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

Secondary-build battleship captains, does the 0.9.2 IFHE change affect your choice of captain skills?

Secondary-build battleship captains, does the 0.9.2 IFHE change affect your choice of captain skills?  

35 members have voted

This poll is closed for new votes
  1. 1. Does the 0.9.2 IFHE change affect your choice of captain skills?

    • It doesn't. My secondary-build BBs did not use IFHE, and I will continue not specing into IFHE
    • It does. My secondary-build BBs did not use IFHE, and now I will spec into IFHE
    • It does. My secondary-build BBs did use IFHE, and now I will respec and drop IFHE
    • It doesn't. My secondary-build BBs did use IFHE, and I will continue to spec into IFHE
    • I don't build my battleships for secondaries
  2. 2. Which nation are the majority of your secondary-build battleships?


  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 07/15/2020 at 04:51 AM

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

262
[APES]
Members
993 posts
6,323 battles
2 hours ago, RipNuN2 said:

 

LittleWhiteMouse has about as much credibility as politicians. Her (his?) past ship reviews have more materially wrong assessments than they had materially right assessments. Of course, past performance doesn't indicate future performance, so I will leave it at that.

LittleWhiteMouse's assertion is that battleships never really needed IFHEs, and they still will not need IFHEs after 0.9.2. That is, of course, her opinion.

US battleship-specific discussion can be found here: 

The actual effect of such changes should be analyzed case by case. For example, Kremlin, where the IFHE's now reduces fire chance from 4% to 2% (was from 4% to 3%). Specing for IFHE will have nearly the same amount of secondary damage boost as before:

  • 13mm - All DD superstructure armor (very tiny) <no change>
  • 16mm - All Cruiser superstructure armor (very tiny) <no change>
  • 19mm - All BB superstructure armor, all DD plating (large target) <no change>
  • 22mm - Base penetration of Kremlin's 130mm secondary guns <no change>
  • 25mm - Light cruiser armor values <no change>
  • 27mm - Heavy cruiser armor values <no change>
  • 27mm - IFHE penetration of Kremlin's 130mm secondary guns <was <28mm; now ≤27mm; realistically no change>
  • 30mm - T10 cruiser armor value
  • 32mm - Battleship bow/stern armor value, minimum non-superstructure armor thickness of BB's (French/UK especially)
  • 38mm - Common deck armor value of American BB's
  • 40/45mm - You see this armor value on the Roma and the Vladivostok
  • 50mm - Common deck armor value of German and a portion of Japanese BB's
  • 57mm - Deck armor value of the Yamato/Izumo

For Yamato and Musashi, however, the change does have an effect of overall buff to secondaries. That is, a buff to both IFHE secondaries and non-IFHE secondaries (this is in contradiction to LWM's claim). Before (1/6 rule; IFHE +30%; IFHE reduce fire chance by 1%):

  • 13mm - All DD superstructure armor (very tiny)
  • 16mm - All Cruiser superstructure armor (very tiny)
  • 19mm - All BB superstructure armor, all DD plating (large target)
  • 21mm - Base penetration of Yamato and Musashi's 127mm secondary guns
  • 25mm - Light cruiser armor values
  • 26mm - Base penetration of Yamato and Musashi's 155mm secondary guns
  • 27mm - Heavy cruiser armor values
  • 28mm - IFHE penetration of Yamato and Musashi's 127mm secondary guns
  • 30mm - T10 cruiser armor value
  • 32mm - Battleship bow/stern armor value, minimum non-superstructure armor thickness of BB's (French/UK especially)
  • 34mm - IFHE penetration of Yamato and  Musashi's 155mm secondary guns
  • 38mm - Common deck armor value of American BB's
  • 40/45mm - You see this armor value on the Roma and the Vladivostok
  • 50mm - Common deck armor value of German and a portion of Japanese BB's
  • 57mm - Deck armor value of the Yamato/Izumo

Now (1/5 rule; IFHE +25%; IFHE reduce fire chance by half):

