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

Historical Ammunition Levels

94 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

520
[187]
Members
1,609 posts
8,898 battles

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[BEARS]
Members
256 posts
8,686 battles

you mean it doesnt feel realistic when a 20k ton destroyer shoots 120k tons of torps during a game?

 

 

  • Funny 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,124
[WOLF7]
Members
12,203 posts
1 minute ago, C_D said:

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

Never going to happen. The player base would never tolerate it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
338 posts
1 minute ago, C_D said:

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

The torpedo thing alone would absolutely destroy the game's balance.

Basically only the IJN would be able to reload torps, and they'd only do so once.

It would be a totally different game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
[187]
Members
1,609 posts
8,898 battles
3 minutes ago, MokrieDela said:

you mean it doesnt feel realistic when a 20k ton destroyer shoots 120k tons of torps during a game?

 

 

This made me smile thank you my question has been answered...kind of lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,869
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
8,843 posts
12,604 battles
9 minutes ago, C_D said:

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

Yes very early on, and as you guessed thrown out for gameplay reasons. Particularly with torps on Destroyers. You would basically get one salvo per battle. Not fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[SEOP]
Members
1,524 posts
8,233 battles
4 minutes ago, MokrieDela said:

you mean it doesnt feel realistic when a 20k ton destroyer shoots 120k tons of torps during a game?

 

 

yeah -- that was one of my biggest issues with the game when I first started playing.  Made me stop playing after about a hundred matches or so.  I cnat recall why I came back to WoWs.   But I had to suspend my sense of disbelief in order to get past the torp spam.   A typical naval engagement of the period would be one and done with torpedo use by a ship.  After I drank the WOWs Kool aid I of course don't think twice about torp spam.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,182 posts
5,156 battles
6 minutes ago, C_D said:

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

When I started playing WoWs back in 2016, I was coming over from WoT; so, I half expected ships to have ammunition levels and have to make decisions on my ammo loadout as well as pay for the service cost of resupplying spent ammo.

I would be all for it as long as they don't introduce premium ammo, but it would bring a huge change to gameplay and balance; especially, as @Poharan mentioned, when it came to torpedos. Depending on how WG handled it, most ships would only get 1 full salvo of torpedos except for a few of the IJN boats who could reload. One way to offset this would be to allow an ammo ship(s) in the game to resupply from; which would be not unlike the Liberty ships in some of the Operation Scenarios like Defense of Naval Station Newport, Raptor Rescue, and the Ultimate Frontier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,010
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,931 posts
12,266 battles

I don't know if it was discussed, I wasn't around in Alpha/Beta.

It is a bit suspension of disbelief damaging. Then again my biggest bug-bear there is this ridiculous 'bow camping' and generally reversing or going stationary whatsoever.

Carriers would be pretty stuffed too, historically a good USN carrier might be able to launch a plane every ~45s, so in a 20 minute game you get 26 planes into the air, instead of launching and recovering entire 40-plane air strikes 3-4 times per game. Enjoy that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,866 posts

One-shot on the torpedoes and done. For obvious reasons, ships carried a large number of shells, but this was not unlimited. Also torpedo tubes could detonate with the torpedoes inside them. Whatever spotter planes would be shot up first. A spotter plane in the back could be blown apart by the aft turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[SEOP]
Members
1,524 posts
8,233 battles
3 minutes ago, mofton said:

Carriers would be pretty stuffed too, historically a good USN carrier might be able to launch a plane every ~45s, so in a 20 minute game you get 26 planes into the air, instead of launching and recovering entire 40-plane air strikes 3-4 times per game. Enjoy that!

yup -- they'd also have to be turned into the wind the whole time.  Keeping your bow into the wind and continuing with aircraft launch gets a bit challenging when an IJN is up wind and chasing you down to put torps into your rump.  

Edited by Dr_Dirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
544
[HOTEL]
Members
2,018 posts
7,110 battles

I would be willing to entertain limited torpedoes, but only if torpedo detection is removed from the game, everyone gets single fire, and floods stack.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,242
[WAIFU]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
13,570 posts
5,666 battles
30 minutes ago, C_D said:

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

I remember it being discussed early on back during the alpha and pre-alpha stages, but the conclusion the community of the time reached was that ammo levels were either irrelevant or too limiting.

The Gearing according to Navweaps carried 360 rounds per gun. With non stop continuous firing with a 3 second reload, that's 18 minutes if my maths isn't terrible. In practice no DD fires continuously for 18 minutes, and the first 2 or 3 minutes of a match are spent just to get into position.

The US 16" gun carried 130 rounds per gun, so in effect BBs have infinite ammo for the duration of a 20 minute match.

The UK 6" gun on the Belfast carried 200 rounds per gun, so also effectively infinite ammo

 

On the otoh as mentioned limited ammo would make DDs useless once that only torpedo salvo missed. Infinite ammo for all was the simplest and least complex solution for gameplay.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[SEOP]
Members
1,524 posts
8,233 battles
6 minutes ago, awildseaking said:

I would be willing to entertain limited torpedoes, but only if torpedo detection is removed from the game, everyone gets single fire, and floods stack.

sure -- but wake visibility?  start to finish?  Or at what point can a set of eyes or eyes with binos on a ship make out torpedo wakes?

