Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
mstaley010

Missing Torpedoes

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

0
[AFKPC]
Members
1 post
1,433 battles

Why is it that cruisers and battleships that historically has torpedoes, or were proposed to have them, do not? Even if it is just a couple tubes on an old school battleship? Rodney torpedoes Bismarck, albeit when she was already done. Or the Buffalo class heavy cruiser, where the design called for torpedo racks? I guess I am not a fan of nerfing ships from their historical stats. I know the answer is "game balance" but it seems like an issue with game design. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,326 posts
13,078 battles

It comes down to balance, I may not agree with it, but weegee has done it with reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,195
[GWG]
Supertester
22,837 posts
12,789 battles

Those ships with the missing torpedoes had fixed underwater tubes and required the ship to slow to less than 5 knots to use them. Do you really want to come almost to a stop to use them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Privateers, Members
8,906 posts
7,837 battles

In the past WG did not model underwater torpedo tubes iirc due to engine and model limitations. With subs on the horizon (or beneath, if you prefer), we might see underwater tubes on surface ships, who knows.

Although it'd be somewhat unwise to add them to ships already implemented, such as Nelson, because outright buffing a ship that is performing well is just asking for it to become overpowered, and I seriously doubt that nerfing it elsewhere would satisfy the playerbase either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,166
[NMKJT]
Members
3,971 posts
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Those ships with the missing torpedoes had fixed underwater tubes and required the ship to slow to less than 5 knots to use them. Do you really want to come almost to a stop to use them.

Use it, not them. One tune per side. And would you really want to show that much broadside in a Nelson to fire a single torpedo? The angle would be horrific. 

I also believe the tubes were removed in a refit, but could be mistaken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,943
[5BS]
Members
8,554 posts
4 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

In the past WG did not model underwater torpedo tubes iirc due to engine and model limitations. With subs on the horizon (or beneath, if you prefer), we might see underwater tubes on surface ships, who knows.

Although it'd be somewhat unwise to add them to ships already implemented, such as Nelson, because outright buffing a ship that is performing well is just asking for it to become overpowered, and I seriously doubt that nerfing it elsewhere would satisfy the playerbase either.

I you think about the bigger picture, it can be made well to balance a number of ships. Given that a large volume of BB"s had their underwater torps removed post-reworks, it would be reasonable to NOT have them on 'B-Hulls' or 'C-Hulls' (where applicable) but instead only on A-Hulls and removed upon upgrading. It could give a reason for people to stay in the A-Hull beyond preferring realistic appearances (a la Bayern); trade some health, AA, and handling for some limited arc (contrary to common attitudes, most underwater torpedo tubes on ships could train very limitedly; typically +-5*).

Also, am I the only one that outright remembers the Bottleships from the first April Fools Event? Cause those had limited train, below water line torps on the central axis. They've literally *DONE* this already, 3 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,195
[GWG]
Supertester
22,837 posts
12,789 battles
9 hours ago, Wombatmetal said:

Use it, not them. One tune per side. And would you really want to show that much broadside in a Nelson to fire a single torpedo? The angle would be horrific. 

I also believe the tubes were removed in a refit, but could be mistaken. 

I used "them" because ships were not limited to a single tube per side and it is not unlikely that a surrounded ship could fire all that bear on an enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,419
[WORX]
Members
6,451 posts
16,189 battles
12 hours ago, mstaley010 said:

Why is it that cruisers and battleships that historically has torpedoes, or were proposed to have them, do not? Even if it is just a couple tubes on an old school battleship? Rodney torpedoes Bismarck, albeit when she was already done. Or the Buffalo class heavy cruiser, where the design called for torpedo racks? I guess I am not a fan of nerfing ships from their historical stats. I know the answer is "game balance" but it seems like an issue with game design. 

If I may, I would point out.... In patches 0.8.0.1 and their sibling patches to current patch of 0.8.8, torps have been the must nerfed ordnance in the game... You can blame the community for preferring

  • FIre
  • Unrealistic AP DMG
  • Buffing mindless secondary DMG.

Over torp and flood DMG... Because of this

  • Flood DMG is no longer a threat to big HP ships
  • Liquidator achievement was removed...
  • Tier 8 and 9 torp DDs
    • Have over 2 min minimum torp reload per attack
    • Very high torp detection
    • No AA
  • Tier 10 torp DDs
    • Have a 3 min torp reload per attack
    • Torp detection that can be seen from Mars
    • No AA

I dont think its "game balance" as the driving factor... Its more of making some classes so easy to play. All you have to worry about is fire and AP... Some ships Armor are so think, HE  shells can't penetrate.... 

All of this has created a very stale gaming experience at high tiers... Some would argue they like it that way... Until WG has to force inclusiveness due to declining player numbers playing high tier battles.

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×