Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
TheDreadnought

IFHE for KGV?

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,073
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
4,701 posts

Thoughts on this as an option?   You could offset some of the burn loss with flags.   But would the improved penetration make the HE shells extremely lethal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,540
[ARGSY]
Members
21,744 posts
15,788 battles

Doesn't British BB HE already have a built-in quarter-pen rule? If so you already cross the 60mm line, which gets you through some decks you might not already be penetrating, and I'm not sure what else IFHE would do for you. You'll never see Tier 10, so that's not a consideration.

Stage 2 of the Public Test should be this week and we have Tier 7 ships and 15 point captains to play with. Why don't you try it out? I probably will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,165 posts
5,836 battles

I would just use invest in enabling more HE fires and utilizing the deadly British AP.  The latter does hurt at close to medium ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,366
[_RNG_]
Supertester
3,177 posts
5,512 battles

Never tried it myself... I think all it does is help you cit a few more cruisers at mid tier. If you are just trolling around with KGV and a high point captain, I'd say why not!

 

Like others have said, RN BBs have the quarter pen rule, so its not like you are struggling to penetrate ships... Just cits mostly

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[UNCLK]
Members
20 posts
14,492 battles

I put it on my Duke of York for the lulz. I think it gives a little more chance to cit some cruisers but not much else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
51 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said:

You could offset some of the burn loss with flags.

All other things aside, the burn% loss from IFHE (and gain from DE and/or flags) is additive, not multiplicative. Meaning that say, the base fire% is 70%, DE is +2%, that is a 72% fire chance, not 73.44% (which would have been multiplicative, 1.02*70). That means that at higher fire%'s, additions and penalties suffer diminishing returns, and at lower fire%, are that much more impactful:

 

 

Quote

 

The Calculation

The chance to set fire for a single high explosive shell (or aircraft bomb) hitting a ship is calculated by the following formula:

Fire Chance = FRC · ( 1 - DCM1 - FP ) · ( FCB - IFHE + DE + Σ S )

where:

  • FRC - the ship's Fire Resistance Coefficient (see above)
  • DCM1 - the effect of the Damage Control System Modification 1 upgrade: 5% (0.05) with the upgrade installed, 0.0 without
  • FP - the effect of the Fire Prevention skill: 10% (0.10) with the skill, 0.0 without
  • FCB is the Projectile Base Fire Chance; see Base Fire Chance above.
  • IFHE is the effect of the IFHE commander skill: 1% (0.01) for gun calibers up to and including 139mm, 3% (0.03) for gun calibers above 139mm, and zero without the skill
  • DE is the effect of the Demolition Expert commander skill: 0.02 with the skill, 0.0 without
  • Σ S - the sum of the effects of mounted Signals, e.g. Victor Lima +1% chance of causing a fire for bombs and shells with a caliber above 160mm / +0.5% chance of causing a fire for bombs and shells with a caliber below 160mm. / +4% chance of causing flooding. and India X-Ray +1% chance of causing a fire for bombs and shells with a caliber above 160mm. / +0.5% chance of causing a fire for bombs and shells with a caliber below 160mm. / +5% to the risk of your ship's magazine detonating.: +1% or +0.5% each depending on gun caliber

 

  •  

The important part, i.e. the part concerning you the firer, is the FC_B - IFHE + DE + sum(signals). That is your fire chance percent and as mentioned, it is additive, not multiplcative.

The same is true of the FP skill and why the 'reduction' it offers is meaningless; at higher tiers (thus higher base Fire Resistance coefficient) the bennifit provide translates into a *far* lower effect:

Quote

As an example, we can compare the chance of a single Benson high explosive shell lighting a fire on an enemy Bismarck.

  • The Tier VIII Bismarck is using Hull B (Top) (FRC of 0.6337) and Damage Control System Modification 1; his commander is not skilled at Fire Prevention.
  • Benson fires 127mm HE Mk. 32 with a 5.5% base fire chance. Her commander is a Demolition Expert (not IFHE) and is flying both the Victor Lima and India X-Ray signals.

