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

Why should RN BBs like KGV, Lion, Conqueror be so hard to citadel??

53 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles

On here and reddit I see so a lot of complaining about USN BB citadels and how they lower skill floor and make the ships harder to punish. It's somewhat true that the lower citadel on Iowa/Missouri and Montana made them harder to punish, but you still citadel them pretty consistently when broadside, you just don't get massive multi-citadel hits as frequent. But even then you can still do it because yesterday in my Alsace I got a 4-cit devstrike on a Missouri when I jousted him. That 4-cit devstrike on the Missouri I did yesterday, I could NEVER do that to a Lion or Conqueror.

For all the whines about USN BB citadels and how they should be raised, why aren't people bringing up that RN BB citadels are MUCH lower? Check for yourself, Conqueror and Lion citadels are much lower than Iowa and Montana. Now I know there are some moderates who suggest a modest raise of Montana citadel and even put forth some pretty good arguments but isn't RN BB citadels a much bigger problem? From KGV to Conqueror, these citadels are pretty much impossible to hit, while with USN BB citadels with good aim and RNG you get citadels pretty consistently.

Germans turtleback is immune to citadels in most cases but pay with terrible accuracy, bad gun angles, bad concealment. But why should RN BBs be just as hard to citadel? Why have better heal than other countries if you almost never get citadeled anyways? I think there was a thread a while ago that shows RN BB citadels are actually cut short from real life too. So if you complain about USN BB citadels but ignore RN BB citadels it's hypocritical.

Edited by RadDisconnect
  • Cool 6
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,238
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,226 posts
3,871 battles

Power creep, mostly.

 

Players also expect the RN to be super amazing, when they kind of weren't after WW1. So WG pandered to the expectation at the cost of accuracy.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles

It's fine. They eat massive amounts of AP pen damage, in a way that no other battleship will.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[SOUTH]
Members
233 posts
2,369 battles

Having 32mm plating instead of 38 means you'll eat a lot more HE damage. Their inaccuracy also means these ships need to stay at ranges, where they'll need to be broadside more.

It's fine too, since you can be cit still at those ranges.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles
1 minute ago, Hanger_18 said:

It's fine. They eat massive amounts of AP pen damage, in a way that no other battleship will.

How does Conqueror take more AP pen damage than Montana? Montana only has some 38 mm plate over the middle instead of 32 mm so it should actually take more normal AP pen unless it’s Yamato/Musashi that overmatches 32 mm.

RN BBs also heal 60% of pen damage while all others heal 50%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles
1 minute ago, Neph said:

Having 32mm plating instead of 38 means you'll eat a lot more HE damage. Their inaccuracy also means these ships need to stay at ranges, where they'll need to be broadside more.

It's fine too, since you can be cit still at those ranges.

It’s only 38 mm in the middle, the bow and stern is still 32 mm and it doesn’t get the super heal or the special 60% pen damage heal. Montana citadel is not too easy or hard to hit but it’s at least 5x easier than Conqueror. No, not exaggerating.

Share this post


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

Power creep, mostly.

 

Players also expect the RN to be super amazing, when they kind of weren't after WW1. So WG pandered to the expectation at the cost of accuracy.

Pretty ironic, considering how absolutely horrid and gimmicky the RN BBs are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
418
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,768 posts
5,806 battles

Well, primarily its a game mechanic. They have crap AA for the most part, weak AP, slow turret traverse, low accuracy and finally, horrible ROF on their secondaries......there has to be ONE upside to the ships. Their superstructure eats ap from cruisers too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,248 posts
737 battles

I feel like the OP is implicitly calling out my thread about correcting Montana's citadel volume.

I've addressed the issue of British battleship citadels before, and my topic about Montana wasn't meant to single her out, because her citadel placement was one of several aspects that I touched on. In any case, if you want a more in-depth discussion about British battleship citadels, I've made a topic about it before.

To summarize that topic, yes, British battleships do have citadels that are unduly low and difficult to hit, and I've proposed a raise similar to what I've proposed for Montana. Specifically, I proposed that the machinery spaces (engine and boiler rooms) would be raised slightly above the waterline so that with proper aim, they can actually be hit with some consistency. And yes, currently the boiler rooms of the King George V, Monarch, and Lion are indeed cut short, as they should be poking slightly above the waterline, which coincides with the height that I'm proposing the machinery areas should be raised to. Mind you, this is not like the old Iowa and Montana citadels which included the entire protected volume. That would make the ships unduly vulnerable.

