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

Scharnhorst and Gneisenaus Armor Models are Wrong

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,843
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,255 posts
8,412 battles

This is a repost from the consolidated armor model error collection over here

I am posting it here in hopes of it garnering a bit more attention than it otherwise would, as WG tends to ignore this sort of thing unless it is being talked about. As near as we have been able to ascertain (myself and @SireneRacker), this is not widely known or disseminated information, and multiple secondary source publications have repeatedly cited and re-cited the incorrect values, which is what has been represented ingame on both vessels. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

 

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau:

 

There are so many issues with these models, that it honestly defies description. In the interest of simplifying them, I have only taken into account issues which are directly relevant ingame (ignoring details such as armored rangefinders, etc…).

Keep in mind that these are merely what I have identified as “critical” errors.


The errors in the armor model for these two ships have been entirely compiled from a scan of the original armor scheme documentation, which to my knowledge is entirely accurate and trustworthy.

All values have been lifted directly from this layout, which will be made available below for your own inspection. All listed values are applicable to both vessels of the class (to the extent of my knowledge).


 

Section 1: Belt Armor Thickness and Arrangement.

1941597345_scharnex.thumb.png.2f0f17c5173b451622d846d16aa7effb.png

The main belt between frames 32 and 166 should be 320 mm. Ingame it is modeled as 350 mm.

 

The medium belt between frames 10 and 208 should be 35 mm. Ingame it is modeled as 45 mm.

 

The medium belt should extend from frames 10 to 207. Ingame it ends at frames 32 and 166.


 

Section 2: Deck Armor Thickness and Arrangement.

The entirety of the primary deck armor (main armor deck) has been modeled in a grossly inaccurate manner, the details of which will be shown in full.

 

401891081_scharnin.thumb.png.e69a1be0520e27c599c1de979b8923a1.png

1736685622_scharndeck.thumb.png.e2767f1417755b0787d8351b85e5adae.png

-The aforementioned missing extensions of the medium belt should connect with a 50 mm forward extension of the forecastle deck armor, which covers the entirety of the deck from frames 10 to 207. Ingame this deck also ends at frames 32 and 166.

 

-The machinery deck is split into two distinct areas: the inboard section, and the outboard section. These two areas are separated by a vertical 40 mm bulkhead which extends from the main armor deck, to the underside of the forecastle deck between frames 50 and 172.

 

The inboard armor deck over the machinery is 80 mm thick, extending from frame 55 to 180. At frames 55 and 150, this deck covers the magazines, increasing in thickness to 95 mm until frames 12 and 170 respectively. Ingame, the machinery deck is modeled as one piece with a thickness of 80 mm, the magazine deck 95 mm.

 

The outboard armor deck over both the machinery and magazines is 105 mm thick, between frame 32 and 166. This is not to be confused with the sloped armor deck, which is also 105 mm thick and “knuckles” downwards to meet the bottom edge of the main belt armor.

 

The extended main armor deck in front turrets “Anton” and “Caesar” between frames 162-166 and 32-40 respectively, are also 105 mm thick.

 

The magazine sloped decks between frames 32-55 and 150-66 are 105 mm. Ingame, these are modeled as 110 mm.

 

 

Sources: Scharnhorst class official drawings: "RM 20,1913 Allgemeine Typfragen fur Schlachtschiffe, Panzerschiffe und Kreuzer 10,02,1939 11,12,1939 Scharnhorst Gneisenau Gewichte abgerundete und zwischen beiden Schiffen" and "GKDS. 100: Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschoßwahl Heft g Schlachtschiffe Gn Sch"

 

Spoiler

 

925754186_ScharnhorstofficialdrawingRM201913AllgemeineTypfragenfurSchlachtschiffePanzerschiffeundKre-GneisenauGewichteabgerundeteundzwischenbeidenSchiffen.thumb.jpg.26f3b4b4908b501fa18fb6eef84fdc7a.jpg

GKDS.thumb.PNG.d76f01fc1f867c1fe357290889b4420e.PNG

 

 

 
  • Cool 6
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,403
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
7,100 posts
17,239 battles

Send it in a support ticket and directly to WG Staff members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,843
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,255 posts
8,412 battles
6 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

Send it in a support ticket and directly to WG Staff members.

We've done that before. They usually tend to be ignored or we at least never receive a response.

The dedicated thread in Player Features and Suggestions was meant to be more visible, but it too has been ignored. The Bug Reporting subforum specifically states that it does not deal with anything in relation to historical aspects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,403
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
7,100 posts
17,239 battles

and you will get no more notice of the rivet counting here than anywhere else. Send it directly to those who can at least pass it up the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,843
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,255 posts
8,412 battles
11 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

and you will get no more notice of the rivet counting here than anywhere else. Send it directly to those who can at least pass it up the line.

It's also useful just in general to have the accurate values more widely disseminated, versus people just citing the same secondary sources over and over again until the wrong values become facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
[FAE]
Members
2,364 posts
2,886 battles

Can you TLDR the impact game play wise? 

 

Also, WG has been fxxing with armor thickness recently I think. Making things thicker or thinner. Idk what the reasoning is for those balance changes. It seems they do occur to ships that did exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
218
[WOLFC]
Members
617 posts
5,096 battles

+1 for the scholarship and attention to detail, but Scharnhorst is a premium ship. And since I can’t see WG altering Gneissenau and leaving Scharnhorst, many of these changes (i.e. reducing armor to match historical values) will never be made. :Smile_sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,843
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,255 posts
8,412 battles
15 minutes ago, BlailBlerg said:

Can you TLDR the impact game play wise? 