  • 13mm - All DD superstructure armor (very tiny)
  • 16mm - All Cruiser superstructure armor (very tiny)
  • 19mm - All BB superstructure armor, all DD plating (large target)
  • 21mm - Base penetration of Yamato and Musashi's 127mm secondary guns (1/6 rule)
  • 25mm - Light cruiser armor values
  • 27mm - Heavy cruiser armor values
  • 28mm - Base penetration of Yamato and Musashi's 155mm secondary guns(1/5 rule)
  • 28mm - IFHE penetration of Yamato and Musashi's 127mm secondary guns (1/6 rule)
  • 30mm - T10 cruiser armor value
  • 32mm - Battleship bow/stern armor value, minimum non-superstructure armor thickness of BB's (French/UK especially) <no change>
  • 38mm - Common deck armor value of American BB's <no change>
  • 39mm - IFHE penetration of Yamato and  Musashi's 155mm secondary guns (1/5 rule)
  • 40/45mm - You see this armor value on the Roma and the Vladivostok
  • 50mm - Common deck armor value of German and a portion of Japanese BB's
  • 57mm - Deck armor value of the Yamato/Izumo

For Alsace, there has no material effect, although the fire change from IFHE 100mm guns will reduce from 5% to 3%. The fire doesn't do much damage anyway:

  • 13mm - All DD superstructure armor (very tiny)
  • 16mm - All Cruiser superstructure armor (very tiny)
  • 16mm - base penetration of Alsace's 100mm secondary guns (was <16mm; now ≤16mm)
  • 19mm - All BB superstructure armor, all DD plating (large target)
  • 21mm - IFHE penetration of Alsace's 100mm secondary guns(was <22mm; now ≤21mm)
  • 25mm - Light cruiser armor values
  • 27mm - Heavy cruiser armor values
  • 30mm - T10 cruiser armor value
  • 32mm - Battleship bow/stern armor value, minimum non-superstructure armor thickness of BB's (French/UK especially) <no change>
  • 38mm - Common deck armor value of American BB's <no change>
  • 40/45mm - You see this armor value on the Roma and the Vladivostok
  • 50mm - Common deck armor value of German and a portion of Japanese BB's
  • 57mm - Deck armor value of the Yamato/Izumo

For Republique and Bourgogne, the change has been a slight nerf to IFHE secondaries, although IFHE will still provide some damage increase:

  • 13mm - All DD superstructure armor (very tiny)
  • 16mm - All Cruiser superstructure armor (very tiny)
  • 19mm - All BB superstructure armor, all DD plating (large target)
  • 21mm - Base penetration of République and Bourgogne's 127mm secondary guns (was <21mm, now ≤21mm)
  • 25mm - Light cruiser armor values
  • 25mm - Base penetration of République and Bourgogne's 152mm secondary guns (was <25mm, now ≤25mm; a slight buff)
  • 26mm - IFHE penetration of République and Bourgogne's 127mm secondary guns (was <28mm, now ≤26mm; a slight nerf)
  • 27mm - Heavy cruiser armor values
  • 30mm - T10 cruiser armor value
  • 31.7mm - IFHE penetration of République and Bourgogne's 152mm secondary guns (was <33mm, now ≤31.7mm; a slight nerf)
  • 32mm - Battleship bow/stern armor value, minimum non-superstructure armor thickness of BB's (French/UK especially)
  • 38mm - Common deck armor value of American BB's
  • 40/45mm - You see this armor value on the Roma and the Vladivostok
  • 50mm - Common deck armor value of German and a portion of Japanese BB's
  • 57mm - Deck armor value of the Yamato/Izumo

In conclusion, the IFHE change does not have a material impact on the choice of capital skills for secondary build battleships. Battleship captains may continue with their old build. That is my opinion.

Edited by _Marines
typo
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,959 posts
36,759 battles

It has not changed much of my builds. I use IFHE to disable DDs and cruisers. My main ship for this use is outgunned IJN DDs.

If its a torpedo boat, you want this.

This disabling part for DDs is the ability to damage engines.

When attacking cruisers, it is to damage AA and some secbats.

So in this case it's a support role against cruisers but an attack role against DDs.

On CLs, there might be potential, but loss of fire chance is not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[GPORT]
Members
182 posts
11,603 battles

For my main ship ( Shinyhorse) I have found that I needed to add the IFHE into my commanders build . As of the update , I started to notice that I was not doing as much damage with the "new armor" stats as before.....but taking more damage because I wasn't knocking out stuff....AA , main guns , torps , etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[APES]
Members
993 posts
6,323 battles

Allow me to post a few 0.9.2 tests of the secondaries in the Training Room. First is Mamie vs Worcester at 10.2km. It took 24 seconds after battle start to engage. Mamie took down Worcester in 172-24=148 seconds with IFHE, and 233-24=209 seconds without. That is 45400/148=306.8 DPS with IFHE, or 217.2 DPS without. The IFHE increased Mamie's secondaries DPS by 41%.