I do agree that there should be a middle ground for battleships in terms of survivability. For the most part I think American and Japanese battleships strike the proper balance. As you've mentioned, the Germans are exceptionally difficult to citadel in most circumstances, but they've made tradeoffs in other areas to get that level of survivability. On the other hand, British battleships don't have nearly enough downsides to justify having such a low citadel.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles
1 hour ago, RadDisconnect said:

How does Conqueror take more AP pen damage than Montana? Montana only has some 38 mm plate over the middle instead of 32 mm so it should actually take more normal AP pen unless it’s Yamato/Musashi that overmatches 32 mm.

RN BBs also heal 60% of pen damage while all others heal 50%

38 will auto bounce shells. Conq has more hull above the waterline. Overall just a meatier boat, that causes more shells to hit and detonate. Montana has a more angled belt.

conqueror has the lowest HP pool of any t10 BB. So while it heals 10% more, it's kind of a wash considering it just makes up for a lack of HP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,086
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,700 posts
10,050 battles

Potential justification:

  • Lower starting HP at 82,900 vs. 96,300 - citadel damage is just 10% repairable for both so the super-heal is pretty worthless leaving Conqueror far worse hurt per citadel
  • 28% TDS vs. 37% and same repair rules on citadel damage from torpedoes
  • Bits of 38mm plate can bounce Yamato AP and HE from a variety of sources
  • Short fuses on the AP make it pretty unlikely the Lion/Conq will do it back to you

Real reasons:

  • Because WG
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Players also expect the RN to be super amazing, when they kind of weren't after WW1.

Two world wars and one world cup eh ;)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
702 posts
9,924 battles

I think I read a long time ago on this forum that British BBs were the toughest armored ships in the world.  In game, that would mean very thick armor and no turtleback.  I had in mind that, WG thought, if the Russian Battleships ever came out, there would be a lack of "BB ideas" that WG can implement on them.  Germans had the turtleback and secondaries, British would have the thickest armor and HE, French had the horsepower and ROF, Americans had the AA and torpedo bulges, and Japanese would have the Accuracy and troll armor.  Of course these ships had other things, but my point is what would be left for Russian BBs?  On WOT Russian tanks are viewed as veeeery tough and powerful.  It is my theory that they took the idea of very strong armor away from the British BBs and gave it to the future Russian BB lineup.  In return, the British BBs would have their citadel lowered quite low but have weak armor to balance out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
901
[LEGIO]
Members
2,964 posts
5,370 battles

British BBs seem to suffer from a lot of gimmicks for no clear reason.

- Super HE loaded with napalm

- Quick fuse but generally average AP

- Thinner plating in some areas so HE spam can devastate you even more easily

- Super heal on later ships to make up for HE spam devastating you easily

- Low HP pools

- Citadels that are near impossible to hit

- Secondary batteries that are even more drunk and incompetent than usual

 

I'm still not certain what on earth WG was trying to achieve with this combination.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles
2 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

38 will auto bounce shells. Conq has more hull above the waterline. Overall just a meatier boat, that causes more shells to hit and detonate. Montana has a more angled belt.

conqueror has the lowest HP pool of any t10 BB. So while it heals 10% more, it's kind of a wash considering it just makes up for a lack of HP.

32 mm auto bounce everything except Yamato/Musashi. Conqueror isn’t much different in size from Montana. With one heal Conqueror will have more total health than Montana, but also much harder to citadel.

It still doesn’t sense when people complain about Montana citadel but keep quiet about RN BB citadels.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
702 posts
9,924 battles
46 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

British BBs seem to suffer from a lot of gimmicks for no clear reason.

- Super HE loaded with napalm

- Quick fuse but generally average AP

- Thinner plating in some areas so HE spam can devastate you even more easily

- Super heal on later ships to make up for HE spam devastating you easily

- Low HP pools

- Citadels that are near impossible to hit

- Secondary batteries that are even more drunk and incompetent than usual

 

I'm still not certain what on earth WG was trying to achieve with this combination.

Two words:

Test Bed

From the Cruisers, to the Battleships, to the Destroyers, everything they are, every single British ship, to me, spells "test bed".  For example:

-"What would a ship with ridiculous pen look like?" 

-"What would a Battleship with higher than average HE look like?" 

-"What would a Destroyer look like with no Engine Boost?" 

-"What would a ship with weak armor, even at high tiers, look like?" 

-"What would a ship with ridiculous Horsepower look like?" 

-"What would a ship line with terrible firing angles look like?"

-"What would Battleship, Cruiser, Destroyer look like with severely artificial low Concealment?"

-"What would a Cruiser with ROF faster than Atlanta/Des Moines look like?"

