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

Torpedo Damage

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

108
[DRHS]
[DRHS]
Members
256 posts

So today I decided to look at the real life torpedo's of WW II vs the in game versions.Across the board they are ALL faster than their  real life versions. I'll give WG that for game mechanics. 

 

But WG has played with the Damage potential of them in a BIG way.

Of the 5 used by Germany, USN , IJN and Russian in the Tier 10 DD's (G7ut,Mk 17, Type 93 Mod 3,ET-46, 53-49/50)  The heaviest warhead was the Mk17 with a 879.5 pounds Torpex Warhead. Which is equal to about 1300 lbs of TNT. The Type 93 Mod 3 only had a 1080 lb Warhead. And the  G7ut (AKA  Steinwal) Had a 987 lb Warhead. The ET-46 had a 992 lb Warhead, and the  53 series of Torps had a 661 lb warhead. The So WHY do IJN Torps do so much more damage than the Mk 17???? Why to KM torps do less damage than the Russian ??? 

Torp Damage SHOULD be USN>IJN>KM>Russian 

Weight of the Torps I believe is what WG used to determine the Reload time and with that in mind The reload Time between the 5 is Close to Appropriate.  The KM torps were almost 1000 lbs lighter than the USN or 2k for the IJN and the ET-46 was just a little heavier than the G7's. But the 53-49/50's were heavier, not as heavy as a Mk 17 or a Type 93 so should fall between the USN and KM.

Reload Time SHOULD be KM<Russian(ET-46<53-49/50)<USN<IJN

Range well that one they got about right save for the KM G7's Which were shorted about 1.5km. So looking at the overall situation you have a definite bias against the KM Torps (should have higher damage and longer range) and a Bias for the IJN Type 93 Mod 3 in Damage. And not surprisingly a slight Bias for the reload of the Russian 53-49/50.

IF WG were to balance them as close to the Real weapons the Mk 17 would have the top damage. Followed by the Type 93, ET-46, G7, 53-49/50. ET-46 and G7 should be real close in damage (only about 5 lbs difference in warhead size).

Range there should be only the increase of the G7 to 12 Km.

Reload  G7 should be the fastest reload followed closely by the ET-46, Then the  53-49/50 and the Mark 17 both being close to the same reload time with the Type 93 Mod 3 being the last in line.

I have not looked into the visibility of the torps or their acoustic signatures yet nor the Pan Asian line. But I think WG should at least swap the Mk 17 and Type 93 damage, Give the G7  higher damage and it's 12 km range, increase the Reload on the 53-49/50 and drop it's damage down some considering he had the smallest warhead of all the torps used at Tier 10.

Just my opinion but hey how often does WG actually listen to their players when it comes to balance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,378
[HINON]
Members
9,017 posts

Gameplay balance trumps real life stats. This gives some consistency for a line of ships with a particular playstyle.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
779
[STW-M]
Members
2,051 posts
5,861 battles
5 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

Gameplay balance trumps real life stats. This gives some consistency for a line of ships with a particular playstyle.

I mean, imagine if every time a torpedo launcher gets hit, all the torpedoes go off and cause damage to the ship carrying them as if that ship itself had been hit with torpedoes.

There's a reason why the USN removed torpedoes from their cruisers—Chokai's fate can attest to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,077
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,310 posts
6,590 battles

If we went purely historical, the majority of IJN Torps would have ridiculously low detection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
211 posts
5,120 battles
47 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

If we went purely historical, the majority of IJN Torps would have ridiculously low detection. 

Aye, didn't they use pure oxygen as fuel instead of compressed air, making less bubbles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
697
[USCC2]
Members
3,569 posts
1 hour ago, BarronRichthofen said:

So today I decided to look at the real life torpedo's of WW II vs the in game versions.Across the board they are ALL faster than their  real life versions. I'll give WG that for game mechanics. 

 

But WG has played with the Damage potential of them in a BIG way.

