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

British Destroyer Agility -- with Numbers

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

23,686
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,055 posts
7,611 battles

With patch 0.7.8, the new (work in progress) British destroyers were given the same engine properties of the British cruisers.  This means they accelerate ridiculously fast and lose almost no speed in a turn.  I thought it would be nice to give you all a preview of what this means in practice.  Let me explain some of the terminology first:

  • 4/4 Engine Speed:  This is the maximum speed this destroyer will reach in a straight line without the Sierra Mike signal.  Note this may exceed the listed maximum speed in port.
  • Turning Speed:  A ship decelerates as it rotates through the water, reaching a fixed maximum speed in a turn.  This is again at the 4/4 engine setting.  Normally for a destroyer, they can only manage about 83% to 85% of their maximum speed in a turn.  With the new engine setting, this value increases to a value between 97% to 98.5%.
  • Rate of Turn:  This is not a value you'll find in the client.   Listed in degrees per second, this is calculated by timing how long it takes for the ship to rotate 360º at 4/4 engine speed after they decelerate to their fixed turning speed.  This is the average of a minimum of 5 trials.  Here's some values for comparison from the tier 7 destroyers:
     
  1. Sims          9.2
  2. Blyskawica    8.2
  3. Mahan         8.1
  4. Minsk         8.1
  5. Leningrad     8.1
  6. Gadjah Mada   7.9
  7. Akatsuki      7.8
  8. Shiratsuyu    7.6
  9. Haida         7.5
  10. Maass         7.4
  11. Z-39          7.0
     
  • Port Turning Radius:  This is the value you'll find in port for the ship's turning radius.
  • Old Turning Radius:  By taking the ship's speed and multiplying it by the time it took to rotate 360º and then applying a formula, the circumference of the ship's turn can be calculated.  This can sometimes differ from value listed in port and needs to be checked.  Note this value is rounded to the nearest 10m and represents an approximate.  A difference of +/- 10m being nothing to be concerned about.
  • New Turning Radius:  The port turning radius is calculated with the assumption that a destroyer will be turning at 83% to 85% of its maximum turning speed.  When this value changes, the turning radius changes too.  Ships have their smallest turning radius at speeds between 15 and 20 knots.  At speeds greater or smaller than this, their turning radius increases.  The new speeds that the British destroyers achieve in a turn are NOT factored into the turning radius listed in port.  This is a problem that also exists for British cruisers.

4VEbOTk.jpg

3YVvUxG.jpg

3cOcQ0V.jpg

qm5pX7F.jpg

Edited by LittleWhiteMouse
  • Cool 27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles

Mouse with numbers. Wait is it christmas allready, where'd the year go???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
[NGA-B]
Members
1,206 posts
7,638 battles

And this is why LWM probably has the highest reputation on the forum. Deliberately going out of her way to explain the game mechanics and ensuring that we're informed of various bits of info the stats fail to convey. It's times like this when I wish you could give up to three opinions on a post.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[TBW]
Members
6,334 posts
11,884 battles

Pretty agile, Sounds like they changed the laws of physics.

1k3ure.jpg.f8280bf36decd2e18a624344fb0c5ddc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[APOC-]
Beta Testers
328 posts
4,076 battles

Honestly I think this is exactly what this line needed. Looking forward to seeing some gameplay post buffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[FAE]
Members
2,120 posts
2,510 battles
31 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

ridiculously fast

What does ridiculously as a quality mean?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,686
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,055 posts
7,611 battles
2 minutes ago, BlailBlerg said:

What does ridiculously as a quality mean?

Better than you'd ever see with Engine Boost and Propulsion Modification 2 combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23
[FF]
Members
129 posts
5,660 battles
27 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

And this is why LWM probably has the highest reputation on the forum. Deliberately going out of her way to explain the game mechanics and ensuring that we're informed of various bits of info the stats fail to convey. It's times like this when I wish you could give up to three opinions on a post.

Whenever someone challenges her judgment, she comes back calmly with hard facts and numbers. Very classy.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,818
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,268 posts

Notser put out a video on the Daring...

The acceleration capacity of this (and likely others in the line) will require our brains to think you know. :-)  The cool aspeict - if he's correct in this - is no loss (or minimal loss) of speed when making turns, as well as going from naught to ought like now. 

Edited by Herr_Reitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
98
[NNC]
[NNC]
Beta Testers
397 posts
5,583 battles

So, British DDs are captained by Sir Ben Ainslie.

Does anyone anyone actually get this reference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[FAE]
Members
2,120 posts
2,510 battles
5 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Better than you'd ever see with Engine Boost and Propulsion Modification 2 combined.

Do these DDs have these mods? Are they also ridiculous including the use of these mods also? 

Why is this qualitatively significant? 

