at close range to the ships that sacrifice torpedo range in order to have better torpedo arcs. 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
376
[STORM]
Alpha Tester
1,018 posts
2,686 battles

Would be nice if Zao had 10k torps, at least the option for ibuki torps. Those 8k torps are pretty useless unless you've screwed up bad, then they might save you.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,201 posts
8,185 battles

While the launch angles on IJN CA's make aggressive torpedo runs nearly suicidal, they're still high-speed, high-damage torpedoes with long range.  When you can use terrain to cover your turn and just nuke someone coming around an island or launch them into the path of someone chasing you they can often be extremely powerful. 

Don't forget that there's also an occasional option to just straight-up stealth-torp someone like a big DD.  Picking up the occasional open-water torpedo ambush on unsuspecting enemies was honestly the only enjoyable thing about the Ibuki grind.  It's a much more satisfying way to kill a tier 10 BB than having to expose yourself to a half dozen or more salvos from them while you try to whittle them down with HE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,069
[OPG]
Members
3,983 posts
5,700 battles

Supposedly the Chokai was unique in that all of its torpedo launchers were forward firing.  I have always hoped WG would find away to slot the Chokai in as a Tier 9 freemium with all forward firing torp launchers and a hypothetical refit with the same upgraded guns found on the Zao.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,976
[SYN]
Members
14,459 posts
10,475 battles

The difference is that IJN Cruisers have their torpedoes protected with covers, while other nations have theirs fully exposed.

However, I haven't been able to discern any difference in the rate at which torpedo mounts on other nations get knocked out, because reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,683 posts
7,756 battles
3 hours ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

IJN CAs get a much larger torpedo broadside than other cruisers and very high damage long range torpedoes. Having somewhat awkward firing angles is kind of balancing aspect. 

 

You’re not wrong, but that balancing aspect is a bit outdated, IMO. Torpedoes were a destroyer specialty when the game was new, so as the only non-DDs with torpedoes, the IJN CAs were a bit limited. Now that torpedo-armed cruisers are the norm, firing arcs should probably be revisited. 

 

IRL torpedoes didn’t move in straight lines (and USN torpedoes sometimes had bad gyroscopes which would make them circle back and hit the firing ship) so fudging the arcs a bit isn’t “unrealistic”. As long as the launch can clear obstructions it should be fine. 

 

Along the the same lines, IJN cruisers probably should get reload boosters and their end-of-the-war AA suites as part of bringing the line up to current standards.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,591
[PSP]
Members
6,318 posts
8,942 battles
26 minutes ago, BlailBlerg said:

National flavor: crap torpedoes. 

 

US torpedoes at the beginning of WWII had a defect that resulted in most of them being duds. Although dozens of captains sent back reports, the War Department and Navy Department were obstinate about this and said it wasn't the torpedoes but the ship's captains that were at fault. Finally, one captain sailed back to port with an unexploded torpedo and commissioned his own tests. He found that the inertia caused by a direct hit was jamming the firing mechanism and it was later determined that the Navy Department's own testing had been inadequate. Eventually the torpedoes were fixed but until then commanders were told to angle the torpedoes a bit instead of firing them directly at ships so that there would be less shock on the firing mechanism and more of them might actually explode.   

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,893
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,732 posts
7,721 battles
1 hour ago, inktomi19d said:

You’re not wrong, but that balancing aspect is a bit outdated, IMO. Torpedoes were a destroyer specialty when the game was new, so as the only non-DDs with torpedoes, the IJN CAs were a bit limited. Now that torpedo-armed cruisers are the norm, firing arcs should probably be revisited. 

 

IRL torpedoes didn’t move in straight lines (and USN torpedoes sometimes had bad gyroscopes which would make them circle back and hit the firing ship) so fudging the arcs a bit isn’t “unrealistic”. As long as the launch can clear obstructions it should be fine. 

 

Along the the same lines, IJN cruisers probably should get reload boosters and their end-of-the-war AA suites as part of bringing the line up to current standards.

Well with that logic USN DDs should be able to launch torpedoes straight ahead or astern because the gyros on the torpedoes allowed that.

 

Remember that IJN CAs have a combination of long range, high damage, protected, dual launchers on each side with 3+ torpedoes on each side. No other nation has the same combination of quantity of torpedoes and quality of torpedoes on their ships simultaneously. Some have quantity (hipper or hindi) or long range torpedoes (italian/French cruiser) but nobody gets it all and nobody gets the massive damage. Which is somewhat balanced because those nations get wider traverse arcs on their torpedoes giving them more flexibility in situations where their torpedoes are actually useful and that is a great tradeoff because frankly if IJN CAs got lots, of long range torpedoes, that did tons of damage, and they could shoot them at most angles their torpedo armament would be superior to anyone else's in any situation and that does not sound balanced. Plus if people think ahead they can work around the limitations of the ship which means there is a reward for playing better, personally I think that is a good thing. 

 

Take a ship like the Hipper for example, compared to the Mogami or Atago it gets dual triple launchers on each side with wide firing arcs, however the torpedoes have 4km less range and do almost 3k less damage. Its a trade off where one ship will be able to use the torpedoes in more situations (because of the extra range) and the other will be able to use its torps more easily in the situations where the torps are actually useful.

 

So really buffing the torpedo firing arcs would just make every other cruiser's torpedoes even worse in comparison because there wouldnt really be any downside to IJN CA torpedoes and people can argue all they want about the historical perspectives but this is a game and there needs to be advantages and disadvantages to balance the various aspects out. There also need to be various different flavors to make each line unique otherwise why play the rest. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,328 posts
6,609 battles
9 hours ago, Drago_Ryder said:

Makes sense. It's just harder to do in the mogami and ibuki because of the different gun layout in terms of the c turrent when compared to the myoko, takao, and atago. That, and the mogami doesn't get the range boost that ibuki does.

