Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Halonut24

Inconsistency of ships Secondary Armament

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

124
[WOSV]
Members
333 posts
2,231 battles

So I noticed this a while ago, but the massive inconsistency of the secondary batteries between ships, primarily Battleships, has always bugged me. I'll use two Tier VIII BB's for this example, as it's two I own and have used a good amount; USS North Carolina and Bismarck.

North Carolina is armed with 20 5"/38 Mk 32 guns (in twin mounts), ever so slightly different from the Gearing's 6 5"/38 mk 38 guns (also twins). However, the reload is double on the NC, and the range less than half. And yet the Bismarck's secondaries can have the ability to reach out as far as 12 km with the right mods for both the 105mm and 150mm guns. That's more than DOUBLE her same tier counterparts! So, I ask... Why? Why the inconsistency? When does a 2.5 mile [5 km]range for a 5" naval rifle ever made sense? (historically, the range on a 5"/38 was roughly 5 miles[10-11 km]) I understand the desire to give the KMS BB something different and I guess unique(?), but for everything else it doesn't really make that much sense, especially for USN BB's with their large number of 5" batteries (which I thought would be a factor in their play, but was quite mistaken, as they don't even think about shooting until you're in suicide range, and even then they don't do that much).

I'm not really mad about it, per-say. I'm just more... puzzled by it. And a little disappointed. 

A rational explanation to this would be greatly appreciated, though I'm not really expecting one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,153
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,189 posts
18,924 battles

Answer: WG‘s idea of balance and national flavor. Because it’s a shooter with ships and not a simulator.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,930
[HINON]
Supertester
19,240 posts
12,789 battles

Because NC has 9x 16" and accuracy and Bismarck has 8x 15" that are very inaccurate. It's not really fair comparing only secondary batteries and crying foul while ignoring everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
868
[ICE9]
Members
836 posts
25 minutes ago, Erebthoron said:

Answer: WG‘s idea of balance and national flavor. Because it’s a shooter with ships and not a simulator.

This. It took me awhile, but I eventually got over being OCD about authenticity and just play the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[WOLF9]
Members
3,253 posts

  I also wonder if doing this is WG's way of making certain upgrades and captain skills useful and attractive to use- without introducing excessive powercreep or making these ships OP.

  This, of course, in addition to secondaries being the German BB forte'.    Remember- your North Carolina's main batteries are more accurate- especially at range- than the Bismarck's,  in addition to being larger and more numerous.   That's one of The US's balancing factors, imo.

 ie: Germans get secondaries and excellent close range armor, because they're brawlers.   Americans get larger main batteries (in both senses of the word), better gun handling, and armor intended to protect them from long range fire.   Your Bismarck will eat citadels from AP dive bombers- your Nor-Cal will not.    Nor-Cal; Alabama;  Iowa/Missouri; and Montana also get ridiculously good AA as well.

 I do agree with you that the secondaries could be a BIT better, though, lol.   I also think it's silly that the German 105mm gun is so much better than the 5"/38 as an AA gun.   We won't even get into the powercreep that is French BB AA... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
153
[RMRGD]
Members
183 posts
16,927 battles

There was a point in time WG tested more accurate secondaries and it was a MASSIVE power creep.   The only thing I do not like is that the secondaries aim now at waterline (if I recall) and it used to aim more center mass.    So I feel shells fall short more often.   

To one of your comments I think secondaries should be more accurate against BBs, little more towards CAs, and keep the same with DDs.    DDs gets hammered by secondaries currently as the shell type hits much harder.    Everyone else its not a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
608
[ARGSY]
Members
1,297 posts
8,992 battles

I'm just imaging how "fun" the game would be to play of the North Carolina's secondaries had the range and ROF of Gearing's mains.

 

I'm sorry, OP, and I'm usually not one to jump all over a topic post for being dumb, but, c'mon man! Do you realize what it is you're asking?I mean, isn't the answer just self-evident?

Share this post


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

American 5”/38 mounts remain the single secondary weapon ingame with its rate of fire nerfed down by nearly half. Every other secondary gun ingame gets its most optimistic rate of fire. Range and accuracy should not be increased, but rate of fire needs to at least be standardized. The secondaries themselves already do next to no damage and have an extremely low fire chance with floaty arcs. No need to piss on the rate of fire as well.

