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

Crossing the T, too much emphasis on citadels?

60 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
565 posts
2,837 battles

Hello all,

   Throughout the 19th and early 20th century (where many of our ships are from), the best naval position you could be in was 'crossing the T'.

Which looks like this: crossing dat T son

This allowed all of your ships to be broadside to the enemy, all guns available, while they only had their forward guns.

This is the exact opposite of world of warships; if you did that in game, you would be citadel'd and dead in no time.

Accuracy concerns aside, the fundamentals do not add up.

Do we place too much emphasis on citadels?  Should they be so easy to get?  Historically, it doesn't seem they were easy to get -- as the best navies preferred to show their broadsides to a head-on ship.

Thoughts?

Thanks guys!

Edited by Desmios
hyperlink
  • Cool 11
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,375 posts
7,091 battles

Do a search on 'crossing the T' and you will get a lot of hits and explanations.   Lots os battles happened without crossing the T and trying to get random players to do it - good luck...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
809 posts
5,489 battles
8 minutes ago, Desmios said:

Hello all,

   Throughout the 19th and early 20th century (where many of our ships are from), the best naval position you could be in was 'crossing the T'.

Which looks like this: crossing dat T son

This allowed all of your ships to be broadside to the enemy, all guns available, while they only had their forward guns.

This is the exact opposite of world of warships; if you did that in game, you would be citadel'd and dead in no time.

Accuracy concerns aside, the fundamentals do not add up.

Do we place too much emphasis on citadels?  Should they be so easy to get?  Historically, it doesn't seem they were easy to get -- as the best navies preferred to show their broadsides to a head-on ship.

Thoughts?

Thanks guys!

If this was a naval sim you would be correct however World of Warships is a naval arcade game. Meaning that while it may be inspired by naval history it does not seek to emulate it. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,068
[LEGIO]
Members
3,243 posts
5,999 battles

WG decided long ago to make this game tanks dressed up as ships instead of actual ships, that's why crossing the enemy's T in game is a terrible thing to do.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,485
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
11,350 posts
8,084 battles

Simplest explanation is that in real life there was a very low chance of actually hitting the target with any salvo. So navies tried to get as good chances as possible by getting as many rounds down range as fast as possible. This game is different however, guns are much more accurate, ranges are determined much quicker and accurately, shells move much faster, etc. So in this game you can be pretty confident in a well aimed salvo hitting the target which means that avoiding damage is more important than it would be historically. Remember in this game people are constantly being advised to use their rudder and change their course to avoid taking fire vs WW1 for example were the RN would often fire 5 or more salvoes without changing course.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,167
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
5,301 posts
15,022 battles
Spoiler

 

@Desmios If this were All BB, All CA etc battles then battle line tactics just might be viable! But with 12 strangers who don't know one another in a variety of 4 ship types scatter like roaches, even if they were all in the same ship type that is not likely to happen. 

The only way it would happen would be if all 12 team members knew one another and practiced the tactic and agreed to do so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
565 posts
2,837 battles
1 minute ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:
  Reveal hidden contents

 

@Desmios If this were All BB, All CA etc battles then battle line tactics just might be viable! But with 12 strangers who don't know one another in a variety of 4 ship types scatter like roaches, even if they were all in the same ship type that is not likely to happen. 

The only way it would happen would be if all 12 team members knew one another and practiced the tactic and agreed to do so!

Assuming you had a fully coordinated team capable of doing it, do you think it would be successful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,446
[SYN]
Members
15,265 posts
11,945 battles

there's not enough map space to do a proper T-cross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[KAPPA]
Members
711 posts
5,593 battles
5 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:
  Reveal hidden contents

 

@Desmios If this were All BB, All CA etc battles then battle line tactics just might be viable! But with 12 strangers who don't know one another in a variety of 4 ship types scatter like roaches, even if they were all in the same ship type that is not likely to happen. 

The only way it would happen would be if all 12 team members knew one another and practiced the tactic and agreed to do so!