And on and on and on and on.  The British tech tree answers these questions and helps the developers and community better understand what awesome power can feel like on a ship.  I have been tempted more than once to write posts on the forums asking devs to take a second look at the Tech Tree and make them within more realistic guidelines.  I just can't figure out why I haven't gone the whole nine yards.  Maybe it's because I like what they stand for?  Maybe it's because it separates the boys from the men, for the level of skill you need to operate these ships?

If anyone is into Chaos and hates following the norm, this tech tree is for you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,650
[INTEL]
Members
8,461 posts
25,360 battles
16 hours ago, Airglide2 said:

Two words:

Test Bed

And on and on and on and on.  The British tech tree answers these questions and helps the developers and community better understand what awesome power can feel like on a ship.  I have been tempted more than once to write posts on the forums asking devs to take a second look at the Tech Tree and make them within more realistic guidelines.  I just can't figure out why I haven't gone the whole nine yards.  Maybe it's because I like what they stand for?  Maybe it's because it separates the boys from the men, for the level of skill you need to operate these ships?

If anyone is into Chaos and hates following the norm, this tech tree is for you :)

Interesting reading. Mostly, the answer is "sucks to have  to play against it". Minos suck. The BB HE meta is degrades the playing atmosphere. RN conceal is absurdly overpowered. Etc. Nothing in the RN line has really been good for the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
430
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,956 posts
3,551 battles
59 minutes ago, RadDisconnect said:

32 mm auto bounce everything except Yamato/Musashi. Conqueror isn’t much different in size from Montana. With one heal Conqueror will have more total health than Montana, but also much harder to citadel.

It still doesn’t sense when people complain about Montana citadel but keep quiet about RN BB citadels.

Maybe my view is skewed because I usually only see one in the yammy. But even in cruisers the large 32 bits eat AP pens. They're just so large you can't miss the upper belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
685
[MIA-A]
Members
1,982 posts
6,579 battles

Amusingly I citadeled both a Lion and Conqueror recently and was surprised. In both cases, it was a Republique shell though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,623
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,677 posts
14,045 battles

Despite the tears of rage regarding Conqueror by some people on these boards, it has not performed any better than her Tier X BB peers.  It's been so "overpowered" that it has not been the "Go To Battleship" for Clan Wars.

 

WoWS NA Forums Weekly Threads Checklist

[ X ] Anti Destroyer thread

[ X ] Anti Cruiser thread

[ X ] Anti Battleship thread

[ X ] Anti Carrier thread

[ X ] Nerf HE

[ X ] Nerf Fires

[    ] Nerf Torpedoes

[ X ] Nerf Conqueror

[ X ] Nerf Radar

[ X ] Ranked Sucks

[ X ] Disappearing Ships, a.k.a. Nerf Stealth a.k.a. Anti Destroyer thread II

[ X ] WG nerfed accuracy of [insert personal favorite ship here] with the last patch!

[ X ] Hackusation / "Whoever killed me is a cheater" thread

[ X ] Complaints about Steel access [Fairly new entrant]

 

We're on a roll this week for the boards.  The only regular subject I didn't see are "Nerf Torpedoes" for the week.  I'd like someone to complete that before we hit the weekend.  Or unless someone can tell me of a "Nerf Torpeduz" thread I missed for the week?

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[AP-A]
Members
2 posts
6,286 battles
4 hours ago, DeliciousFart said:

I feel like the OP is implicitly calling out my thread about correcting Montana's citadel volume.

I've addressed the issue of British battleship citadels before, and my topic about Montana wasn't meant to single her out, because her citadel placement was one of several aspects that I touched on. In any case, if you want a more in-depth discussion about British battleship citadels, I've made a topic about it before.

To summarize that topic, yes, British battleships do have citadels that are unduly low and difficult to hit, and I've proposed a raise similar to what I've proposed for Montana. Specifically, I proposed that the machinery spaces (engine and boiler rooms) would be raised slightly above the waterline so that with proper aim, they can actually be hit with some consistency. And yes, currently the boiler rooms of the King George V, Monarch, and Lion are indeed cut short, as they should be poking slightly above the waterline, which coincides with the height that I'm proposing the machinery areas should be raised to. Mind you, this is not like the old Iowa and Montana citadels which included the entire protected volume. That would make the ships unduly vulnerable.

I do agree that there should be a middle ground for battleships in terms of survivability. For the most part I think American and Japanese battleships strike the proper balance. As you've mentioned, the Germans are exceptionally difficult to citadel in most circumstances, but they've made tradeoffs in other areas to get that level of survivability. On the other hand, British battleships don't have nearly enough downsides to justify having such a low citadel.