1294984177_MamieTest1vWorcesterIFHE.thumb.png.5147688ec12d2efab4957641cd7deaca.png

344388405_MamieTest2vWorcestersansIFHE.thumb.png.8bc9394e003f39ad0061b56cc2f9c66a.png

Second is Kremlin vs Worcester at 7.5km. It took 68 seconds after battle start to engage. Kremlin took down Worcester in 192-68=124 seconds with IFHE, and 260-68=192 seconds without. That is 45400/124=366.1 DPS with IFHE, or 236.5 DPS without. The IFHE increased Kremlin's secondaries DPS by 55%.

1832897673_KremlTest1vWorcesterIFHE.thumb.png.f99c94c6cdf9e124298573f77ea3d7a9.png

1610478699_KremlTest2vWorcestersansIFHE.thumb.png.0b6629b6abec5ed011f16783282bbcdc.png

Third is Musashi vs Worcester at 9.7km. It took 40 seconds after battle start to engage. Musashi took down Worcester in 259-40=219 seconds with IFHE, and 227-40=187 seconds without. That is 45400/219=207.3 DPS with IFHE, or 242.8 DPS without. The IFHE reduced Musashi's secondaries DPS by 15%.

327857809_MusashiTest1vWorcesterIFHE.thumb.png.895868180b74f6dfe6dccb2690f70439.png

567780619_MusashiTest2vWorcestersansIFHE.thumb.png.bf055d19fff4a62bfefad876fd82b29d.png

Edited by _Marines
grammar and style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
383 posts
4,143 battles

I have only 2 secondary speced BBs, the Scarnhorst and Georgia. On both I never loaded IFHE as I never believed in focusing on dealing damage with secondaries, rather I focused on being able to increase the range of secondaries, and survivability. I have 2 main reasons for this:

1. Your getting shot at a lot if you close the distance as a "fast bb". Being able to heal, disengage and prevent more fires is most important then most offensive strats. As staying alive means more time to fire your main guns on vulnerable targets, and more chances to use the heal to increase your overall "effective health pool" over the entire match. 

2. The most impactful part of secondaries is the physiological effect it has on enemies who are close. Forcing enemies either to run, or to commit and dive. Better secondaries doesn't change these aspects as its neither strong enough to nuke enemies, nor does it change the impact of "extra shells" flying at the enemy every few seconds. In both of these situations range of secondaries and accuracy are more important then overall damage impact, as it forces the player to make a choice "under fire", and thus makes players more prone to making rash decisions due to the stress of being shot at. 

Both ships still will get plenty of free shots and damage into light armor ships at closer ranges, and for larger ships they wont drastically change any engagement due to large health pools. Outside of CQC situations secondaries still wont really do anything and other aspects of the ship become more important, such as main gun characteristics and survivability. As such I wont be adding IFHE on any of my "secondary ships" any-time soon because secondaries are still a secondary ship characteristic, not a defining characteristic like adaptability, survivability and firepower, even tho secondaries could be placed within all three, it only does in specific situations.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[APES]
Members
993 posts
6,323 battles

Recently I also spent a bunch of doubloons to test the secondaries on Vladivostok, the Russian Tier 8 battleship. This is Vlad vs Worcester at 6.4km. It took 76 seconds after battle start to engage. Vlad took down Worcester in 248-76=172 seconds with IFHE, and 287-76=211 seconds without. That is 45400/172=264.0 DPS with IFHE, or 215.2 DPS without. The IFHE increased Vlad's secondaries DPS by 23%.

689013825_VvWorc2IFHE4_08.thumb.png.db6b75d892eccb179d6fb9eaa2ac9f4b.png

1080091335_VvWorc1sansIFHE4_47.thumb.png.4db1f560245be172c7c598e849a20e3d.png

As well as Gascogne: The test is Gascogne vs Worcester at 9.8km. It took 40 seconds after battle start to engage. Gascogne took down Worcester in 299-40=259 seconds with IFHE, and 242-40=202 seconds without. That is 45400/259=175.3 DPS with IFHE, or 224.8 DPS without. The IFHE reduced Gascogne's secondaries DPS by 22%.

The Gascogne, Like Richelieu, has rather high fire chance with her secondaries: 6% and 12%. I guess the the IFHE fire chance reduction makes it not worth it here.

