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

Poll - Underwater Penetration, Return to the state that was present on French BB release?

Underwater Penetration - Return to the state that was present on French BB release?  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Underwater Penetration values be returned to how it was during the release of the French BB line? (Shells could penetrate much more armor after entering water, effectively allowing ships like the Conqueror to be citadeled at close range)

    • Yes
      18
    • No
      16
    • I don't know
      9
    • Bacon
      4

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

263
[SUCIT]
Members
783 posts
3,509 battles

Basically as the question states.  Do you think that the way AP currently interacts with water is good, or would you like to see it return to how it functioned during the "bug" with underwater citadel hits.  This "bug" allowed shells to more easily penetrate through the water, and it kept their kinetic energy higher, allowing them to punch through lower belts below the waterline.  This, in turn, meant that nothing in the game was safe from showing a broadside to any ship at close range.  This change would punish mistakes more heavily, and would force people to practice better angling.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[SOUTH]
Members
233 posts
2,368 battles

I personally loved that bug. It made good AP cruisers and smart battleship play more impactful.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
448
[-AA-]
Members
1,729 posts
6,657 battles

Conq should have same layout as Montana. Hitting the citadel when broadside should be possible to make the ship less frustrating to play against.

As far as the mechanic I don’t really care.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[SOB]
Members
254 posts
3,270 battles

Meh, I would rather hits below the waterline cause flooding. Make it at a slower rate than a torpedo hit but if HE spammers can set fire after fire making me use my RP I should be able to poke holes in their hulls so they also have to use RP to stop the flooding. This is coming from a CA main. 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51
[B-W-M]
[B-W-M]
Members
318 posts
4,601 battles

Hits below the waterline should flood, but the water should act like a first belt of armor before the shell reaches the hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[SUCIT]
Members
783 posts
3,509 battles
6 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Conq should have same layout as Montana. Hitting the citadel when broadside should be possible to make the ship less frustrating to play against.

As far as the mechanic I don’t really care.

I just used the Conq as an example, but this would also affect all turtleback armor schemes.  Sure, the turtleback would still be effective at close range, but ships like the GK and Hindenburg would get punished far more for just showing a flat broadside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[KRAB]
Members
615 posts
5,828 battles

Not until the actual effect of the "bug" is properly quantified. What was actually happening, and is it even possible to tweak for balance purposes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[SUCIT]
Members
783 posts
3,509 battles
Just now, MaxL_1023 said:

Not until the actual effect of the "bug" is properly quantified. What was actually happening, and is it even possible to tweak for balance purposes?

I can't provide the raw numbers, but I can give a quick synopsis.  

WG was trying to fiddle around with ways to let DDs eat less regular pens.  This lead them to increasing fuse time for BB shells fairly dramatically.  In turn, something went wrong with the water physics, allowing shells to pass through the water with very little effect on the actual shell velocity.  This meant that shells that landed right under the waterline, instead of either shattering or not even registering as a hit, would indeed keep enough kenetic energy to punch through the armor.  This, coupled with the increased fuse time, lead to underwater citadel hits becoming quite normal against ships that were blindly sailing broadside, regardless of what they were in.  

WG made an announcement afterwards, once they "fixed" it, and they addressed the amount of people that were happy with the changes.  They said that they'd be open to pushing the change, in a more refined state, to the live game as a permanent thing.  It has since been forgotten and locked away.  I'm sure that they could fiddle with the numbers quite easily for balancing purposes though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
344
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,530 posts
3,526 battles

I liked it also, shops with a deep belt were somewhat safe but ships with a narrow belt or high belt could very punished by giving up much broadside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
416
[FAE]
Members
2,124 posts
2,531 battles

Very few ships with a citadel should be nearly-un-citadel-able. I think it was bad for the game that the UK and French got it. (The French are less immune, but functionally immune in many cases).  Monty and Yamato are good examples of how BBs should have some weaknesses. The German line is only ok with it due to their poor accuracy and forced close combat style, combined with nearly twice the worse turning capacity as the Conqueror. 

 

So, the effect is what we need. Whether it should be done by increasing underwater pen... well, dunno. I think that's probably not the best way to do it. As you don't want people to be taking guess shots into the water. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[KRAB]
Members
615 posts
5,828 battles
7 minutes ago, XpliCT_PaiiN said:

I can't provide the raw numbers, but I can give a quick synopsis.  

WG was trying to fiddle around with ways to let DDs eat less regular pens.  This lead them to increasing fuse time for BB shells fairly dramatically.  In turn, something went wrong with the water physics, allowing shells to pass through the water with very little effect on the actual shell velocity.  This meant that shells that landed right under the waterline, instead of either shattering or not even registering as a hit, would indeed keep enough kenetic energy to punch through the armor.  This, coupled with the increased fuse time, lead to underwater citadel hits becoming quite normal against ships that were blindly sailing broadside, regardless of what they were in.  

