Roma 30s

[_Pinhead_]

The roma should not have 30s turning main turrents should be at least 36s.Thats not a normal turning bb turrets turning that fast why do they turn so fast.I like bbs to feel like bbs not crusiers no bb in game main turrets turn that fast only horst turns that fast.But the roma has 15" guns the turrets should not turn that fast not even the cesare main turrets turn that fast its 36s and they smaller guns.I like to see roma main turrets turn at least 36s make it feel like battleship not a crusier its not.

[SkaerKrow]

In order to facilitate gameplay variety, Wargaming gave Roma an aggressive turret traverse rate at the expense of (among other potential things) a faster reload rate. Understand that by sticking strictly to more historical values, the differences between ships would be significantly reduced, which would hurt the game’s fun and strategic complexity. 

[Hunter_Steel]

23 minutes ago, Potty_Time said:

The roma should not have 30s turning main turrents should be at least 36s.Thats not a normal turning bb turrets turning that fast why do they turn so fast.I like bbs to feel like bbs not crusiers no bb in game main turrets turn that fast only horst turns that fast.But the roma has 15" guns the turrets should not turn that fast not even the cesare main turrets turn that fast its 36s and they smaller guns.I like to see roma main turrets turn at least 36s make it feel like battleship not a crusier its not.

Roma should keep her 30s turret traverse as it allows for interesting game-play.

Be thankful that every BB in the game reloads between 20s and 30s. IRL the Roma reloaded every 45s because they made her turrets too cramped. Yamato should at her fastest reload every 40s, she averaged a 45s reload time because of the 18inch shells. USN BBs all had standard 30s reload times and so did King George V. Scharnhorst should actually have a 17s reload time, but meh, need to balance her.

~Hunter

[_Pinhead_]

I collect bbs cause thats my fav warships.But i like the roma to turn its main turrets 36s that would make it feel like a battleship i like that about bbs.I want them to feel like bbs not crusiers.There is nothing wrong to make roma main turrets to turn 36s at least make it a bb not a crusier.It has 15' guns turrets should not turn so fast come wows make the roma main turrets turn more slow i thout i bought a battleship not a crusier.

[Phoenix_jz]

21 minutes ago, Potty_Time said:

I collect bbs cause thats my fav warships.But i like the roma to turn its main turrets 36s that would make it feel like a battleship i like that about bbs.I want them to feel like bbs not crusiers.There is nothing wrong to make roma main turrets to turn 36s at least make it a bb not a crusier.It has 15' guns turrets should not turn so fast come wows make the roma main turrets turn more slow i thout i bought a battleship not a crusier.

Because the actual traverse rate of these turrets in real life was 6°/sec, or 30s.

That's why it has such a rapid traverse rate.

Also @Hunter_Steel the 45 second reload is nothing more than a myth. The gun could manage under 30s, which it did repeatedly during gunnery exercises.

[Hunter_Steel]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Because the actual traverse rate of these turrets in real life was 6°/sec, or 30s.

That's why it has such a rapid traverse rate.

Also @Hunter_Steel the 45 second reload is nothing more than a myth. The gun could manage under 30s, which it did repeatedly during gunnery exercises.

I fail to see how. Those turrets are too small. Nagato's two 16inch guns could fit very well in there, and you could easily make a set of triple 14s in there, but there's WAY too little place in there for triple 15s.

~Hunter

[Soshi_Sone]

50 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

In order to facilitate gameplay variety, Wargaming gave Roma an aggressive turret traverse rate at the expense of (among other potential things) a faster reload rate. Understand that by sticking strictly to more historical values, the differences between ships would be significantly reduced, which would hurt the game’s fun and strategic complexity. 

^^^this^^^

I am still amazed at this point in the game's longevity that folks still think it is designed to be a simulation of reality.  Although WG uses historical stats of a ship as a baseline, they have a generous amount of leeway in tweaking those baseline values as noted above.  

[Umikami]

54 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

Understand that by sticking strictly to more historical values, the differences between ships would be significantly reduced, which would hurt the game’s fun and strategic complexity.

Translation: By sticking to strictly historical values the differences between ships would be realistic, because they had to be in real life to survive, and WoW couldn't cater to players who need gimmicks and unrealistic capabilities to allow them to compete, and therefore would sell less premium ships to sub-standard players.