Of the 5 used by Germany, USN , IJN and Russian in the Tier 10 DD's (G7ut,Mk 17, Type 93 Mod 3,ET-46, 53-49/50)  The heaviest warhead was the Mk17 with a 879.5 pounds Torpex Warhead. Which is equal to about 1300 lbs of TNT. The Type 93 Mod 3 only had a 1080 lb Warhead. And the  G7ut (AKA  Steinwal) Had a 987 lb Warhead. The ET-46 had a 992 lb Warhead, and the  53 series of Torps had a 661 lb warhead. The So WHY do IJN Torps do so much more damage than the Mk 17???? Why to KM torps do less damage than the Russian ??? 

Torp Damage SHOULD be USN>IJN>KM>Russian 

Weight of the Torps I believe is what WG used to determine the Reload time and with that in mind The reload Time between the 5 is Close to Appropriate.  The KM torps were almost 1000 lbs lighter than the USN or 2k for the IJN and the ET-46 was just a little heavier than the G7's. But the 53-49/50's were heavier, not as heavy as a Mk 17 or a Type 93 so should fall between the USN and KM.

Reload Time SHOULD be KM<Russian(ET-46<53-49/50)<USN<IJN

Range well that one they got about right save for the KM G7's Which were shorted about 1.5km. So looking at the overall situation you have a definite bias against the KM Torps (should have higher damage and longer range) and a Bias for the IJN Type 93 Mod 3 in Damage. And not surprisingly a slight Bias for the reload of the Russian 53-49/50.

IF WG were to balance them as close to the Real weapons the Mk 17 would have the top damage. Followed by the Type 93, ET-46, G7, 53-49/50. ET-46 and G7 should be real close in damage (only about 5 lbs difference in warhead size).

Range there should be only the increase of the G7 to 12 Km.

Reload  G7 should be the fastest reload followed closely by the ET-46, Then the  53-49/50 and the Mark 17 both being close to the same reload time with the Type 93 Mod 3 being the last in line.

I have not looked into the visibility of the torps or their acoustic signatures yet nor the Pan Asian line. But I think WG should at least swap the Mk 17 and Type 93 damage, Give the G7  higher damage and it's 12 km range, increase the Reload on the 53-49/50 and drop it's damage down some considering he had the smallest warhead of all the torps used at Tier 10.

Just my opinion but hey how often does WG actually listen to their players when it comes to balance?

And hits with main guns were 4-10% I believe - not the 35-40% in game, but this is a game.

However, you are right in regards to balance; this game does have a favourite child (does most damage, survives longest, makes more credits). :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
279
[LHG]
Members
1,193 posts
4,963 battles

The Mark 17 torpedo was never used in combat by any ship. The USN relied more on the Mark 14 and Mark 15 torpedoes, the former mainly used on submarines and the latter having teething issues until about 1943.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,077
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,310 posts
6,590 battles
2 hours ago, Magyar5 said:

Aye, didn't they use pure oxygen as fuel instead of compressed air, making less bubbles?

They used pure oxygen, which meant that only carbon dioxyde was left as a product of the torpedo‘s engine. Since carbon dioxyde dissolves in water, the torpedo leaves little to no trail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,410 posts
On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 7:42 AM, BarronRichthofen said:

So today I decided to look at the real life torpedo's of WW II vs the in game versions.Across the board they are ALL faster than their  real life versions. I'll give WG that for game mechanics. 

 

But WG has played with the Damage potential of them in a BIG way.

Of the 5 used by Germany, USN , IJN and Russian in the Tier 10 DD's (G7ut,Mk 17, Type 93 Mod 3,ET-46, 53-49/50)  The heaviest warhead was the Mk17 with a 879.5 pounds Torpex Warhead. Which is equal to about 1300 lbs of TNT. The Type 93 Mod 3 only had a 1080 lb Warhead. And the  G7ut (AKA  Steinwal) Had a 987 lb Warhead. The ET-46 had a 992 lb Warhead, and the  53 series of Torps had a 661 lb warhead. The So WHY do IJN Torps do so much more damage than the Mk 17???? Why to KM torps do less damage than the Russian ??? 

Torp Damage SHOULD be USN>IJN>KM>Russian 

Weight of the Torps I believe is what WG used to determine the Reload time and with that in mind The reload Time between the 5 is Close to Appropriate.  The KM torps were almost 1000 lbs lighter than the USN or 2k for the IJN and the ET-46 was just a little heavier than the G7's. But the 53-49/50's were heavier, not as heavy as a Mk 17 or a Type 93 so should fall between the USN and KM.