The fire chance (per hit) would be:

(0.6337) x (1 - 0.05 - 0.00) x (0.055 - 0.0 + 0.02 + 0.01) = 5.12% fire chance

If the Bismarck commander acquires the Fire Prevention skill, the chance would then be:

(0.6337) x (1 - 0.05 - 0.10) x (0.055 - 0.0 + 0.02 + 0.01) = 4.58% fire chance

If the Benson commander didn't have Demolition Expert or the signals equipped, the chance would be:

(0.6337) x (1 - 0.05 - 0.10) x (0.055 - 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0) = 2.96% fire chance

As you can see, the actual reduction in fire chance w/ the FP skill is <1% because of how the game actually calculates fire chance.

 

 

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
40 posts
1,306 battles
1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

All other things aside, the burn% loss from IFHE (and gain from DE and/or flags) is additive, not multiplicative. Meaning that say, the base fire% is 70%, DE is +2%, that is a 72% fire chance, not 73.44% (which would have been multiplicative, 1.02*70). That means that at higher fire%'s, additions and penalties suffer diminishing returns, and at lower fire%, are that much more impactful:

 

 

  •  

The important part, i.e. the part concerning you the firer, is the FC_B - IFHE + DE + sum(signals). That is your fire chance percent and as mentioned, it is additive, not multiplcative.

The same is true of the FP skill and why the 'reduction' it offers is meaningless; at higher tiers (thus higher base Fire Resistance coefficient) the bennifit provide translates into a *far* lower effect:

As you can see, the actual reduction in fire chance w/ the FP skill is <1% because of how the game actually calculates fire chance.

 

 

Sorry, you are much better at math than I am..... but how is 1.02*70%=73.44%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
220
[DOW]
[DOW]
Members
988 posts
33,444 battles

  This is simple, just ask yourself what armor threshold on what target ships you're trying to get over and then decide if it's worth 4 skill points. Goes without saying don't even think of it for your secondaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,226 posts
5,930 battles

Pretty sure it lets you cit some cruisers with HE in theory, but it's just that mostly. In practice you won't see much difference at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
16 hours ago, ThRiLl_GmYr said:

Sorry, you are much better at math than I am..... but how is 1.02*70%=73.44%?

Sorry, did 72*1.02. It should read 71.4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,389
[INTEL]
Members
13,459 posts
37,362 battles
1 minute ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

IMO, IFHE on a RN BB is a big waste of 4 points.  There's no significant return for doing that.

Agreed. You can get a lot more out of those points with other Capt Skills. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,120
[EQRN]
Members
2,132 posts
18,702 battles
19 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

All other things aside, the burn% loss from IFHE (and gain from DE and/or flags) is additive, not multiplicative. Meaning that say, the base fire% is 70%, DE is +2%, that is a 72% fire chance, not 73.44% (which would have been multiplicative, 1.02*70). That means that at higher fire%'s, additions and penalties suffer diminishing returns, and at lower fire%, are that much more impactful:

 

 

  •  

The important part, i.e. the part concerning you the firer, is the FC_B - IFHE + DE + sum(signals). That is your fire chance percent and as mentioned, it is additive, not multiplcative.

The same is true of the FP skill and why the 'reduction' it offers is meaningless; at higher tiers (thus higher base Fire Resistance coefficient) the bennifit provide translates into a *far* lower effect:

As you can see, the actual reduction in fire chance w/ the FP skill is <1% because of how the game actually calculates fire chance.

 

 

If you’re going to say “actual reduction in fire chance”, you must acknowledge that the greatest chance of fire occurs in the middle of the ship, and FP reduces this from 2 fires in that location, to one.  The percentage from FP is, as you say small, but the overall effect is worthwhile.  You can tell who doesn’t run FP when you see an HE spam complaint thread, and all the up voters to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
8 minutes ago, FrodoFraggin said:

you must acknowledge that the greatest chance of fire occurs in the middle of the ship,

No I must not because that is untrue: there is no location of the ship that has a greater chance than others to catch fire. All parts of a ship can catch fire equally as there is no modifier to fire% chance based on hit location (other than already being aflame).