 

--

It looks like they all gain a larger turning circle, turning radius. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,062
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,670 posts
9,998 battles
41 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Normally for a destroyer, they can only manage about 83% to 85% of their maximum speed in a turn. 

Do you know the rough equivalent numbers for cruisers and battleships?

 

Many thanks for this, I'm particularly interested to see how Cossack does as she gets both this acceleration and I think she kept her engine boost, which all the new RN destroyers forgot how to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,479
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,419 posts
3,411 battles

I have to say, it's a little frustrating how many gimmicks the RN nation has gotten per line. I do feel that the tactical diameter should be slightly increased a bit more to compensate for being able to maintain near-full speed at hard turn. But we'll see how they do after they go live. They could get the tactical diameter nerf if it becomes necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,062
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,670 posts
9,998 battles
10 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

I have to say, it's a little frustrating how many gimmicks the RN nation has gotten per line. I do feel that the tactical diameter should be slightly increased a bit more to compensate for being able to maintain near-full speed at hard turn. But we'll see how they do after they go live. They could get the tactical diameter nerf if it becomes necessary.

Consistently too late to the party, when you come in as the 7th T10 destroyer a lot of the design space is gone.

Without the PA/German DD in particular there'd have been far more room to be a bit more 'normal' for the destroyers. Coming after Japanese, American, German and Russian cruisers they also seemingly felt forced to be a bit too funky to be different for that branch.

Edited by mofton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,037 posts
12,522 battles

Glad to see some numbers put to the "skid turn" effect that we see on ships with RN alternative physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,686
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,055 posts
7,611 battles
27 minutes ago, mofton said:

Do you know the rough equivalent numbers for cruisers and battleships?

Many thanks for this, I'm particularly interested to see how Cossack does as she gets both this acceleration and I think she kept her engine boost, which all the new RN destroyers forgot how to do.

Yes, I do.  I've spent a lot of time looking for patterns.  Here's their turn speed as a proportion of their maximum speed:

  • British Destroyers & Cruisers:  ~98%
  • Destroyers:  ~85%
  • Cruisers:  ~80%
  • Battleships:  ~75%
  • Aircraft Carriers:  ~66.7%

Note there are scattered exceptions, such as New Mexico and Colorado (but not Arizona or any of the other USN BBs I've tested).  There are literally hundreds of ships to test and I've been focusing mostly on tiers 6+.

-edit-  Do note that this only applies to the 4/4 engine setting and does not reflect the proportion of top speed with effects such as being under the Sierra Mike signal or Engine Boost consumable (or both).

Edited by LittleWhiteMouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,479
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,419 posts
3,411 battles
10 minutes ago, mofton said:

Consistently too late to the party, when you come in as the 7th T10 destroyer a lot of the design space is gone.

Without the PA/German DD in particular there'd have been far more room to be a bit more 'normal' for the destroyers. Coming after Japanese, American, German and Russian cruisers they also seemingly felt forced to be a bit too funky to be different for that branch.

I doubt that's the case; the French BBs turned out perfectly fine, despite coming out after the British BBs. The USN CLs also came out better balanced than the RN CLs. It just seems like the RN is a bit of a gimmick navy in-game. True, the RN BBs' gimmicks is partly a result of their real-life performance (questionable AP but amazing HE filler) and limitations (gun caliber/progression), or the RN CLs being over-gimmicked because WG originally thought that they'd have a hard time since Britain focused mostly on CLs instead, but the RN DD line didn't need to be gimmicked much, if at all, and could have been a decent USN DD near-equivalent; having better RoF and single-fire torpedo capability in exchange for worse torpedoes.

And if the Premium Italian cruisers and Roma are a possible sign of features; 50/50 since Tirpitz was something of a feature test for the later KM BB line, then both lines are looking to be less-gimmicky; only overtiered at worst in the case of RM cruisers, or having high citadels in exchange for impressive punching power in the case of RM BBs.

Frankly, I'm wondering how the RN CVs will eventually turn out; DBs that only start fires and only do minor damage to deck modules/AA/secondaries but have tight spreads? TBs that only cause flooding and engine disables? CVs with poor concealment but Hyper Repair Party?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,711
[ARGSY]
Members
5,790 posts
3,942 battles

The terrible problem I see with all this is their smoke deployment time. Slow to decelerate means exquisite timing is required for the short bloom. 

Someone school me on this - does the smoke generator mod ameliorate this problem or make it worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,062
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,670 posts
9,998 battles
13 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

I doubt that's the case; the French BBs turned out perfectly fine, despite coming out after the British BBs. The USN CLs also came out better balanced than the RN CLs. It just seems like the RN is a bit of a gimmick navy in-game. True, the RN BBs' gimmicks is partly a result of their real-life performance (questionable AP but amazing HE filler) and limitations (gun caliber/progression), or the RN CLs being over-gimmicked because WG originally thought that they'd have a hard time since Britain focused mostly on CLs instead, but the RN DD line didn't need to be gimmicked much, if at all, and could have been a decent USN DD near-equivalent; having better RoF and single-fire torpedo capability in exchange for worse torpedoes.

