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

King George V, Monarch, Lion citadel height is currently wrong and too low

63 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,249 posts
737 battles

Simply put, the citadel height of the King George V is currently modeled wrong, as shown below. While it is true that the ship's powder magazines and shell rooms are located quite deep and a fair bit below the waterline, the same can't be said for the machinery spaces. Here is the current in-game KGV citadel, with the citadel roof all sitting at one level.

ukQd3db.png

 

Here is reproduction of a picture of the King George V's boiler room (frame 200) from National Maritime Museum. The engine and especially boiler rooms sit taller than the magazines. In fact, the boiler room height is one deck higher than the engine rooms, and poke above the waterline. The turbine/engine rooms sits a bit lower than the boiler rooms, just below waterline level, but still higher than the magazines. EDIT: Garzke and Dulin 28" draft line in their diagram is too high and incorrect. I've provided a primary source drawing on the KGV boiler room section below.

bN87a7s.png

 

As a result, the KGV citadel height should really look something like this.

FnwSPFs.jpg

 

Here's the arrangement for the Lion.

EYGqtRx.jpg

 

This arrangement should apply to the King George V, Monarch, and Lion. The Monarch's hull is nearly identical to the KGV, so naturally it should share the citadel characteristics, while the in-game Lion is the 1938 design, which duplicated the machinery arrangement of the KGV.

 

In game, I think this is a way to better balance the British battleships. They are currently unduly forgiving of showing broadside, and they are the most difficult ships to citadel after the German battleships. Given that one of WG's advertised weaknesses of the British tier 7+ battleship is their more vulnerable broadside, their citadel should be raised and adjusted along these lines to actually reflect that.

 

As a side note, I would also advocate for a simultaneous toning down of KGV's HE, while raising her weather deck to 32 mm. As others have mentioned, this, as well as the citadel adjustment, raises the skill ceiling. Broadside would be more punishing while angling would be more effective.

 

EDIT:

@Sub_Octavian, @Jazzyblaster, @WolfofWarship. Hopefully pinging some WG staff can bring more attention to this.

Edited by DeliciousFart
  • Cool 15
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,130
[NBGC]
Members
3,043 posts
10,248 battles

Agreed.

It's still a difficult citadel to hit, especially at range, so it shouldn't matter tooooooo much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
335
[TBOW]
[TBOW]
Members
1,157 posts
10,157 battles

Then give the KGV the actual massive armor she is supposed to have. Low citadel or not, she is way more squishy than is deserved. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,204
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,816 posts
10,374 battles

Look @DeliciousFart WG stated that delays in getting the plans meant RN BB's rolled into the game at a comparatively late stage, plans that they clearly needed in order to produce a 100% realistic model. Why, without that level of detail they'd be able to model the ship from a copy of Jane's and it wouldn't take 2 years!

Be realistic man, clearly it's correct!

 

More seriously, your conclusion looks correct. I think it would be a survivable change, though Monarch is pretty rubbish as-is.

Shouldn't KGV have >32mm amidships upper deck armor though...?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,249 posts
737 battles

By the way, Mr. Bill Jurens provided me a drawing of the KGV's boiler rooms at frame 200 and Lion's at frame 174 from the National Maritime Museum. Due to copyright concerns, I won't recirculate them at Mr. Jurens' request, but they match the diagram from Garzke and Dulin.

 

15 minutes ago, mofton said:

Shouldn't KGV have >32mm amidships upper deck armor though...?

I believe her weather deck was nerfed to 25 mm when she was moved to tier 7 for balancing reasons, as 25 mm seems to be the standard for tier 6-7 battleships. While 32+ mm weather deck would be historical, I personally don't know if it would be necessary from a gameplay perspective, as my personal experience with the KGV indicates that she's fairly decent. Montana is currently doing fine even with a 38 mm weather deck compared to the 57 mm weather deck she was designed with. Now, I won't get started on how Yamato's 35-50 mm weather deck magically turned into 57 mm in game.

 

The Monarch is pretty crap because they literally took the KGV, grafted Nelson's turrets (and adjusted the barbette sizes) and 1950s style lattice masts, and gave it a 32 mm weather deck (standard for tier 8+) and called it a day. The hull is practically identical down to the HP. It's incredibly lazy.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,204
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,816 posts
10,374 battles
8 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

I believe her weather deck was nerfed to 25 mm when she was moved to tier 7 for balancing reasons. While 32+ mm weather deck would be historical, I don't think it would be necessary from a gameplay perspective. Montana is currently doing fine even with a 38 mm weather deck compared to the 57 mm weather deck she was designed with. Now, I won't get started on how Yamato's 35-50 mm weather deck magically turned into 57 mm in game.