80G-701882-CV-5-Hit-by-Torpedo-14-45.jpg

Edited by Dr_Dirt
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,303
[5BS]
Members
7,684 posts
29 minutes ago, C_D said:

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

It was done to make DD"s playable: All BB's and most CA's and a few CL's didn't actually carry enough ammo to be fully expended over a 20 minute match, but DD's did. So it was possible to run out of torps (duh) but Main Battery as well. So it was done to make them functional... a lot of things were altered historically to make DD's functional in this game's context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,099 posts
6,317 battles

Now imagine having no credits to pay for:

  • Small Caliber AA
  • Medium Caliber AA
  • Large Caliber AA
  • Dual Purpose HE
  • Dual Purpose AP
  • Dual Purpose AA
  • HE
  • AP
  • Royal Navy AP
  • Torpedoes
  • Deep Water Torpedoes
  • Fighters
    • Ammo
  • Dive Bombers
    • HE Bombs
    • AP Bombs
    • Rear Gunner AA
  • Torpedoes Bombers
    • Air Dropped Torpedoes
    • Deep-Water (?) Torpedoes
    • Rear Gunner AA

A Tank you can get away with limited ammo. Any warship? Have fun with only 2 Torpedoes, 30 HE, 30 AP, 20 Small Caliber AA

Edited by Vangm94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[SEOP]
Members
1,524 posts
8,233 battles
18 minutes ago, Super_Dreadnought said:

I remember it being discussed early on back during the alpha and pre-alpha stages, but the conclusion the community of the time reached was that ammo levels were either irrelevant or too limiting.

The Gearing according to Navweaps carried 360 rounds per gun. With non stop continuous firing with a 3 second reload, that's 18 minutes if my maths isn't terrible. In practice no DD fires continuously for 18 minutes, and the first 2 or 3 minutes of a match are spent just to get into position.

The US 16" gun carried 130 rounds per gun, so in effect BBs have infinite ammo for the duration of a 20 minute match.

The UK 6" gun on the Belfast carried 200 rounds per gun, so also effectively infinite ammo

 

On the otoh as mentioned limited ammo would make DDs useless once that only torpedo salvo missed. Infinite ammo for all was the simplest and least complex solution.

 

Yup.  I'm sure that's why WG went the direction it went. 

For example...Falklands.  As I recall the Invincible and Inflexible fired off about half their main gun ammunition at Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.  But that was a stern chase involving a fair amount of shooting over multiple hours.   

I also don't recall that there was any indication from the survivors of either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau that their magazines were running low before being deep-sixed.  And this was of course on the heels of Coronel and no opportunity for the German ships to replenish their magazines.   

Edited by Dr_Dirt
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[-TKS-]
Members
634 posts
9,774 battles

implement a replenishing ship and have it in the back of map . you know where the BB's spend most of there time . 

 How many shells do ships like the Atlanta carry?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,242
[WAIFU]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
13,570 posts
5,666 battles
3 minutes ago, EyE_dYe_QuIck said:

implement a replenishing ship and have it in the back of map . you know where the BB's spend most of there time . 

 How many shells do ships like the Atlanta carry?  

Navweaps list it as 450 rounds per gun. So in effect infinite ammo for a 20 minute match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[SEOP]
Members
1,524 posts
8,233 battles
1 hour ago, EyE_dYe_QuIck said:

implement a replenishing ship and have it in the back of map . you know where the BB's spend most of there time . 

 How many shells do ships like the Atlanta carry?  

cept' if you're driving the Roma.  The silly beer can hat actually holds extra ammo.  :Smile_teethhappy: No need to camp on the ammo re-supply barge.

Edited by Dr_Dirt
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[BEARS]
Members
256 posts
8,686 battles
9 minutes ago, EyE_dYe_QuIck said:

implement a replenishing ship and have it in the back of map . you know where the BB's spend most of there time . 

 How many shells do ships like the Atlanta carry?  

Atlantas come stock with a Dillon reloading press.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,847
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
11,442 posts
16,869 battles
13 minutes ago, EyE_dYe_QuIck said:

 How many shells do ships like the Atlanta carry?  

Enough that a mere 20 minutes of firing wouldn't deplete them; there have been multiple threads on this issue, and I have seen the Atlanta stats in one of them. She was in no danger of running dry after 20 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,458
[TBW]
Members
8,049 posts
14,682 battles
17 minutes ago, EyE_dYe_QuIck said:

implement a replenishing ship and have it in the back of map . you know where the BB's spend most of there time . 

 How many shells do ships like the Atlanta carry?  

I don't think any one is or was stupid enough to do a ship to ship transfer of torpedoes. Seems like asking for trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,629
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,794 posts
3,988 battles

There was some unofficial discussion (with some official feedback) way back in CBT and earlier, but the idea was simply dropped since the biggest hit would be destroyers. Second biggest being cruisers with torpedoes; as it was mainly the IJN that carried a reload or two for them. Then throw in some of the carriers too; having to balance both bombs/torps as well as aircraft.

The only ships that still have any kind of "ammo" are CVs; and in the form of planes available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,264 battles
38 minutes ago, Dr_Dirt said:

yup -- they'd also have to be turned into the wind the whole time.  Keeping your bow into the wind and continuing with aircraft launch gets a bit challenging when an IJN is up wind and chasing you down to put torps into your rump.  

With catapults do modern carriers still have to turn into the wind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×