Reload Time SHOULD be KM<Russian(ET-46<53-49/50)<USN<IJN

Range well that one they got about right save for the KM G7's Which were shorted about 1.5km. So looking at the overall situation you have a definite bias against the KM Torps (should have higher damage and longer range) and a Bias for the IJN Type 93 Mod 3 in Damage. And not surprisingly a slight Bias for the reload of the Russian 53-49/50.

IF WG were to balance them as close to the Real weapons the Mk 17 would have the top damage. Followed by the Type 93, ET-46, G7, 53-49/50. ET-46 and G7 should be real close in damage (only about 5 lbs difference in warhead size).

Range there should be only the increase of the G7 to 12 Km.

Reload  G7 should be the fastest reload followed closely by the ET-46, Then the  53-49/50 and the Mark 17 both being close to the same reload time with the Type 93 Mod 3 being the last in line.

I have not looked into the visibility of the torps or their acoustic signatures yet nor the Pan Asian line. But I think WG should at least swap the Mk 17 and Type 93 damage, Give the G7  higher damage and it's 12 km range, increase the Reload on the 53-49/50 and drop it's damage down some considering he had the smallest warhead of all the torps used at Tier 10.

Just my opinion but hey how often does WG actually listen to their players when it comes to balance?

Fact: IJN torpedoes were designed in the 1920s and early 30s. Fact: The USN torpedo in the game is a 1950s torpedo.

Fact: IJN Long Lance had 25km range at 45 knots setting. USN torpedoes used in late war never got past 10km range (Mk13,14 and 15 torps). The mk 17 in gearing never saw service in WW2.

Its pathetic and very Russian sphincter burn from Tsushima bias when you see a nation using pre-ww2 design ships and weapons facing later war design ships using cold war era weaponry.

Want balance? Get the Shimakaze 20km torpedoes fixed then balance the GUNBOAT gearing torpedoes down so its not a torpedo boat AND a gunboat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50
[BOATC]
Members
185 posts
3,217 battles

USN Torpedoes were also notoriously unreliable. There's a log from a US Submarine Captain of him firing I think 14 torpedoes directly into the side of an enemy vessel, confirming each hit via hydroacoustics, and none of them detonated. I don't think we want "80+ % torpedo dud rate" to be a mechanic either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
727 posts

Sure! I'll second that!

+1 for moar realism instead of gameplay balance mechanics. Bright idea...

 

That way all the ships sink with only 1 torpedo hit, and the USN shoots nothing but defective torpedoes until Tier 9. Yay reality!!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,540 posts
8,180 battles

Hey

Let's also remember that most ships only carried a "X" number of torpedo's and reloads, then they were out of fish.  Not to mention that those dreaded "Radar" could use their search radar for a long as they wanted, not just 30 seconds and then a cool down period.  Some how I don't think DD players would appreciate that part of historical gameplay either.  

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
2 hours ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

Let's also remember that most ships only carried a "X" number of torpedo's and reloads, then they were out of fish.  Not to mention that those dreaded "Radar" could use their search radar for a long as they wanted, not just 30 seconds and then a cool down period.  Some how I don't think DD players would appreciate that part of historical gameplay either.  

 

Pete

 

Actually, I might not mind this, since search radar wasn't very good against small targets, especially in moderate sea conditions and up.  Plus, it didn't see through mountains. :-)

(FYI:  radar pre-1944 really couldn't do more than see a battleship-sized target at 10km, or a DD-sized one at half that, and air-search radar was pretty useless beyond 20km at best. 1944-45 did much better, particularly slaved to much better gun directors;  you're talking 25km or so for the BB, and 10-12km for the DDs to be seen.  But half that if the sea conditions were more than Sea State 6).

But yeah, "realism" takes a BIG back seat to playability, enjoyment, and balance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,540 posts
8,180 battles

Hey

And there is still the fact that there was only so many torpedo's carried aboard a DD.  I agree there has to be some kind of balance between playability, enjoyment, balance, map size and some realism.  For the most part, the game is quite fun overall.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×