Hell, even Montana’s 5”/54s fire at near/at their historical rate of fire, and are actually some of the best secondaries in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,838
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,162 posts
14,573 battles

You have to be very careful now.  USN BBs compared to German ones have far more reliable main battery and AA.  German BBs already pay for bad AA and suspect main battery reliability at range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,143 posts
3,273 battles

As someone who runs Secondaries on almost all my ships; I like the deterrent. BB's secondaries are mostly there for "brawling" with other BBs -or- telling off a Cruiser attempting a Torpedo run. 

Any DD that's within Secondaries of a BB means: 

1. You're way out of position.

2. There's a huge gap on the flank that a DD squeaked through.

3. If you can proximity detect them your secondaries will shoot provided they have angle.

After T5, with a commander spec'ed with AFT, your secondaries reach out to 6.8-7.2km average which is 75-85% the maximum range of a DD's Main Battery. Only GunBote DDs with AFT will out range SBM2 + AFT; exception Germans.

As much as I would like a buff to Secondaries, it should go to the CACLs if anybody; it would increase their ability to combat DDs; so those BBs only need to worry about having to pummel other BBs targeting friendly Cruisers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
180
[SIDE]
Members
733 posts
3,281 battles

I would be super interested in seeing the 2nd guns if they had 2km range extra across the board. Considering that most of the 2nd guns are inaccurate and barely do any damage. The game would be really pretty with all the guns always going off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
919
[LEGIO]
Members
2,995 posts
5,408 battles
5 hours ago, Big_Spud said:

American 5”/38 mounts remain the single secondary weapon ingame with its rate of fire nerfed down by nearly half. Every other secondary gun ingame gets its most optimistic rate of fire. Range and accuracy should not be increased, but rate of fire needs to at least be standardized. The secondaries themselves already do next to no damage and have an extremely low fire chance with floaty arcs. No need to piss on the rate of fire as well.

I disagree about range and accuracy (and for more nations than the USN as well) but you are absolutely right with the rest of this post. Why is the 5"/38 the only secondary gun hit with such nerfs? Compare its stats to the historically inferior Japanese 5"/40 which does more damage, has greater range on some ships, and gets a faster rate of fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
720
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
6,187 battles

Is the game going to be unplayable with an actually "manual secondary" option? As in, what if there's a button to switch to secondaries and allows BB with "manual secondary" to actually fire secondaries by mouse aiming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
919
[LEGIO]
Members
2,995 posts
5,408 battles
1 minute ago, NeutralState said:

Is the game going to be unplayable with an actually "manual secondary" option? As in, what if there's a button to switch to secondaries and allows BB with "manual secondary" to actually fire secondaries by mouse aiming?

It wouldn't be unplayable and such an option would be fun, thus half of the community opposes it.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
720
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
6,187 battles
1 minute ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

It wouldn't be unplayable and such an option would be fun, thus half of the community opposes it.

Image result for laugh troy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,201 posts
8,185 battles
1 minute ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

It wouldn't be unplayable and such an option would be fun, thus half of the community opposes it.

Yeah, the half that doesn't play battleships.

A major part of the game design here is that every ship type is supposed to be equally useful.  This necessitated some major balance changes.  One of those changes is that battleship secondary weapons aren't allowed to perform at anywhere near their historical levels because a battleship's secondary battery is basically a light cruiser.  If you could aim and fire them the same way you use your main battery, you'd basically get to play a light cruiser for 30 seconds while your main guns reload, which would make real light cruisers, which don't have huge main battery guns or armor, completely obsolete.

Making the game relatively balanced between different ship types is also why destroyers can reload their torpedo tubes an unlimited number of times and take less than 2 minutes to do it and why carriers can't launch all 100 of their planes at the same time and strike targets from hundreds of kilometers away.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
720
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
6,187 battles
1 minute ago, Vaidency said:

Yeah, the half that doesn't play battleships.

A major part of the game design here is that every ship type is supposed to be equally useful.  This necessitated some major balance changes.  One of those changes is that battleship secondary weapons aren't allowed to perform at anywhere near their historical levels because a battleship's secondary battery is basically a light cruiser.  If you could aim and fire them the same way you use your main battery, you'd basically get to play a light cruiser for 30 seconds while your main guns reload, which would make real light cruisers, which don't have huge main battery guns or armor, completely obsolete.