RN BB are a bit more gimmicky, but it's not like the French Engine Boost brigade are blushing brides in the school of gimmicks. They also get the more subtle longer secondary range (no-justification gimmick) and oh-my rapid reload on 430mm guns among other little tweaks. In comparison most of the RN BB are pretty 'true to life' if HE-tastic, with only the top tiers going mega-heal (meanwhile Gascogne/JB have non-standard heals too).

The RN CL and USN CL are too similar, but USN CL had the first bite of the cake. Once you had a 4x3 6in cruiser with HE spam in the Cleveland, the Fiji/Edinburgh were going to be strongly similar unless WG reached deep into the bag-o-gimmicks. WG could easily have gone with a mix of light/heavy cruisers like the Germans or Russians, and the odd paper ship isn't a problem in a game with Hindenburg in it.

The destroyers have a problem in that the USN and Pan-Americans (USN 2.0 at high tiers) are already so similar, with the KM mix of gun/torpedo boats also uncomfortably close. WG have over-reacted to try and put distance between them. If the RN and IJN were going to be the 2 launch nations for destroyers then I think it's very unlikely we'd see them as gimmick'd as they are and they'd be a more 'natural' version, more like the USN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,686
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,055 posts
7,611 battles
12 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

The terrible problem I see with all this is their smoke deployment time. Slow to decelerate means exquisite timing is required for the short bloom. 

Someone school me on this - does the smoke generator mod ameliorate this problem or make it worse?

Engine power is used to decelerate.  If you cut your speed just before dropping smoke (within a second or three), you'll slow down enough to end up in your own smoke screen.  Remember, the improved engine performance makes the ship faster to accelerate and decelerate as it's assumed the engines spool up full astern to help you slow down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,825 posts
4,003 battles

LWM,this is a little off topic,but are you finishing the stalingrad review?or did they only give it to you Community contributors now?

Edited by Cruxdei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,686
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,055 posts
7,611 battles
4 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

LWM,this is a little off topic,but are you finishing the stalingrad review?or did they only give it to you Community contributors now?

We didn't get access to the finalized version of Stalingrad until 0.7.8 went live.  I have her now.  I'm hoping to publish by next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,825 posts
4,003 battles
Just now, LittleWhiteMouse said:

We didn't get access to the finalized version of Stalingrad until 0.7.8 went live.  I have her now.  I'm hoping to publish by next week.

i think i know why they didn't give the CCs the stalingrad.it's too late to nerf her now.

tumblr_mr0b3m19AT1qjxgmho1_1280.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,686
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,055 posts
7,611 battles
1 minute ago, Cruxdei said:

i think i know why they didn't give the CCs the stalingrad.it's too late to nerf her now.

 

We had her all during testing.  But there's little point of reviewing a test-ship so I have to wait until the ship finalizes before putting a pen to paper.  I've done a lot of the preliminary work for my review, including mapping dispersion, twirling her about, etc.  Now it's just writing and putting together the graphics.

I provided my feedback during the testing period, as did other CCs.  I'm of the opinion (and mind you, this is just my opinion) that Wargaming was stuck in a trap of their own making with Stalingrad.  It had to be good based on the hype surrounding this ship, both historically, culturally and given her importance within the game itself as THE Clan Wars reward up until this point.  Given that it was going to end up in the hands of the most dedicated and veteran portion of the player base, this meant that it had to be balanced for skill but with an eye that more casual players may end up being able to unlock her through acquiring Steel starting in late 2019 if my math holds up.  By design they need it to be worth the grind, not just for Clan Wars but multiple seasons of Ranked Battles if players elect to go that route instead. 

I'll go into full detail on what my thoughts are on the final product in my review as to not derail this thread.  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
95 posts
3,279 battles
3 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Engine power is used to decelerate.  If you cut your speed just before dropping smoke (within a second or three), you'll slow down enough to end up in your own smoke screen.  Remember, the improved engine performance makes the ship faster to accelerate and decelerate as it's assumed the engines spool up full astern to help you slow down.

Huh. Is this a change from the British cruisers engines? I was under the impression that while acceleration is through the roof the deceleration was lacking. Messing around in the training room I counted 20 or so seconds for a Cleveland to go from flank speed to zero when thrown into reverse, but 25 seconds for the similar Edinburgh  to do the same. Am I missing something?

Edit: Also, for the sake of getting a better feel for these compared to the existing ships, can you add Jervis to the Tier VII list? If it beats Sims at turning or even comes close that would give me a better idea of how these maneuver in context. 

Edited by Commissar_Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×