The C turret on Myoukou and Atago/Takao has really bad firing angles, I think on Myoukou you could even fire more to the rear using the B turret rather than the C turret. Mogami/Ibuki have imo the best gun layout of the IJN Cruisers (except Zao) as it gives you decent angles for kiting but also allows you to wiggle towards a target, what you need to do against DDs.

 

8 hours ago, Skyfaller said:

The problem is those firing angles are not 'good' for aft. They're identical to any other torpedo arcs but with the forward portion chopped off. The fact that in order to fire them you have to angle the IJN cruisers so much you expose your citadels to easy hits makes them not 'optimized' for kiting.

Firing them from stealth it would make no difference though.. but its in those knife fight torp moments that the lack of the forward arcs really cripple the IJN cruisers.

That's true, though they make up for that in terms of raw hitting power. For T8 (just as an example) we have eight Torps with 17k Alpha damage each, running at 62 knots. Chapayev can not compete against that with her pitiful range, Kutuzow, while having a somewhat comparable range (actually not), has slower Torps with less Alpha damage and also has less Torps overall, Admiral Hipper has less Torps with slightly higher speed but also much lower Alpha damage, and of course fewer Torps overall. As for Charles Martel, go figure.

IJN Torps are more situational than other nation's torps, but once they are used effectively they will have brutal effects on whatever gets hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[FAE]
Members
2,161 posts
2,639 battles
5 hours ago, 1An0maly1 said:

Would be nice if Zao had 10k torps, at least the option for ibuki torps. Those 8k torps are pretty useless unless you've screwed up bad, then they might save you.

Yep. 

 

Ibuki Zao 10km torps.

 

Takao/Atago gunnery range increased from 15.8km to 17km. 

 

Aoba and Myoko gain wider torpedo arcs, so that some front arc is possible, and a harder back angle is possible. 

Also, Myoko increase to gunnery range, from 15.4 to 16km. 

Idk what Aoba's is. But it probably could be better.  

 

 

Would this REALLY be that bad??  I feel like this is a great quality of life fix for IJN. Also, perhaps extra durability in the fighter planes, so that an IJN can spec AA by using capt skills to better the floatplane. (plus DF)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,683 posts
7,756 battles
1 hour ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

 

So really buffing the torpedo firing arcs would just make every other cruiser's torpedoes even worse in comparison because there wouldnt really be any downside to IJN CA torpedoes and people can argue all they want about the historical perspectives but this is a game and there needs to be advantages and disadvantages to balance the various aspects out. There also need to be various different flavors to make each line unique otherwise why play the rest. 

Here's the thing — every other cruiser's torpedoes should be worse in comparison. IJN CAs aren’t doing horribly, but they are generally pretty mediocre now. Both the IJN and USN lines really need to to be revamped (though IJN cruisers are in much better shape than USN right now).

 

I wouldn’t widen the arcs much, just to about what the Atago has. If you’ve played that ship, it still needs to show citadel to launch, but it has much more useable arcs than its tech tree cousins. Cruiser torpedoes are a “sometimes” thing anyway, so giving the IJN clearly better torpedoes still would not be overpowering, and it would help give the line a way to stand out again. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,328 posts
6,609 battles
4 hours ago, BlailBlerg said:

Takao/Atago gunnery range increased from 15.8km to 17km. 

 Oh hell no! Last two week stats show Atago to be second in Win Rate (aka ability to influence the match), fourth in terms of avg damage (though that leaves out the quality of the damage) and third in terms of average XP. Right now Mogami has a slightly better artillery than Atago (slightly better RoF, much better turret angles) while Atago has clearly superior survivability. Buffing Atago's main armament that drastically would practically powercreep Mogami into oblivion and make the Atago-Mogami-balance a case where the Premium ship is superior in all relevant aspects. We don't need more Pay2Win than we already have in the Kutuzow.

4 hours ago, BlailBlerg said:

Aoba and Myoko gain wider torpedo arcs, so that some front arc is possible, and a harder back angle is possible. 

Also, Myoko increase to gunnery range, from 15.4 to 16km.

Myoukou is already performing well in T7, and the server stats don't say otherwise. Why fix something that is not broken?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
376
[STORM]
Alpha Tester
1,018 posts
2,686 battles

Would also be nice to have useful consumables tbh, the speed boast would be kinda slick, wouldn't do radar since there's so much of it out there at upper tiers. There's too few cv's for defensive fire and even then its only really there to widen drop angles. And sonar is hardly useful, sure you can spot dd's at 4k but at that range the rest of their team will shred you anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[FAE]
Members
2,161 posts
2,639 battles
5 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

 Oh hell no! Last two week stats show Atago to be second in Win Rate (aka ability to influence the match), fourth in terms of avg damage (though that leaves out the quality of the damage) and third in terms of average XP. Right now Mogami has a slightly better artillery than Atago (slightly better RoF, much better turret angles) while Atago has clearly superior survivability. Buffing Atago's main armament that drastically would practically powercreep Mogami into oblivion and make the Atago-Mogami-balance a case where the Premium ship is superior in all relevant aspects. We don't need more Pay2Win than we already have in the Kutuzow.

Myoukou is already performing well in T7, and the server stats don't say otherwise. Why fix something that is not broken?

... okay. where did you get these stats, screen shot then?

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×