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

Notser: Intriguing Adjustment. (PSA: BB citadel changes)

245 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,819
Members
5,574 posts
7,121 battles

Discussion pertaining to changes to BB citadel damage in 7.2.

I never knew anything about this until I watched this vid.

Edited by Wulfgarn
  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[-AA-]
Members
1,729 posts
6,657 battles

Cool! Didn’t know! :)

Time to get my BBs out of the grease. 

Edited by LemonadeWarrior
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[TOG]
Members
2,484 posts
14,966 battles

Been wondering why a Republique can cit a Yamato at  15 km away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[TOG]
Members
2,484 posts
14,966 battles
Just now, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

Can't watch the vid, somebody please give the the E! News variant.

 

It looks like they made it easier to cit a BB at range. Possible they decreased the arming time.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
770
[MIA-A]
Members
2,111 posts
6,757 battles
1 minute ago, Bill_Halsey said:

Been wondering why a Republique can cit a Yamato at  15 km away.

because the Yamato citadel is above the waterline and has been for... oh a few years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[-AA-]
Members
1,729 posts
6,657 battles
1 minute ago, Bill_Halsey said:

Been wondering why a Republique can cit a Yamato at  15 km away.

All BBs can?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,347 posts
9,543 battles

It's interesting, and in a backwards sorta way, will probably be worse in the long run with players hiding even further back.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[TOG]
Members
2,484 posts
14,966 battles
2 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

because the Yamato citadel is above the waterline and has been for... oh a few years?

Given the amount of belt armor the Yammie has, you'd normally have to do it under 10 km with 16 inch shells broadside.. Unless it's another  Yamato firing on the Yammie..

Edited by Bill_Halsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
770
[MIA-A]
Members
2,111 posts
6,757 battles
Just now, Bill_Halsey said:

Given the amount of belt armor the Yammie has, you'd normally have to do it under 10 km. Unless it's another  Yamato.

... no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
838
[MIA-A]
Supertester
2,589 posts
8,410 battles
3 minutes ago, Bill_Halsey said:

Been wondering why a Republique can cit a Yamato at  15 km away.

Because Yamato has always been very vulnerable to citadels from BBs, and the French 431mm guns also have insane pen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
838
[MIA-A]
Supertester
2,589 posts
8,410 battles
1 minute ago, SgtBeltfed said:

It's interesting, and in a backwards sorta way, will probably be worse in the long run with players hiding even further back.

It'll probably end up being BowCampMeta 2.0. 

But if they same Republique is fine and working as intended, I might just be done. 203 mm shells should not be blapping that ship from range. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,370
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,428 posts
3,875 battles
23 minutes ago, Show_Me_Your_Cits said:

It'll probably end up being BowCampMeta 2.0. 

Oy boy! Time to blame destroyers and get torpedoes nerfed again!

 

On topic: Mixed feelings about this. I'll have to see how it shakes out in the long run. Contrary to all the accusations, I play battleships too.

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 4
  • Funny 5
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,640 posts
7,474 battles

Its such a good change, I cant express enough how much I enjoy battleships properly eating cits now.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[TOG]
Members
2,484 posts
14,966 battles

Well let's see:

 

1. Deep water torpedoes

2. Making it easier to cit BB's

3. Introduction of specialized BB hunters like the Asahio

 

Looks llke a pattern to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
379
[PROJX]
Members
969 posts
15,734 battles
47 minutes ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

Can't watch the vid, somebody please give the the E! News variant.

The suble Armor-Shell interaction mechanic change in 7.2 is resulting in:

  • Waterline Citadels on UK BBs
  • More frequent Citadels on German BBs
  • Citadels on BBs from plunging fire by Heavy AP or higher caliber CA shells (source: Flamu)
  • Upshot is you can't rely on certain BBs being immune from citadels any more and better play at protecting your citadel will be to your benefit

 

Edited by hangglide42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[KRAB]
Members
615 posts
6,037 battles

It doesn't really affect Yamato or Montana to the same degree, as they have better underwater citadel protection (and easily hit citadels from the waterline or above). I think the Republique is the most affected, followed by the Conqueror and GK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,819
Members
5,574 posts
7,121 battles

There's another topic discussing this as well.

A vid from Flamu showing some testing in the training room.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,918 posts
1,365 battles

Quirky instances where near broadside Hindenbergs straight soak up my 16 inch SHS shells like a blackhole?  Yeah...ill take the old system back...

And I Noticed the increase in cit hits.  Broadside Alabama is 1 cit per shot...its kinda annoying.  Even angled, still got citadel hit.  BBs are pretty damn soft now.  Cruisers, unless you cit hit them are god mode.

Edited by KnightFandragon
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[KRAB]
Members
615 posts
6,037 battles

Those hits always happened - you were just hitting too high. The 30mm plating is not enough to fuse a 16 inch shell until it gets to autobounce angle. You will get more citadel hits from underwater or waterline impacts than previously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,801
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,106 posts
14,503 battles

I don't mind this at all.  You either know how to milk survival out of your BB or you don't.  Mistakes should be punishable.

 

Seriously, with the whole turtleback aspect spreading, BB waterline citadels going out to more and more ships, this stuff needed to happen.  Consider some ship reviews out there, people chiming in negatively when a Battleship actually has to protect its citadel.

 

We were in that kind of state of the game.  This needed to happen and mistakes need to be punished.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 11
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
838
[MIA-A]
Supertester
2,589 posts
8,410 battles
36 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Its such a good change, I cant express enough how much I enjoy battleships properly eating cits now.

Let me flip the coin and put it another way... 

The game was balanced around the way things used to be. The way things are now, some ships are going to suffer. If a ship is suffering, it's not going to be able to contribute as much to the game/team. If it becomes a trend, Wargaming will notice, and Wargaming will then act. 

When Wargaming acts, 9 times out of 10 they wildly over correct and "fix" 3 more things that weren't broken, resulting in either the problem becoming much worse, or one problem going away and a newer, bigger problem being introduced that breaks the game. 

 

So this is bad. We have two (actually 3 really now) lines balanced around the "Doesn't eat many cits but eats a lot of pens" armor/meta. Those ships will suffer (or be completely broken a la Republique), and WG will probably have to buff them to compensate. They'll "fix" those lines and either powercreep the other two or break them further in the process. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,502
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,489 posts
3,435 battles

WG is currently looking into it, last I recall. No word if there was another bug that cropped up when fixing other bugs, but if there is one, WG will fix it. They've caused new armor bugs in the past, and fixed it fairly fast as well.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×