Maybe 12 Conquerors would be a good set to do it in. Hard to cit, and HE doesn't care about angle, 

Although, imagining 12 Lyons would be funnier.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
809 posts
5,489 battles
4 minutes ago, Shoggoth_pinup said:

Maybe 12 Conquerors would be a good set to do it in. Hard to cit, and HE doesn't care about angle, 

Although, imagining 12 Lyons would be funnier.

 Now that would certainly would be a sight to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,661
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,542 posts
2,090 battles
37 minutes ago, Desmios said:

-snip-

Simply put, this was done irl because it maximized your own fire, while minimizing that of the enemy.

It also presented your strongest armor - your main armor belt - to the enemy.

Even in-game, your main armor belt is your strongest citadel armor - your transverse bulkheads protecting the fore and aft ends of your citadel are generally thinner and never inclined (unless you're Yamato), and overall is weaker. 

In-game, this is not an issue because of auto-bounce mechanics - so long as any incoming rounds hit at an angle 60º or greater (assuming 0º is perpendicular), then it automatically ricochets for most rounds (this angle must be greater for some rounds in-game, namely USN 203mm AP and RN 152mm SAP), unless it is able to overmatch the armor. The overmatch factor in-game is 14.3x, so a 406mm round won't overmatch 32mm, for example. In reality this value was much, much lesser, and the structural bow plating would do absolutely nothing to defend the transverse bulkheads.

Given that we fight at relatively close ranges in-game, the strength of main armor belts is somewhat reduced as a sheer factor of us not fighting where most ships began the inner edge of their immune zones - we're too close for armor to be effective in many cases. If not for the overmatch & auto bounce mechanics, going bow in would get you citadel penetrated at even greater ranges.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder, Beta Testers
1,576 posts
2,652 battles

Think of it this way.  When muskets were introduced infantry had to fight in neat lines with massed fire in order to be effective.  Once rifling and other features increased accuracy standing in neat lines and shooting each other was a death trap.  

Naval fire historically was akin to that musket fire.  However, in order to have the player feel like they are not completely in servitude to RNGesus the accuracy in game is much higher.  Without bringing the accuracy levels and map size in line with reality you are looking at fighting in infantry lines with AR15s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,606 posts
9,841 battles

"Crossing the T" was a naval tactic developed during the era of sailing ships when the weapons were primarily muzzle loading canons with limited traverse poking out the sides of ships.  During that era, there was no appreciable firepower that could be projected forward or aft.  That mean that, if you could sail broadside perpendicular to your target, you could hit him with all your guns on that side of the ship while you were virtually immune to return fire.

"Crossing the T" was also more important as a fleet/squadron maneuver because ships generally sailed in a line so all your ships were getting their guns on the opposing line of ships while the enemy not only had limited fire fore/aft, they had friendlies blocking their shots.  (You think team damage is punished harshly in game ….)

Modern ships have armor, turreted guns which can cover both sides of the ship as well as straight forward or straight aft.  The armor means that just hitting the target does not necessarily mean you will damage it.  The turrets means you can return fire pretty much regardless of angle.  Thus, a balance can be struck between volume of fire vs. protection and exposure of critical ship parts that was not possible in the era of sail.

That doesn't mean that there is no value in it any longer or that it has not been used more recently, but pining for the days of Crossing the T is like pining for the fjords the days where armies lined up across the field of battle from each other and stood in a box-like formations of men so that they could concentrate fire power from muzzle-loading muskets, a tactical that quickly evaporated with the advent of more modern artillery and, specifically, machine guns.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
977
[SPTR]
Members
26,525 posts
12,280 battles

Crossing the T isn't just a bad idea because too much emphasis on citadels but also armor angling and shell bounce angles on AP rounds, if AP rounds never existed in this game then yeah crossing the T would be more viable provided RNGesus lets you hits the enemy's narrow bow in profile and not shatter on the forward main gun turrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,030
Members
4,723 posts
7,731 battles
59 minutes ago, GE_Capital said:

look kids, it's another armchair admiral with a Google

It was a valid and good question.  Based on historical accuracy.  No need at all for the put-down.  YOU have the problem....kid. :Smile_child:

Edited by dmckay
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
169
[BLHK]
Members
555 posts
3,685 battles
30 minutes ago, TheStarSlayer said:

 

Naval fire historically was akin to that musket fire. 