[Umikami]

3 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

they have a generous amount of leeway in tweaking those baseline values as noted above.

If by "generous amount of leeway" you mean "give ships capabilities which are unrealistic and grounded in fantasy" you are absolutely correct.

[Ghostdog1355]

I watched video Sunday that was titled "Know your Roma" which was a factual film on the Roma. It was real good and I believe it said the traverse time was 32 seconds and reload was right at 30.

[SkaerKrow]

20 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Translation: By sticking to strictly historical values the differences between ships would be realistic, because they had to be in real life to survive, and WoW couldn't cater to players who need gimmicks and unrealistic capabilities to allow them to compete, and therefore would sell less premium ships to sub-standard players.

Wow, perhaps you would be happier with a hard simulation instead of an arcade game with historical trappings? Roma is one of the least-gimmicky premiums that we’ve received in a long time. 

[Show_Me_Your_Cits]

Someone is actually complaining about good gun handling? Does not compute. 

Have you played Yamato recently? You'd probably enjoy that it takes half the game to rotate your turrets. 

[SomeRandomDonkey]

If you really want some "sexy" sluggish turret traverse, maybe Queen Elizabeth would be more your style. 72 seconds baby!

[SinqueScheiDeMona]

 

[mofton]

Seems legit to me -

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_15-50_m1934.php

[Phoenix_jz]

1 hour ago, Hunter_Steel said:

I fail to see how. Those turrets are too small. Nagato's two 16inch guns could fit very well in there, and you could easily make a set of triple 14s in there, but there's WAY too little place in there for triple 15s.

~Hunter

Nagato's main guns are even closer together than the Littorio's, and so are Nelson's & KGV... So I fail to see how the size of the turrets on this class would be so damning to their RoF.

 

Regardless of what you might infer from turret size, the hard data disagrees with you. In the 1940-1941 gunnery exercises, Littorio averaged 30.6 seconds, and Vittorio Veneto averaged 29.7 seconds.

[Rion12]

1 hour ago, Show_Me_Your_Cits said:

Someone is actually complaining about good gun handling? Does not compute. 

Have you played Yamato recently? You'd probably enjoy that it takes half the game to rotate your turrets. 

That turret traverse speed is still one of the larger complaints I have about that boat. Don't get me wrong, I like the Yamato and I can generally do well enough with her...

Like...I get that they're gigantic 460mm guns in triple turrets...but come on. The GK's turrets turn nearly twice as fast (GK's 40 seconds to Yamato's 72) and I can't possibly imagine that they're that much lighter.

[RealNewDeal]

Just now, Rion12 said:

That turret traverse speed is still one of the larger complaints I have about that boat. Don't get me wrong, I like the Yamato and I can generally do well enough with her...

Like...I get that they're gigantic 460mm guns in triple turrets...but come on. The GK's turrets turn nearly twice as fast (GK's 40 seconds to Yamato's 72) and I can't possibly imagine that they're that much lighter.

My guess is the GK's designs had much better machinery and technology than Yamato's rolling bunkers.

[MrDeaf]

IJN didn't develop better motors to turn the turrets until very late in the war.

Also, heavier turrets take more power to turn.

[Show_Me_Your_Cits]

12 hours ago, Rion12 said:

That turret traverse speed is still one of the larger complaints I have about that boat. Don't get me wrong, I like the Yamato and I can generally do well enough with her...

Like...I get that they're gigantic 460mm guns in triple turrets...but come on. The GK's turrets turn nearly twice as fast (GK's 40 seconds to Yamato's 72) and I can't possibly imagine that they're that much lighter.

From a design standpoint, I don't think the Japanese put much, if any, priority on train rate beyond "can actually hit moving target." My guess is they were expecting every Pacific battle to be a long range slugfest with little to no close range fighting, even in their great "Decisive Battle" that never came to fruition. 

You see this in essentially every Japanese ship we have in game. 

The Germans and Italians were all focused on fighting in the Atlantic/North Sea/Mediterranean where engagements would typically be at much shorter ranges, requiring better gun handling, and this is reflected in favorable train rates.