WG made an announcement afterwards, once they "fixed" it, and they addressed the amount of people that were happy with the changes.  They said that they'd be open to pushing the change, in a more refined state, to the live game as a permanent thing.  It has since been forgotten and locked away.  I'm sure that they could fiddle with the numbers quite easily for balancing purposes though.  

Shells hitting water should be fused - it is basically like hitting a solid at the velocities the shells are traveling at. The fuse time should be the same as if it hit steel. The penetration loss should (if I have the numbers right) be based on the actual drag encountered - I am not sure how fast the shells slow down but it should be about 1000 times faster than in air (1 m = 1km) given the density ratio, drag coefficients, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[SUCIT]
Members
783 posts
3,509 battles
2 minutes ago, MaxL_1023 said:

Shells hitting water should be fused - it is basically like hitting a solid at the velocities the shells are traveling at. The fuse time should be the same as if it hit steel. The penetration loss should (if I have the numbers right) be based on the actual drag encountered - I am not sure how fast the shells slow down but it should be about 1000 times faster than in air (1 m = 1km) given the density ratio, drag coefficients, etc. 

Yes, I agree.  The change that allowed shells to actually land citadel hits was actually the fuse timer change.  The 1000x difference between water and air can be debated, but that's a different topic that involves ballistics, the shell coefficient, air densities and temperature.  That's not what I want to get into with this conversation lol.  

This was only really noticeable at <5km ranges.  It made angling while engaging anything else at short range a necessity, rather than having the "get out of jail free" card that most BBs carry today.  It effectively rewarded good BB play, and punished bad BB play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,012 posts
9,218 battles

ANYTHING that makes ships angle more should not be considered...ever.  The meta was screwed up when the game was created, ship armor was designed for them to take a hit broadside from a lesser caliber gun than they were using...shots to the bow or stern were to be avoided, raking fire.  So since WG cannot fix this, or won't, anything that creates more bow tanking should never be considered...its what makes the game play as stagnant as it is.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
428
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,580 posts
3,918 battles

Voted "I don't know" for this one reason - I've never seen that mechanic explained clearly.  I think underwater pens should probably be more common than they seem to be.  But I can't tell when they occur, nor do I know what the mechanic is (current or previous) that governs them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
344
[SIDE]
Members
1,331 posts

Underwater penetration... according to a few after “action” reports Ive personally collected after discussion with a couple women I’ve “divisioned” with, its over rated. Something about water and drag on the “warhead”. Sometimes delivering “payload” was inhibited.  In my opinion water needs a buff to reduce drag making penetration better.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
437
[YAN]
Members
1,637 posts
7,464 battles
26 minutes ago, Morpheous said:

ANYTHING that makes ships angle more should not be considered...ever.  The meta was screwed up when the game was created, ship armor was designed for them to take a hit broadside from a lesser caliber gun than they were using...shots to the bow or stern were to be avoided, raking fire.  So since WG cannot fix this, or won't, anything that creates more bow tanking should never be considered...its what makes the game play as stagnant as it is.

Bow tanking was actually reduced when the bug was present, and gameplay was actually less stagnant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
437
[YAN]
Members
1,637 posts
7,464 battles
57 minutes ago, XpliCT_PaiiN said:

They said that they'd be open to pushing the change, in a more refined state, to the live game as a permanent thing.  It has since been forgotten and locked away. 

Essentially this is what WG wanted im pretty sure.

"Tell em we'll think about it, they'll forget it eventually"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,338 posts
3,779 battles
Just now, monpetitloup said:

While youre there, bring back flooding by below waterline shell penetration!!!

I find it baffling that people keep wanting this feature despite the fact that virtually nobody has actually played with it ingame. Like this wasn't something that most AT got to interact with! Underwater flooding was removed way early history in WoWS, probably because removing split HP made it a double dip that AP shells didn't need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
414
[VW]
Members
1,843 posts
12,290 battles
8 hours ago, Aetreus said:

I find it baffling that people keep wanting this feature despite the fact that virtually nobody has actually played with it ingame. Like this wasn't something that most AT got to interact with! Underwater flooding was removed way early history in WoWS, probably because removing split HP made it a double dip that AP shells didn't need.

They got rid of it cause the glue sniffers already don’t understand damage control, plain and simple. Bring it back! Below water shots yield flooding, this would be great for adding nuance to pressing R

Edited by monpetitloup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
216
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,012 posts
9,218 battles
22 hours ago, Akeno017 said:

Bow tanking was actually reduced when the bug was present, and gameplay was actually less stagnant.

I don't disagree....but again lets not move in that direction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×