Making the game relatively balanced between different ship types is also why destroyers can reload their torpedo tubes an unlimited number of times and take less than 2 minutes to do it and why carriers can't launch all 100 of their planes at the same time and strike targets from hundreds of kilometers away.

your emblems though... wow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,917
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
3,850 posts
13,067 battles

First and foremost, it's a game...NOT designed to be an accurate simulation.

That said, there is the national flavor.  This is both arbitrary as well as somewhat tied to the reality focus of the nationality.  In the case of Bismarck, the secondary battery was actually considered a PRIMARY weapon in the ship's role as commerce raider.   Big guns wear out fast and the secondaries were more then sufficient to destroy a merchant ship.  The big guns were primarily saved for the big threats (other BBs or Cruisers).  As history proved, neither the Tirp nor the Biz fared well in the commerce raiding role.  And in WOWS, that role doesn't exist at all!!!  But the "flavor" of a equipping secondaries as a PRIMARY weapon is preserved in the game, even if if their use has no counterpart in the game.

As for NC, its secondaries were designed for a secondary role (for ships) or as primary role in AA.  As NC has a much better AA suite than Biz, that flavor too plays out.

As for range and accuracy, game/ship balance gets stirred into the national flavor.

Edited by Soshi_Sone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125
[--V--]
Members
499 posts
10,756 battles

I've always hated WGs (and many players) love of 'balance'.  A BB is the big dog, it's supposed to be a monster on the sea.  Not something that will lose in a 1v1 to a DD 80% of the time.  The secondaries on the USN BBs are absolutely insulting and should be buffed both in range and ROF.  But, it will never happen. 

When I first started playing, I almost quit for this fact alone.  It made me so angry that WG would neuter BBs sooo much.   Its a shame really.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125
[--V--]
Members
499 posts
10,756 battles
9 hours ago, Vaidency said:

Yeah, the half that doesn't play battleships.

 

Well, they could learn to play the other ships the way they did IRL, with all their strengths and weaknesses.   Even if BB secondaries were made historically accurate, the current DDs in this game (which are more like submarines) would still OP BBs in a 1 on 1.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,584
[5BS]
Members
4,766 posts
10 hours ago, Vaidency said:

A major part of the game design here is that every ship type is supposed to be equally useful. 

And thus we find the source of all our woes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
713
[USCC2]
Members
3,584 posts

Yep this is a game so WG has to try and make each individual who wants to play feel as though they have an equal chance to do as well as any other person - whatever ship they choose.

 

Unfortunately this leads to anger in those that can't see this is a game and not a simulator and that every type ship has benefits it may not have in real life as well as some negatives - it's called balance (or at least an attempt at balance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
919
[LEGIO]
Members
2,995 posts
5,408 battles
21 hours ago, Vaidency said:

Yeah, the half that doesn't play battleships.

A major part of the game design here is that every ship type is supposed to be equally useful.  This necessitated some major balance changes.  One of those changes is that battleship secondary weapons aren't allowed to perform at anywhere near their historical levels because a battleship's secondary battery is basically a light cruiser.  If you could aim and fire them the same way you use your main battery, you'd basically get to play a light cruiser for 30 seconds while your main guns reload, which would make real light cruisers, which don't have huge main battery guns or armor, completely obsolete.

Making the game relatively balanced between different ship types is also why destroyers can reload their torpedo tubes an unlimited number of times and take less than 2 minutes to do it and why carriers can't launch all 100 of their planes at the same time and strike targets from hundreds of kilometers away.

Equally useful doesn't mean a DD should win in an open gun duel with a CA or a CA win in an open gun duel against a BB. Different ships have different tasks. Pathetically ineffective secondary batteries are quite simply boring when in reality these guns were a very important feature of a warship. CAs/CLs have their own secondary armament that would benefit from secondary buffs too.

I'm not saying remove the endless torp spam DDs enable or their crazy stealth or anything like that to "punish" other classes. What I'm looking for is for secondary batteries to become a major component in the game and yes that means players will have to adapt, but they ought to be able to if it improves the overall game.

One of these days I'll have to right my universal secondary buff thesis, but I'm lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×