Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Sere_Pj

Change in BB ( AP ) Shell mechanics

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

72
[SMI-1]
[SMI-1]
Members
307 posts
8,780 battles

I just read this message on Ship Comrade from @WG_Lumberjack  And can not fathom such a change in the game, DD were nerfed when they took away the snipe shooting while in smoke, now they are proposing downgrading AP rounds on BB's that shoot at DD's and destroy those DD's.

Now here is my question, what happens to My BB with it's AP rounds when I am shooting at a Crusier or another Battleship ? ( Less Damage ) It better not WG.

If this is a ongoing effort by the DD community to make there DD's better, I am not buying it, I have nothing against DD players I am one of them, but this is just a stupid idea to even be thought about by WG.

Thanks,

Sere_Pj

Desktop_180221_1104.jpg

Desktop_180221_1105.jpg

Edited by Sere_Pj
Misspelled name
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
625
[WOLF5]
Members
1,881 posts
2,647 battles

It's not related to damage, it has to do with the angle. Under the proposed model, the fuse will arm based on the actual thickness of the armor, not the effective thickness (angling). Thus for DDs, the fuse will not arm, resulting in an overpen. This can't be the whole explanation because that would mean angling is useless on all ships. Also, the problem isn't armor thickness, it's flight time within the DD resulting in a shell detonation and regular pen damage. My guess is he's trying to say something about that in the next line, but the english is unclear. I think it's a bad translation, because that method misses the whole problem, and causes new ones. While they are working on this, I don't think your quote accurately reflects what is being done. As he said, it's WIP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
876
[-BRS-]
Members
2,391 posts
15,390 battles

I sure hope they do Nerf AP from BBs on Destroyers I can just hear the Lamentations of the BaBy drivers right now

Edited by silverdahc
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[YAN]
Members
1,648 posts
7,949 battles
18 minutes ago, silverdahc said:

Lamentations of the BaBy drivers right now

Clearly you are not biased in any way for changes regarding this.

Maybe it should stressed again that this is WiP and the changes are delicate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[KSA]
Members
1,027 posts
5,679 battles
22 minutes ago, silverdahc said:

I sure hope they do Nerf AP from BBs on Destroyers I can just hear the Lamentations of the BaBy drivers right now

No different than the whiney [edited] from baby [edited]DD drivers..

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
624
[O7]
Members
954 posts
14,023 battles

BB AP versus destroyers should remain as is. If it is nerfed then BBs will snipe more and take less risk knowing they cannot defend themselves from DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,850
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers, WoWS Wiki Editor
6,762 posts
4,376 battles

I don't know where this notion of nerfs to DDs in smoke came from but it isn't there.

 

As to this, we'll have to see, it could work very well, especially increasing the usefulness of underwater pens on ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,327
[NGAGE]
Supertester
2,088 posts
11,598 battles
14 minutes ago, Kebobstuzov said:

BB AP versus destroyers should remain as is. If it is nerfed then BBs will snipe more and take less risk knowing they cannot defend themselves from DDs.

As I understand it their intent is that this would cause BBs to keep HE loaded more often, in preparation for spotting a sudden DD, rather than just shooting AP as now, much like preemptive course changes when you know torps may be coming.  Thus giving cruisers more survivability as they suffer fewer AP salvos, due to BBs having HE loaded more often.   

 

If this instead ends up with BBs hanging back more, they will probably be happy with that, as it will still give cruisers some breathing room, to support caps without being as close to the enemy BBs.  The irony is the real losers will be the DDs, who suddenly have cruisers getting very close to them, with no nearby BBs to scare the cruisers off.   Strange outcome from a mechanic meant to help the DD.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,111
[USCC2]
Members
4,714 posts
20 minutes ago, SyndicatedINC said:

As I understand it their intent is that this would cause BBs to keep HE loaded more often, in preparation for spotting a sudden DD, rather than just shooting AP as now, much like preemptive course changes when you know torps may be coming.  Thus giving cruisers more survivability as they suffer fewer AP salvos, due to BBs having HE loaded more often.   

 

If this instead ends up with BBs hanging back more, they will probably be happy with that, as it will still give cruisers some breathing room, to support caps without being as close to the enemy BBs.  The irony is the real losers will be the DDs, who suddenly have cruisers getting very close to them, with no nearby BBs to scare the cruisers off.   Strange outcome from a mechanic meant to help the DD.

I'm with you. There was a reason that many ships were given 2 types of shells and the fact that some ships had no need to change those shells to face different threats, indicates a change is needed.

I think if it helps Cruisers more that would be great!

As for the BB drivers that say this will make them stay at the back - they probably do that already anyway lol.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,829
[RKLES]
Members
8,874 posts
10,828 battles

I play all classes of ships and am just fine with current game mechanics, I actually love seeing BBs when in my DDs fir example since with the high HP pools and sluggish agility usually they make great prey to hunt. As as somebody who also uses BBs I do not want that to change either. Also as far as CAs and Citadels I rarely receive Citadel hits because I know better than to just sit there broadside in front of BBs. And CAs can punish BBs as well well so it's all fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,311
Members
4,117 posts
8,680 battles
4 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

I'm with you. There was a reason that many ships were given 2 types of shells and the fact that some ships had no need to change those shells to face different threats, indicates a change is needed.

I think if it helps Cruisers more that would be great!