1050396091_gasvworifhe.thumb.png.e0ebc8207898166378e62c0ea2343bbe.png

98189966_gasvworsans-ifhe.thumb.png.9763f826c97ae6ad851374ee8b7e542e.png

Edited by _Marines
grammar and style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[UN1]
Members
1,218 posts
3,659 battles
On 3/26/2020 at 6:54 PM, _Marines said:

Recently I also spent a bunch of doubloons to test the secondaries on Vladivostok, the Russian Tier 8 battleship. This is Vlad vs Worcester at 6.4km. It took 76 seconds after battle start to engage. Vlad took down Worcester in 248-76=172 seconds with IFHE, and 287-76=211 seconds without. That is 45400/172=264.0 DPS with IFHE, or 215.2 DPS without. The IFHE increased Vlad's secondaries DPS by 23%.

689013825_VvWorc2IFHE4_08.thumb.png.db6b75d892eccb179d6fb9eaa2ac9f4b.png

1080091335_VvWorc1sansIFHE4_47.thumb.png.4db1f560245be172c7c598e849a20e3d.png

As well as Gascogne: The test is Gascogne vs Worcester at 9.8km. It took 40 seconds after battle start to engage. Gascogne took down Worcester in 299-40=259 seconds with IFHE, and 242-40=202 seconds without. That is 45400/259=175.3 DPS with IFHE, or 224.8 DPS without. The IFHE reduced Gascogne's secondaries DPS by 22%.

The Gascogne, Like Richelieu, has rather high fire chance with her secondaries: 6% and 12%. I guess the the IFHE fire chance reduction makes it not worth it here.

1050396091_gasvworifhe.thumb.png.e0ebc8207898166378e62c0ea2343bbe.png

98189966_gasvworsans-ifhe.thumb.png.9763f826c97ae6ad851374ee8b7e542e.png

Those are not sufficient sample sizes to tell the true story.  To do that, you need to:

  • Load up the training room with 12x of the same ship.  You can combine the data of all ships by calculating the amount of shells that can be brought to bear on a single target in 60 seconds.  That way, you can take the total amount of shells fired at the end of the test and calculate an accurate time.  The tests take some time, so that way if you walk away and come back to resume the test, you don't mess up your parse.
  • Keep the range consistent between ships.  It's rather pointless to test one ship at 9km and another at 6km because you'll get different results. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[APES]
Members
993 posts
6,323 battles
10 hours ago, Ranari said:

Those are not sufficient sample sizes to tell the true story.  To do that, you need to:

  • Load up the training room with 12x of the same ship.  You can combine the data of all ships by calculating the amount of shells that can be brought to bear on a single target in 60 seconds.  That way, you can take the total amount of shells fired at the end of the test and calculate an accurate time.  The tests take some time, so that way if you walk away and come back to resume the test, you don't mess up your p[edited].
  • Keep the range consistent between ships.  It's rather pointless to test one ship at 9km and another at 6km because you'll get different results. 

I have repeated some of the "against 1 Worcester" tests and the variation is satisfying small. I think it's because the secondaries have to fire a large number of shells to sink each Worcester, making clocked time statistically reliable.

The range are managed to be reasonably close to each ship secondaries' maximum range. I have done range-variated tests with ships like Mamie and Kremlin. When the range gets closer, the secondary shells become concentrated on one piece of Worcester's armor, greatly heighening, thus exaggerating, the effect of IFHE: either reducing the secondaries DPS greatly, or increasing it greatly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[UN1]
Members
1,218 posts
3,659 battles
3 hours ago, _Marines said:

I have repeated some of the "against 1 Worcester" tests and the variation is satisfying small. I think it's because the secondaries have to fire a large number of shells to sink each Worcester, making clocked time statistically reliable.

The range are managed to be reasonably close to each ship secondaries' maximum range. I have done range-variated tests with ships like Mamie and Kremlin. When the range gets closer, the secondary shells become concentrated on one piece of Worcester's armor, greatly heighening, thus exaggerating, the effect of IFHE: either reducing the secondaries DPS greatly, or increasing it greatly.

