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

Why 5"/38s as secondaries should get their actual RoF based on WGs previous statements

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,067
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
4,696 posts

5"/38s mounted as secondaries on US battleships and cruisers should get their RoF returned to historical levels.

 

Why?

 

Come back with me in the way-back machine to Alabamagate.  When she was in testing, she had an artificially high, unhistorical citadel.

 

A great hue and cry was raised, saying she should get the historical citadel.  WG tested it, found it did not make a big difference in her performance, and stated:

 

"Where we can make a change to increase historical accuracy that does not significantly affect game balance, we like to do that."

 

Alabama got her historical citadel placement.

 

Nobody could argue that buffing RoF for 5"/38 secondaries on US cruisers and battleships would be a big balance change.   The effect would be negligible.  Therefore, WG should make this change, make a lot of people happy, and bring the game closer to history.   There is precedent and a pretty clear cut case for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,877
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,300 posts
9,009 battles

I'll go ahead and quote myself here:

 

Quote

Japan:

 

12.7 cm/40 Type 89

Actual: 14 RPM burst, 8 RPM sustained 
Ingame: 12 RPM

 

12 cm/40 10th Year Type

Actual: 10 RPM burst, 6-8 RPM sustained
Ingame: 10 RPM

 

10 cm/60 Type 98

Actual: 20 RPM burst, 15 RPM sustained
Ingame: 20 RPM


Great Britain:

 

5.25"/50 QF Mark I

Actual: 7-8 RPM
Ingame: 9 RPM

 

4.5"/45 QF Mark III

Actual: 12 RPM
Ingame: 12 RPM

 

4.7"/43 QF Mark VIII

Actual: 8-12 RPM
Iname: 12 RPM

 

Germany:

 

12.7 cm/61 SK C/42

Actual: 15-18 RPM (using values of 12.7 cm/61 KM 40)
Ingame: 15 RPM

 

10.5 cm/65 SK C/33

Actual: 15-18 RPM
Ingame: 18 RPM

 

USSR/Soviet Union:

 

100 mm/56 B-34-USM

Actual: 10-16 RPM (depending on date of mount)

Ingame: 16 RPM

 

100 mm/70 SM-5-1s

Actual: 15-18 RPM

Ingame: 15 RPM


USA:

5"/25 Marks 10, 11, 13, 17

Actual: 12-15 RPM
Ingame: 13.3 RPM

 

5"/38, Various mountings

Actual: 12-15 RPM for open mounts, 15-20 RPM for enclosed mounts 
Ingame: 10 RPM on all mounts used as secondary batteries

 

Notice which one happens to be the single exception from of all of these weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
747
[LOU1]
Members
4,060 posts
11,276 battles

How does the historical ROF compare to the in-game ROF (numerical values)?  I am curious because increasing the secondary ROF on ships like Tripitaka through BFT or AR makes a big difference.

 

EDIT: values were posted.

Edited by ExploratorOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,877
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,300 posts
9,009 battles
2 minutes ago, ExploratorOne said:

How does the historical ROF compare to the in-game ROF (numerical values)?  I am curious because increasing the secondary ROF on ships like Tripitaka through BFT or AR makes a big difference.

 

I did a handy comparison above. Although I've forgotten to add the French 130's, but they also follow the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Members
211 posts
10,404 battles

Alabama got the attentiom because she was originally for ST and the citadel being above the water was something people couldn't accept for T8 against NC even though Iowa and Montana had it. You said it yourself, it would negliible so there wouldn't be a point. If anything to do with secondaries on USN BB, it would be AA but they already specialize in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
747
[LOU1]
Members
4,060 posts
11,276 battles
2 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

 

I did a handy comparison above. Although I've forgotten to add the French 130's, but they also follow the rule.

I saw.  That after I posted.  Thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,067
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
4,696 posts
19 minutes ago, AdmiralHattori said:

Alabama got the attentiom because she was originally for ST and the citadel being above the water was something people couldn't accept for T8 against NC even though Iowa and Montana had it. You said it yourself, it would negliible so there wouldn't be a point. If anything to do with secondaries on USN BB, it would be AA but they already specialize in it.