The Monarch is pretty crap because they literally took the KGV, grafted Nelson's turrets (and adjusted the barbette sizes) and 1950s style lattice masts, and gave it a 32 mm weather deck (standard for tier 8+) and called it a day. The hull is practically identical down to the HP. It's incredibly lazy.

That's very inconsistent on the weather deck, the German's get their 45-50mm armored decks at T7, the QE and Iron Duke have 38/44mm deck armor areas yet KGV's historic deck gets bashed in, likely due to a mistake in down-tiering her.

Monarch you're preaching to the choir on, identical turning circle, speed, clone hull. An early war appearance KGV weighs exactly the same for exactly the same HP as a 'post war refit of design 15C'.... yeah I'll buy that for a dollar...

 

I think if we're going to be consistent on citadel height we should be consistent on deck, and I don't think that Monarch is good enough as-is to warrant a raising citadel buff. KGV is strong. Lion is strong. Nelson's doing very well.

They should uptier KGV to 8 pretty much as-is but with >32mm weather deck if historic and reduced concealment, put Nelson/Rodney back in and delete Monarch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,517
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,996 posts
5,967 battles

This is a change I full-heartedly support. I do wonder about KGV's survivability in general though, as she is incredibly vulnerable to HE spam and overmatch, and has really quite trash turret angles that force her to go nearly broadside to fire off the rear guns. The citadel change makes perfect sense, but I think the 32 mm weather deck option should at least be considered.

 

However, taking into account her overwhelming advantage in terms of winrate and damage over the other Tier 7's, I still say that a 5-8% nerf in her fire chance should also be considered, as well as an increase in reload to 29 seconds and a slight sigma improvement to 1.9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,249 posts
737 battles
8 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

This is a change I full-heartedly support. I do wonder about KGV's survivability in general though, as she is incredibly vulnerable to HE spam and overmatch, and has really quite trash turret angles that force her to go nearly broadside to fire off the rear guns. The citadel change makes perfect sense, but I think the 32 mm weather deck option should at least be considered.

 

However, taking into account her overwhelming advantage in terms of winrate and damage over the other Tier 7's, I still say that a 5-8% nerf in her fire chance should also be considered, as well as an increase in reload to 29 seconds and a slight sigma improvement to 1.9.

I would agree with this, and toning down RN battleship HE in general. I'm currently doing okay with the KGV, but performance in random matches where a fair portion of the player base are ignorant of game mechanics doesn't reflect on how well a ship is actually balanced. I think increasing weather deck thickness while toning down the HE would be a way to raise the skill ceiling and make her more competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,517
[NSF]
Beta Testers
4,996 posts
5,967 battles
8 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

I would agree with this, and toning down RN battleship HE in general. I'm currently doing okay with the KGV, but performance in random matches where a fair portion of the player base are ignorant of game mechanics doesn't reflect on how well a ship is actually balanced. I think increasing weather deck thickness while toning down the HE would be a way to raise the skill ceiling and make her more competitive.

 

Its not that shes incredibly overpowered in my mind either, but her performance is so, to put it into a word, unreliable or sporadic. You can very easily have one game where you deal 200,000 damage and light 25 fires, but the very next game you do only 40,000 damage and light three fires, despite playing the exact same way.

 

Its an utterly baffling experience, and I can't really compare it to any other ship that I have played. I would love it to be less powerful on a whole, but more consistent.

Share this post


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

Yeah, KGV's armor leaves a lot to be desired, despite its 380mm belt armor.

Thicker deck armor should help out with its squishiness against overmatch and HE, whilst going full broadside should be punishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,452
[ARMDG]
Members
3,242 posts
1,567 battles

Considering WG lowered the Iowa's citadel to match the historical position, I also support raising citadels where required.  I think this would do a great job in making the ship line more of a risk/reward than other BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[WOLF5]
Members
1,539 posts
2,148 battles

Are the same kind of machinery spaces that caused so much controversy on the USN BBs? That were ultimately considered non-citadel, and resulted in citadel lowering?

 

Now, certain RN BBs need a nerf, but I'm not sure the citadel is the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,338 posts
2,701 battles
34 minutes ago, mofton said:

That's very inconsistent on the weather deck, the German's get their 45-50mm armored decks at T7, the QE and Iron Duke have 38/44mm deck armor areas yet KGV's historic deck gets bashed in, likely due to a mistake in down-tiering her.