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,888
-Members-
1,642 posts
1,277 battles

Hey Captains,

Interesting question regarding IFHE on the KGV. I personally do not use IFHE on a BB because with the HE shell damage and the RN fire chance you shouldn't need it. What would you be giving up to use those 4 commander skill points on the KGV? Concealment? Fire Prevention? I feel these two skills for a BB are much for important than IFHE. I guess you could do it for the "lols" but will that make your BB the most effective it can be?

This might give you enough penetration to citadel some lightly armored cruisers but is that worth the four commander skill points, when you can just switch to AP?

My recommendation: use those four commander skills points on a skill(s) that will better help your KGV survive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,120
[EQRN]
Members
2,132 posts
18,702 battles
2 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

No I must not because that is untrue: there is no location of the ship that has a greater chance than others to catch fire. All parts of a ship can catch fire equally as there is no modifier to fire% chance based on hit location (other than already being aflame).

Sure, you keep shooting the nose of the ship with a resultant drop in hits, while 99.9% of the community shoots for the center of the ship for more hits which means *more chances to set a fire*.  Yes, every zone has the same % chance of being set on fire, but not every zone has the same % of shells landing in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
1 minute ago, FrodoFraggin said:

Sure, you keep shooting the nose of the ship with a resultant drop in hits, while 99.9% of the community shoots for the center of the ship for more hits which means *more chances to set a fire*.  Yes, every zone has the same % chance of being set on fire, but not every zone has the same % of shells landing in there.

You are generalizing and making broad assumptions that do not always hold true. Firing at a bow on ship, it is the forward most flame zone that is more likely to take a fire and following that, the forward SS position. In this case FP would not reduce the average number of fires (and I've done the testing in a Training room: it does not empirically either). FP only helps reduce fires (due to zone reduction) if the target is broadside. If it is bow on/very acutely angled (aka, not a noob), then FP's zone reduction is highly suspect in usefulness as it will be the SS zone plus the adjacent zone taking most of the fire ANYWAY and thus, the same 2 fires will start. FP isn't worthless, but it is WAY overblown in it's ability/usefulness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,120
[EQRN]
Members
2,132 posts
18,702 battles
3 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

You are generalizing and making broad assumptions that do not always hold true. 

You mean like the claim the one can nose/angle against every ship that can shoot at you? :cap_yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[INTEL]
Members
1,778 posts
15,774 battles
17 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

You are generalizing and making broad assumptions that do not always hold true. Firing at a bow on ship, it is the forward most flame zone that is more likely to take a fire and following that, the forward SS position. In this case FP would not reduce the average number of fires (and I've done the testing in a Training room: it does not empirically either). FP only helps reduce fires (due to zone reduction) if the target is broadside. If it is bow on/very acutely angled (aka, not a noob), then FP's zone reduction is highly suspect in usefulness as it will be the SS zone plus the adjacent zone taking most of the fire ANYWAY and thus, the same 2 fires will start. FP isn't worthless, but it is WAY overblown in it's ability/usefulness.

You missed the point of what he said. Due to dispersion aiming at the bow (or stern) results in fewer hits. Say I'm shooting a BB with Belfast. If I aim for the super I can pretty consistently hit for 7-10 at most angles and ranges. Aiming for the extremities decreases the number of hits since since some stray shells that would have hit were I aiming at the super go wide/short/long resulting in a miss. Plus even a slight target maneuver is compounded at the extremities. You cant argue that landing 4 shells will have an equal chance of setting a fire as landing 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
1 hour ago, FrodoFraggin said:

You mean like the claim the one can nose/angle against every ship that can shoot at you? :cap_yes:

You don't design a situation around a moron. You have to work from the predisposed point the opponent KNOWS to angle against fire and maximize how dispersion works in this game to their favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
1 hour ago, Ares1967 said:

You missed the point of what he said. Due to dispersion aiming at the bow (or stern) results in fewer hits. Say I'm shooting a BB with Belfast. If I aim for the super I can pretty consistently hit for 7-10 at most angles and ranges. Aiming for the extremities decreases the number of hits since since some stray shells that would have hit were I aiming at the super go wide/short/long resulting in a miss. Plus even a slight target maneuver is compounded at the extremities. You cant argue that landing 4 shells will have an equal chance of setting a fire as landing 8.

Except that isn't the context: the context is that FP's reduction in possible zones is highly valuable, which I do not assent. The reason is that when firing at a bow on target, regardless of where you aim, you really only have *2* potential zones to start fires: bow and 1st SS zone. If you take FP, the 1st SS zone and 2nd SS zone combine into a single SS zone. But the problem is, again, aiming bow on, you are *still* likely to start fires in either or, and the result is that 2 fires still start regularly. The only time FP comes into play is when a target is *broadside* thus showing enough of itself to allow hits to BOTH individual SS zones, and thus the chance to start 2, or 3, increases. But this preassumes that the target is *exceedingly* stupid to leave itself open to such an attack which, is not a valid assumption and not how you should spec. You don't build tactics around DUMB players: you built it around smart ones.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,120
[EQRN]
Members
2,132 posts
18,702 battles
8 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

You don't design a situation around a moron. You have to work from the predisposed point the opponent KNOWS to angle against fire and maximize how dispersion works in this game to their favor.

Ah, I see.  And I bet you’ve never been citadeled.  We plebeians are not worthy of your unicum presence, we could only hope that one day we could take but a sip of your awesome sauce. :cap_old:

  • Funny 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[INTEL]
Members
1,778 posts
15,774 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

Except that isn't the context: the context is that FP's reduction in possible zones is highly valuable, which I do not assent.

 

2 hours ago, FrodoFraggin said:

Sure, you keep shooting the nose of the ship with a resultant drop in hits

 

Wanna try again? His context was exactly as I explained. You cant quote and respond to a post by assigning your own context.

 In the overall context of the thread, its true that every zone has an equal chance of fire per hit, its also true that two zones take fewer hits. Fewer hits is defacto a lower chance of fire. Argue all you want, its a proveable fact. Therefore FP turning the Super into one zone is a huge benefit to fire resistance and overall survivability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
665
[BGSSC]
[BGSSC]
Members
2,621 posts
10,504 battles

I run FP on all my BBs.  Reducing those 2 fires in the middle of the ship to just 1 is a huge benefit.  Even if you are bow in, ships are firing HE to drop shots onto your superstructure.  The bow will often cause the hit shots to explode without penetration damage.  The only damage you will take is from small percentage fire chance of a reduced number of shots that can hit  the smaller bow in profile, which is why ships fire past the bow and attempt to hit the bigger target of the superstructure.   If most of the shots would have started 2 fires in the center of the ship, they now start only 1.  In the event you got a fire on the bow as well, then that is reduced to 2 fires instead of 3.  FP is a good thing to have on a tinder box.

If you have ships firing away at the midsection of your BB and there is a fire, just hit heal and let it burn.  They will pummel the side of your ship for minimal damage and can't start another fire unless they change their targeting to aim for the bow or stern.  Most will just keep firing away at the center of the target.

The short range of the secondary guns on the KGV make it a poor choice for IFHE.  The regular guns have high enough penetration that it makes no sense for them.  So, I wouldn't waste IFHE on the KGV.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[INTEL]
Members
1,778 posts
15,774 battles
3 minutes ago, FrodoFraggin said:

Ah, I see.  And I bet you’ve never been citadeled.  We plebeians are not worthy of your unicum presence, we could only hope that one day we could take but a sip of your awesome sauce. :cap_old:

Where is that ROFL gif when I need it. +1

 

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.

×