As for the BB drivers that say this will make them stay at the back - they probably do that already anyway lol.

Amen!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,111
[USCC2]
Members
4,714 posts
1 minute ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

I play all classes of ships and am just fine with current game mechanics, I actually love seeing BBs when in my DDs fir example since with the high HP pools and sluggish agility usually they make great prey to hunt. As as somebody who also uses BBs I do not want that to change either. Also as far as CAs and Citadels I rarely receive Citadel hits because I know better than to just sit there broadside in front of BBs. And CAs can punish BBs as well well so it's all fair.

Except in some cases angling doesn't matter with current MM. You can wiggle that stern angle as much as you want and still have BB shells knock the crap out of your HP.

 

I'm not saying it happens all the time, but it happens enough - and it is not because the Cruiser isn't at an angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,829
[RKLES]
Members
8,874 posts
10,828 battles
2 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Except in some cases angling doesn't matter with current MM. You can wiggle that stern angle as much as you want and still have BB shells knock the crap out of your HP.

 

I'm not saying it happens all the time, but it happens enough - and it is not because the Cruiser isn't at an angle.

In those cases you duck behind island, dodge the shell or go dark and escape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,111
[USCC2]
Members
4,714 posts
Just now, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

In those cases you duck behind island, dodge the shell or go dark and escape.

Ahh so you're a player that sits behind islands firing and never comes forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,829
[RKLES]
Members
8,874 posts
10,828 battles
Just now, _WaveRider_ said:

Ahh so you're a player that sits behind islands firing and never comes forward?

Lol where have you been? I rarely see that happen in my battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,111
[USCC2]
Members
4,714 posts
1 minute ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Lol where have you been? I rarely see that happen in my battles.

Thank you.

So if you rarely see people: hiding behind islands and never coming forward, that must mean they can be seen and shot at.

 

So my first post stands - there isn't always a handy island, you can't always dodge and it takes 20 seconds before you go dark (if nothing else can see you). :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,829
[RKLES]
Members
8,874 posts
10,828 battles
9 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Thank you.

So if you rarely see people: hiding behind islands and never coming forward, that must mean they can be seen and shot at.

 

So my first post stands - there isn't always a handy island, you can't always dodge and it takes 20 seconds before you go dark (if nothing else can see you). :Smile_honoring:

That's why you take concealment skill with you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
876
[-BRS-]
Members
2,391 posts
15,390 battles
1 hour ago, khorender_1 said:

No different than the whiney [edited] from baby [edited]DD drivers..

 

You're right but I've been keeping track and we get nerfed 3 to 1 versus those Battleship drivers

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,111
[USCC2]
Members
4,714 posts
3 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

That's why you take concealment skill with you...

So you think taking concealment will stop you being seen and shot at by BBs....and you ask where I've been lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,829
[RKLES]
Members
8,874 posts
10,828 battles
1 minute ago, _WaveRider_ said:

So you think taking concealment will stop you being seen and shot at by BBs....and you ask where I've been lol.

I took Mogami out in Ranked and many times did open water Firing and was able to go dark before return fire came. Lol it drove the BBs bananas.Mogami only has 9.3 detection range so I could sneak into nice comfortable range, wait for enemy BBs to let loose their salvoes, then I let loose a couple salvoes and then went dark for a bit and let them burn.

You just have to be clever about things lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,111
[USCC2]
Members
4,714 posts
1 minute ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

I took Mogami out in Ranked and many times did open water Firing and was able to go dark before return fire came. Lol it drove the BBs bananas.Mogami only has 9.3 detection range so I could sneak into nice comfortable range, wait for enemy BBs to let loose their salvoes, then I let loose a couple salvoes and then went dark for a bit and let them burn.

You just have to be clever about things lol.

So you've never been hit by a BB in a cruiser - bold statement, but if it's true then you have the right to brag. Well done you. :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
164
[WK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
718 posts
10,546 battles

Wonder if some of you were around BEFORE the "shell normalization"...  It's actually a bit more difficult to citadel an angle'd CA now than then, at least that has been my experience. :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[KRAB]
Members
746 posts
7,224 battles

That change will hurt cruiser AP almost as much as battleship AP. If these fuse values are still in place:

410mm - 68mm

356mm - 59mm

203mm - 34mm

155mm - 26mm

Heavy cruisers will no longer deal pen damage to the upper belt, bow and stern sections of high tier battleships OR other cruisers - only belt penetrations or shells which hit an internal bulkhead will arm. Light cruisers will be less effective against destroyers (Minotaur will get nothing but overpens against a Gearing or even another Minotaur unless it hits the main belt) and will have even more trouble damaging battleships through their superstructure. 

Basically, cruisers will be forced to spam HE at all but point blank range, AP-Only cruisers will be heavily nerfed unless WG gives them an insanely low fuse value (<15mm) and a hundred balancing changes will be needed all up and down the lines. 

A better fix would be to remove automatic fusing when a section division is reached - that will fix most DD penetration issues. Most DDs do not have the effective armor to fuse BB AP anyways - it takes a VERY steep angle to get 19mm or 21mm plating up to 68mm, and at that angle you get less hits due to horizontal dispersion anyways. 

Please WG - rethink your strategy here. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[SMI-1]
[SMI-1]
Members
307 posts
8,780 battles

@MaxL_1023 Nicely put, did not think about the change ( if it affects the Crusier Line ) and if WG implements this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×