Monarch you're preaching to the choir on, identical turning circle, speed, clone hull. An early war appearance KGV weighs exactly the same for exactly the same HP as a 'post war refit of design 15C'.... yeah I'll buy that for a dollar...

 

I think if we're going to be consistent on citadel height we should be consistent on deck, and I don't think that Monarch is good enough as-is to warrant a raising citadel buff. KGV is strong. Lion is strong. Nelson's doing very well.

They should uptier KGV to 8 pretty much as-is but with >32mm weather deck if historic and reduced concealment, put Nelson/Rodney back in and delete Monarch.

 

Inb4 people saying for months KGV couldn't be Tier VII :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,249 posts
737 battles
45 minutes ago, mofton said:

That's very inconsistent on the weather deck, the German's get their 45-50mm armored decks at T7, the QE and Iron Duke have 38/44mm deck armor areas yet KGV's historic deck gets bashed in, likely due to a mistake in down-tiering her.

Monarch you're preaching to the choir on, identical turning circle, speed, clone hull. An early war appearance KGV weighs exactly the same for exactly the same HP as a 'post war refit of design 15C'.... yeah I'll buy that for a dollar...

 

I think if we're going to be consistent on citadel height we should be consistent on deck, and I don't think that Monarch is good enough as-is to warrant a raising citadel buff. KGV is strong. Lion is strong. Nelson's doing very well.

They should uptier KGV to 8 pretty much as-is but with >32mm weather deck if historic and reduced concealment, put Nelson/Rodney back in and delete Monarch.

I really don't think the KGV as is, with 14" guns, can cut it at tier 8, she would need a 32 mm weather deck and 32 mm bow and stern, and considerably more firepower. What should've happened is that the current Monarch with 3x3 15"/45 be the B or C hull upgrade of the KGV at tier 8.

 

I also personally can't stand those lattice masts (completely ahistorical by 1945 standards, since that's the date WG gave for Monarch), and the Nelson-style turrets. If anything, they should look like slightly smaller Lion turrets.

 

9 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

Are the same kind of machinery spaces that caused so much controversy on the USN BBs? That were ultimately considered non-citadel, and resulted in citadel lowering?

 

Now, certain RN BBs need a nerf, but I'm not sure the citadel is the problem.

No, two different problems. On the USN battleships (Iowa/Missouri and Montana), the old citadel included an entire deck above the machinery spaces. The only other ships with this problem are the Nelson and Yamato. The USN citadel lowering has since made the citadel include only machinery and magazines. WG left Yamato as is for balancing reasons.

 

The tier 7+ RN battleships have the opposite problem. The current citadel does not include all the machinery spaces. Namely, the engine/turbine rooms and especially the boiler rooms are cut short.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,338 posts
2,701 battles
Just now, DeliciousFart said:

I really don't think the KGV as is, with 14" guns, can cut it at tier 8, she would need a 32 mm weather deck and 32 mm bow and stern, and considerably more firepower. What should've happened is that the current Monarch with 3x3 15"/45 be the B or C hull upgrade of the KGV at tier 8.

 

I also personally can't stand those lattice masts (completely ahistorical by 1945 standards, since that's the date WG gave for Monarch), and the Nelson-style turrets. If anything, they should look like slightly smaller Lion turrets.

 

KGV at Tier 8 would work fine with certain changes. The standard 32mm bow upgrade along with an buff to 64,400 HP (Based on Anson's 1945 tonnage) alongside AA buffs. Changes to her 14 inch guns (Superchargers, another quad) or the proposed 15 inch guns would work more than fine. The 28 knots of speed could also be improved on as most ships of the class exceeding 28 knots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
215
[WAIFU]
Members
724 posts
7,093 battles
6 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

No, two different problems. On the USN battleships (Iowa/Missouri and Montana), the old citadel included an entire deck above the machinery spaces, which WG decided to do for balancing reasons. The lowering has since made the citadel include only machinery and magazines.

 

As far as I remember, they did that because the armor between those decks was almost non-existant (really tiny).

Not that this is related to KGV, Monarch, or Lion tho.

Edited by PauloBR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,249 posts
737 battles
1 minute ago, PauloBR said:

 

As far as I remember, they did that because the armor between those decks was almost non-existant (really tiny).

Not that this is related to KGV, Monarch, or Lion tho.