RN BBs have a lot downsides to balance the untouchable citadel

Lower HP

Full 32mm deck which is vulnerable to HE spam and yamato's 460mm

Awful torp protection

Yes they do have super heal, but CD is much longer

Edited by HMS_London

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50
[RLGN]
Members
235 posts
4,071 battles
4 hours ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

British BBs seem to suffer from a lot of gimmicks for no clear reason.

- Super HE loaded with napalm

- Quick fuse but generally average AP

- Thinner plating in some areas so HE spam can devastate you even more easily

- Super heal on later ships to make up for HE spam devastating you easily

- Low HP pools

- Citadels that are near impossible to hit

- Secondary batteries that are even more drunk and incompetent than usual

 

I'm still not certain what on earth WG was trying to achieve with this combination.

I can address a couple of those, actually.

 

The super HE charge is actually pretty relevant.  British battleships and battlecruisers pretty much used the same 15 inch naval gun from the end of WWI to the cold war era when such ships were retired (specifically the BL 15-inch Mk I).  That gun had a supercharge developed for it (note this means the firing charge, NOT the charge in the shell) to increase muzzle velocity during WWII to keep it relevant, but among its different shell types (there were AP, HE, shrapnel shells, etc) was an almost 1 ton shell that carried a full 224 pounds of bursting charge.  This was a high explosive shell.  Compared to the larger 16 inch shells found on the Iowa-class battleships which fire larger and equally heavy shells it has a larger bursting charge.  Both the HC Mark 13 and 14 shells, the most recent HE type shells for that gun, carry only 153.6 pounds of bursting charge.  This isn't a cherry-picked outlier in terms of HE, the Bismark fired the HE L/4,6 shell with just under 142 pounds of bursting charge, and even the mighty Yamato's main armament carried only a 136 pound bursting charge in its Common Type 0 HE shell.  Now I'm not an expert but to my knowledge (and seriously, correct me if I'm wrong), generally 100-120 pounds of bursting charge was what you'd expect.

 

My guess when it comes to the armor and HP of British battleships (and here I'm doing WAY more speculating) is that with these paper high-tier battleships they extrapolated on the direction of development with ships like the Vanguard.  Great Britain was going beyond the US push for "fast battleships" and focusing on ships that would more accurately be called battlecruisers.  The reduced armor and tonnage (which is how HP is derived) would explain that.

 

Finally, and now I'm purely guessing, is that with the higher susceptibility to HE these reduced armor schemes created the super heal was introduced to counteract it somewhat.  That decision, like those of secondary battery accuracy, were probably balance choices.  And yeah, I suspect there's some power creep in there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[KWA]
Members
299 posts
4,167 battles
8 hours ago, DeliciousFart said:

I feel like the OP is implicitly calling out my thread about correcting Montana's citadel volume.

I've addressed the issue of British battleship citadels before, and my topic about Montana wasn't meant to single her out, because her citadel placement was one of several aspects that I touched on. In any case, if you want a more in-depth discussion about British battleship citadels, I've made a topic about it before.

To summarize that topic, yes, British battleships do have citadels that are unduly low and difficult to hit, and I've proposed a raise similar to what I've proposed for Montana. Specifically, I proposed that the machinery spaces (engine and boiler rooms) would be raised slightly above the waterline so that with proper aim, they can actually be hit with some consistency. And yes, currently the boiler rooms of the King George V, Monarch, and Lion are indeed cut short, as they should be poking slightly above the waterline, which coincides with the height that I'm proposing the machinery areas should be raised to. Mind you, this is not like the old Iowa and Montana citadels which included the entire protected volume. That would make the ships unduly vulnerable.

I do agree that there should be a middle ground for battleships in terms of survivability. For the most part I think American and Japanese battleships strike the proper balance. As you've mentioned, the Germans are exceptionally difficult to citadel in most circumstances, but they've made tradeoffs in other areas to get that level of survivability. On the other hand, British battleships don't have nearly enough downsides to justify having such a low citadel.

Yeah I also think Montana didn't need citadel lowering as much as Iowa because of much thicker armor and I'm ok if Montana citadel is raise just a bit but the problem is for all the reasons people complain about Montana citadel Conqueror is a much more blatant and extreme example. If people are annoyed they're having hard time citadeling Montana then how are they just fine with Conqueror being much harder to citadel?

3 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Despite the tears of rage regarding Conqueror by some people on these boards, it has not performed any better than her Tier X BB peers.  It's been so "overpowered" that it has not been the "Go To Battleship" for Clan Wars.

I've seen you several times bemoan Montana citadel being too hard to hit since they lowered it, but at the same time you repeatedly defend Conqueror. What gives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×