It is actually quiet the reverse. The concept of crossing the T only became a tactic once naval gunnery was able to extend the range of engagement. Prior to that the only real tactics you had was to form a line and sail past each other blazing away at a range of 200 yards, or as Nelson perfected, cutting the line, and isolating sections of the enemy fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,030
Members
4,723 posts
7,731 battles
2 minutes ago, GE_Capital said:

No, it's not a valid and good question.  It was perhaps, in 2015.  We are almost at 2019 now.  Use the search function.  This is far from the first time this stupid "point" has been brought up.

:Smile_popcorn:I see you currently have 9 down votes.  :Smile_glasses:  The OP made some thoughtful comments regarding crossing the T in this game.....today! Which you ignored so you could get in your diss. 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,522
[SYN]
Members
4,921 posts
11,844 battles
1 hour ago, Desmios said:

Hello all,

   Throughout the 19th and early 20th century (where many of our ships are from), the best naval position you could be in was 'crossing the T'.

Which looks like this: crossing dat T son

This allowed all of your ships to be broadside to the enemy, all guns available, while they only had their forward guns.

This is the exact opposite of world of warships; if you did that in game, you would be citadel'd and dead in no time.

Accuracy concerns aside, the fundamentals do not add up.

Do we place too much emphasis on citadels?  Should they be so easy to get?  Historically, it doesn't seem they were easy to get -- as the best navies preferred to show their broadsides to a head-on ship.

Thoughts?

Thanks guys!

There is nothing realistic about this game.  RW tactics need not apply.

Engagement ranges are artificially compressed, ships have "power-ups" and move around like RC scale models, and citadels are the "prize" that you aim for to get big numbers to float in the sky.

Edited by Kuckoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
169
[BLHK]
Members
555 posts
3,685 battles
9 minutes ago, GE_Capital said:

No, it's not a valid and good question.  It was perhaps, in 2015.  We are almost at 2019 now.  Use the search function.  This is far from the first time this stupid "point" has been brought up.

Really? Maybe you should get yourself a redo account and go back and play with beginners and see how many of them cross the T on an enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,042
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,863 posts
6,390 battles
3 minutes ago, dmckay said:

:Smile_popcorn:I see you currently have 9 down votes.  :Smile_glasses:  The OP made some thoughtful comments regarding crossing the T in this game.....today! Which you ignored so you could get in your diss. 

No, they're not thoughtful.  They're identical to the same arguments presented regularly the last four years.  

Indicating a clear lack of search function use.

2 minutes ago, MG1962 said:

Really? Maybe you should get yourself a redo account and go back and play with beginners and see how many of them cross the T on an enemy.

New players are bad?  So?

  • Bad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
169
[BLHK]
Members
555 posts
3,685 battles
1 hour ago, Desmios said:

 

Do we place too much emphasis on citadels?  Should they be so easy to get?  Historically, it doesn't seem they were easy to get -- as the best navies preferred to show their broadsides to a head-on ship.

Thoughts?

Thanks guys!

It is not so much the citadels, but how the shell dispersion is modeled in the game. Naval guns could generally get a shell going in the right direction. The problem was consistency in the flight of the shell. And why many navies developed 'ladder' systems for getting ranged in before radar was a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
169
[BLHK]
Members
555 posts
3,685 battles
3 minutes ago, GE_Capital said:

 

New players are bad?  So?

No, it shows that the first thing they have to do is unlearn everything they have ever seen in a naval game before, either sim based or even arcade based.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×