 

There would be minimal difference, but not no difference.   For those of us who like to use our secondaries we would like that.   Takes them 30 minutes to change a line of code.  It's worth it as a PR move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,819
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,743 posts
2,129 battles

I'm behind this sentiment. Supposedly the excuse that's been given is because of Cleveland's low tier. Well, guess what? She's going to be a tier VIII before June of next year, and the Helena at tier VII's only gonna have four mounts - so you could amp up the 5"/38 Mk.32's RoF to 15 rpm, and you'd have the same number of shells coming out at tier VII as you previously had at tier VI.

 

Imo, they should crank up the Mk.32's RoF to 18 rpm on all platforms, 

 

Alongside that, give Colorado a B or C hull of WeeVee or Maryland, because 144 rpm to a broadside is something that ship could do with if she can only make 21 knots. After all, Gneisenau gets 180 rpm to a broadside with her secondaries, and she's got torpedoes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,805
[SYN]
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
5,499 battles

They should. There's no reason not to. And IMHO the range should be buffed so the 127/38s maxxed out should hit 8-9km range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
109
[ANZAC]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
393 posts
11,104 battles

I think for WG its a secondary consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,805
[SYN]
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
5,499 battles
Just now, Panzerlin said:

I think for WG its a secondary consideration.

I don't even think it rates that high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,877
[NSF]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,300 posts
9,009 battles
2 minutes ago, Panzerlin said:

I think for WG its a secondary consideration.

 

Don't bring that evil here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,721
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,525 posts
12,810 battles

They wonder why people accuse them of bias when they use the USN's drawbacks as something historical, then fail to give them their advantages for the sake of balance.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,819
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,743 posts
2,129 battles
38 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

They should. There's no reason not to. And IMHO the range should be buffed so the 127/38s maxxed out should hit 8-9km range.

 

For which tiers? Base range for tier VII-VIII is 5 km (7.2-7.56 km depending on if you take secondary flag) and 6 km for IX-X (8.64-9.072 km for the same consideration above).

 

I don't think it should be encouraged that USN BBs be Brawlers, especially as the line isn't built for it - ignoring they lack turtleback, in order to mount modules vital to secondary builds they're forced to sacrifice their range upgrade.

 

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be deadly for anything that comes close - oh no. But that would be the flavor of USN secondaries. They're not long-range reaching bombardment weapons like they are on KM BBs. Rather, they simply drown you in shells if you get to close. This especially is true on a ship as soon as Colorado, who would have an extremely difficult time forcing a brawl onto a faster ship, such as any other tier VII except for Nelson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,805
[SYN]
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
5,499 battles
12 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

 

For which tiers? Base range for tier VII-VIII is 5 km (7.2-7.56 km depending on if you take secondary flag) and 6 km for IX-X (8.64-9.072 km for the same consideration above).

 

I don't think it should be encouraged that USN BBs be Brawlers, especially as the line isn't built for it - ignoring they lack turtleback, in order to mount modules vital to secondary builds they're forced to sacrifice their range upgrade.

 

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be deadly for anything that comes close - oh no. But that would be the flavor of USN secondaries. They're not long-range reaching bombardment weapons like they are on KM BBs. Rather, they simply drown you in shells if you get to close. This especially is true on a ship as soon as Colorado, who would have an extremely difficult time forcing a brawl onto a faster ship, such as any other tier VII except for Nelson.

It would at least help the USN when they get stuck in close quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,819
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,743 posts
2,129 battles
6 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

It would at least help the USN when they get stuck in close quarters.

 

Definitely. Can you imagine the hailstorm from the fast BBs? 180 5" HE shells every minute is a lot of fires

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,721
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,525 posts
12,810 battles

If nothing else, the secondary hailstorm would make USN BB's wish to close the range.  What I would do if I were WG, is buff the ROF, then make the dispersion dynamic so that BBs are easier to hit than Cruisers are easier to hit than Destroyers.

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.

×