Realistically it's true that the third deck (the one immediately above the machinery spaces) would be too thin to stop shell splinters, but most other battleships also had only a thin non-armored deck that marks the boundary of the citadel, i.e. North Carolina, Nagato, and German battleships with WW1-era armor schemes completely bypass the issue. Since a high citadel (the product of increased reserve buoyancy, shorter citadel length relative to alternatives) was a glaring weakness due to the gameplay mechanics, I think WG has since defined citadel as just machinery/magazine spaces except certain exceptions for game balancing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
220
Beta Testers
1,158 posts
5,295 battles

I can see adjusting the citadel zones but not that and an HE nerf and the changes they are already about to make.  Their citadel zones should be fixed, their stealth nerfed and left to see how they play out.  These ships are intended to be HE spamming BBs, that much is clear and people need to stop trying to put a square peg into a round hole.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

Nerfing KGVs reload would do way more harm than good. She already can't overmatch any battleship in her tier spread except T5 BBs, and the shell damage/pen of the AP shells are already below her peers. 

 

Still don't know how her guns having that fire chance and HE damage is any worse than IFHE Shchors putting out three salvos and more damage per KGVs one salvo. Plus, with IFHE, KGV is penned everywhere. And like I said, Overmatched everywhere with no ability to do any in return.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
Members
712 posts

standard displacement draught on that diagram is show at 28ft

however many places give the deep load draught of just over 33.5ft which is with all ammunition, stores and crew compliment BUT with most fuel capacity used.

standard displacement (AKA Washington displacement) draught is based on everything like ammunition, stores and crew compliment etc but specifically excludes fuel and boiler water.

full load displacement draught is the deepest draught, and includes ammunition, stores, crew compliment, fuel and boiler water and is the deepest and must be over >33.5ft

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,976
[SYN]
Members
14,459 posts
10,475 battles
23 minutes ago, Doomlock said:

Nerfing KGVs reload would do way more harm than good. She already can't overmatch any battleship in her tier spread except T5 BBs, and the shell damage/pen of the AP shells are already below her peers. 

 

Still don't know how her guns having that fire chance and HE damage is any worse than IFHE Shchors putting out three salvos and more damage per KGVs one salvo. Plus, with IFHE, KGV is penned everywhere. And like I said, Overmatched everywhere with no ability to do any in return.

I think my biggest issue with KGV is the poor dispersion it gets from 10 guns.

If the shells connect, the HE literally obliterates DDs.

The AP shells, whilst mostly useless against BBs, is still highly useful against broadside cruisers. The issue is, of course, the dispersion on KGV's guns being less than optimal at deleting cruisers in a single salvo, not that the guns are not capable of such, when the stars align.

Edited by MrDeaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,680 posts
7,783 battles
1 minute ago, MrDeaf said:

I think my biggest issue with KGV is the poor dispersion it gets from 10 guns.

If the shells connect, the HE literally obliterates DDs.

The AP shells, whilst mostly useless against BBs, is still highly useful against broadside cruisers.

I find I don't even need to switch to AP to nuke cruisers with my KGV. With IFHE I still consistently citadel cruisers and nuke their modules along with the damage. British cruisers are especially funny, but I can still citadel German cruisers if I get the right angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[HMCS]
[HMCS]
Members
21 posts
5,473 battles

Really guys?all this talk about historical accuracy and there are a rather large number of ships in this game that never existed (ie# khaba,zao,hindenburg etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles
2 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

I think my biggest issue with KGV is the poor dispersion it gets from 10 guns.

If the shells connect, the HE literally obliterates DDs.

The AP shells, whilst mostly useless against BBs, is still highly useful against broadside cruisers.

Indeed. That dispersion can be very wonky at times. That AP at closer ranges can work wonders on the upper belts and weaker belts of BBs though. A cheeky Tirpitz or Bismarck that don't think twice can eat a big penetratating hits.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,249 posts
737 battles
20 minutes ago, b101uk said:

standard displacement draught on that diagram is show at 28ft

however many places give the deep load draught of just over 33.5ft which is with all ammunition, stores and crew compliment BUT with most fuel capacity used.

standard displacement (AKA Washington displacement) draught is based on everything like ammunition, stores and crew compliment etc but specifically excludes fuel and boiler water.

full load displacement draught is the deepest draught, and includes ammunition, stores, crew compliment, fuel and boiler water and is the deepest and must be over >33.5ft

 

Yes, and if you look closely you'll see that I purposely drew the waterline somewhat higher than the indicated one to reflect deep load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×