 

Also, WG has been fxxing with armor thickness recently I think. Making things thicker or thinner. Idk what the reasoning is for those balance changes. It seems they do occur to ships that did exist. 

Slightly worse tank ability when broadside because of the decreased belt thickness, slightly better tank ability when angled because of the increased coverage of the extremity plating. The thicker deck *might* help in some situations against low tier armor-piercing bombs.

Major armor surfaces such as decks or belts are usually kept as accurate as possible. In most cases, only extremity/splinter plating is adjusted for balance purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,676
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,549 posts

Blah blah blah. 

Another day, another wailing for changes to ships that don't need them.

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 1
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,019
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,719 posts
7,711 battles
28 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Blah blah blah. 

Another day, another wailing for changes to ships that don't need them.

You are aware that the entire purpose of this post and the ones made for the Bismarck class and all the other ships is not about buffing or nerfing our darlings, but to correct modeling errors that in some cases are rather blatant.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,676
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,549 posts
7 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

You are aware that the entire purpose of this post and the ones made for the Bismarck class and all the other ships is not about buffing or nerfing our darlings, but to correct modeling errors that in some cases are rather blatant.

I don't care.

There are bigger issues in the game that need attention, and the ship sailed long ago on "realistic naval sim".

 

  • Cool 1
  • Confused 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,104
[LEGIO]
Members
3,308 posts
6,328 battles
6 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I don't care.

There are bigger issues in the game that need attention, and the ship sailed long ago on "realistic naval sim".

 

So I can get an extra 6" of armor welded to my Iowa when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles
10 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I don't care.

There are bigger issues in the game that need attention, and the ship sailed long ago on "realistic naval sim".

But plenty of other people care, and the department responsible for altering things such as the armor model are totally different and unaffected by the workload of departments handling most of the balance and mechanic issues right now.

The fixing of armor models and the issue of addressing gameplay issues are not even remotely mutually exclusive, as you are imply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,676
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,549 posts

Are you going to lower both ships to tier VI?

Are you going to compensate them with faster and/or more accurate main guns, or more cruiser-like turning performance, or something? 

 

If not, then stop begging for the balance to be mangled in a quixotic quest for "historicalness".

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,759
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,670 posts
2,114 battles
16 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Are you going to lower both ships to tier VI?

Are you going to compensate them with faster and/or more accurate main guns, or more cruiser-like turning performance, or something? 

 

If not, then stop begging for the balance to be mangled in a quixotic quest for "historicalness".

 

There's no reason to drop these ships up or down a tier - the changes largely balance themselves out, weakening the armor scheme in some aspects and strengthening it in others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,843
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,255 posts
8,412 battles

@KilljoyCutterImagine being so salty about something, that you come to completely unrelated threads to attempt to derail them with pointless vitriol. 

Fortunately, you aren't actually in charge of anything, nor are you the problem-police, here to control all discussion and shut down anything which is not directly related to what you perceive to be an issue.

In the meantime, more level headed people have prevailed. The developers have indeed promised to look into the armor models, which was the primary goal behind this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,676
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,549 posts

Then you've succeeded in convincing them to waste their time on nonsense.

Or they're just saying that to make you stop whining at them.

Congrats.

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[NATO]
Beta Testers
2,089 posts
6,231 battles
48 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

You are aware that the entire purpose of this post and the ones made for the Bismarck class and all the other ships is not about buffing or nerfing our darlings, but to correct modeling errors that in some cases are rather blatant.

Dont feed the troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,843
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,255 posts
8,412 battles
2 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Then you've succeeded in convincing them to waste their time on nonsense.

Or they're just saying that to make you stop whining at them.

Congrats.

 

Thank you for your well thought out and constructive responses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,676
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,549 posts
Just now, hipcanuck said:

Dont feed the troll.

Yes, of course, because I consider this constant blathering about the armor models, the ridiculous demands to mangle extant ships in the name of "accuracy", to be a useless waste of time, I'm a "troll".

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[WAG]
Members
810 posts
10,506 battles

World of Warships is an arcade game, not a historic battles simulation. The ship models may be based on historic ships, but game balance (which has not equivalent in real life) takes priority over historic accuracy.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,019
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,719 posts
7,711 battles
59 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I don't care.

There are bigger issues in the game that need attention, and the ship sailed long ago on "realistic naval sim".

So I conclude:

1. You just want to derail this thread for no reason.

2. You fail to understand that WG consists of more than five people sitting in a basement, resulting in cases where fixing model issues takes resources from other departments.

Also funny enough that you are still trying to talk balance. WG is willing to correct historical errors regarding models, did so in the past and in fact S_O has already given a positive reply regarding this topic.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
300
[2347]
Members
347 posts
7,416 battles

For my money, and it was mine, Scharnhorst is one of the most enjoyable and well balanced ships in the game. It seems nigh-on perfect to me and I most often recommend it to anyone who asks. In fact, the ship could almost be considered a selling point when I try to talk a friend into trying WOWS for the first time. I’ve let a few people play it in Co-Op using my account just so they can get a taste of real gameplay as I believe it best represents what’s good in the game: A famous ship, beautifully modelled, with just the right combination of battleship power and cruiser versatility.

And someone wants to change some small part of the one recipe the developers managed to get right?

I hope not.

TLDR: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

Edited by _Starbuck
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[A-O]
Members
681 posts
6,775 battles

The differences in armor thickness are easily explained.

The in game model was built with russian steel.

However, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst where built using the superior german Krupp steel.

So thinner armour plating would provide the same strength :-)

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,307 posts
3,248 battles
1 hour ago, Big_Spud said:

Thank you for your well thought out and constructive responses. 

The good news is that he keeps bumping the thread to the top :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×