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

200
[ONAVY]
Members
772 posts
6,297 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
88
[BORK]
Members
256 posts
5,608 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
2,787
Members
9,962 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....

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
142 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
200
[ONAVY]
Members
772 posts
6,297 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
1,115
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,379 posts
9,529 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
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts
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
353
[NAVY]
Members
1,009 posts
3,767 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
2,197
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,807 posts
10,315 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
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts
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
459
[BOTES]
Members
1,919 posts
6,658 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
6,417
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
12,525 posts
4,416 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
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts
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
1,581
[5BS]
Members
4,766 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
472
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,881 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
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts
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
61
[-TKS-]
Members
301 posts
5,942 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
6,417
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
12,525 posts
4,416 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
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts
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
88
[BORK]
Members
256 posts
5,608 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
2,262
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,797 posts
15,217 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
1,722
[TBW]
Members
6,401 posts
12,031 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
1,502
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,488 posts
3,435 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
1,550
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
5,831 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.

×