Any statician will tell you otherwise. You need a larger sample size. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[APES]
Members
993 posts
6,323 battles

Today I tested Alsace in 0.9.3. This time with more target ships: Worcester, Ibuki, and Lion. To compare her damage against the Worcester with the battleships above, at 10.8km. It took 22 seconds after battle start to engage. Alsace took down Worcester in 232-22=210 seconds with IFHE, and 156-22=134 seconds without. That is 45400/210=216.2 DPS with IFHE, or 338.8 DPS without. The IFHE reduced Alsace's secondaries DPS by 36%.

7 minutes ago, _Marines said:

Test 1 versus light cruiser Worcester, without and with IFHE:

794792752_avw1sans-ifhe.thumb.png.c27af7a74e230f2ebb809482732cae4f.png

1913234710_avw2ifhe.thumb.png.d0147ee69ccce9c53ade51b357797aa3.png

Test 2 versus heavy cruiser Ibuki, without and with IFHE:

493548102_avi1sans-ifhe.thumb.png.2d7b916743d4a442caa40912bf052ba4.png

357983369_avi2ifhe.thumb.png.cd8c4ccdfe7c373b613e63d91c0dcbd2.png

Test 3 versus battleship Lion, without and with IFHE:

638250669_avl1sans-ifhe.thumb.png.8c89bd00635918416ccdcd6618618597.png

1106146018_avl2ifhe.thumb.png.1583614894da743f8181826784d077bb.png

Conclusion:

conc.thumb.png.1f2ad4b77efb05ced5a2ccb2911ed26f.png

It looks like Alsace's secondary DPS comes primarily from the 3x3 "152 mm/55 Modèle 1936" guns, not the 100mm guns. The 152 mm guns light up a lot of fire, and the IFHE hurts the fire chance, thus, in aggregation, reduces the overall secondary DPS of the Alsace.

Source of the quote: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/213450-new-ifhe-on-alsace/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[UN1]
Members
1,218 posts
3,659 battles
On 4/9/2020 at 4:03 PM, _Marines said:

Today I tested Alsace in 0.9.3. This time with more target ships: Worcester, Ibuki, and Lion. To compare her damage against the Worcester with the battleships above, at 10.8km. It took 22 seconds after battle start to engage. Alsace took down Worcester in 232-22=210 seconds with IFHE, and 156-22=134 seconds without. That is 45400/210=216.2 DPS with IFHE, or 338.8 DPS without. The IFHE reduced Alsace's secondaries DPS by 36%.

Source of the quote: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/213450-new-ifhe-on-alsace/

The 152mm turrets on the Alsace do the bulk of the work because the turret just behind the superstructure is bugged and has insane accuracy.  I parsed the Alsace again yesterday and the results weren't pretty.  On an array of Amagi's, she used to come out at 19,466dpm prior to the rework.  This is very high, but balanced against the fact that the Alsace is going to lose half of its secondaries even on a lovely day.  Post rework, since her 152mm turrets no longer penetrate 32mm of armor, she's been crippled down to 9,965dpm in the same test.  When you factor in the lack of mount survivability, it's as if she's in T7 territory now. 

The Republique also took a huge hit.  Gascogne next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[APES]
Members
993 posts
6,323 battles
3 hours ago, Ranari said:

[...] the turret just behind the superstructure is bugged and has insane accuracy.

On an array of Amagi's, she used to come out at 19,466dpm prior to the rework. [...] Post rework, since her 152mm turrets no longer penetrate 32mm of armor, she's been crippled down to 9,965dpm in the same test.

Lion and Amagi has identical deck and superstructure armor: 32mm and 19mm respectively. When I tested Alsace's secondaries (no IFHE) against Lion in 0.9.3, she scored 363.1 DPS (21,800 DPM). Today I also tested Alsace's secondaries (no IFHE) against Amagi in 0.9.3, and she scored a 283.3 DPS (17,000 DPM). Amagi's desk is narrower than Lion's. The composition of the damage is the same: mostly from fire.

I have noticed that the said Turret X (as in Alsace's 1-2-3-Superstructure-X-Y-Z configuration) seems more accurate, and each time it fires, the 3 shells tend to have at least 1 that hits. Its accuracy doesn't seem to reach the "bugged" territory in my opinion though, especially if compared to Massachusetts.

1.thumb.jpg.ad3e4474b381a27df3ed1f799c073849.jpg

2.thumb.png.9945db087b8c88af27b4e819e6838b8b.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[UN1]
Members
1,218 posts
3,659 battles
5 hours ago, _Marines said:

Lion and Amagi has identical deck and superstructure armor: 32mm and 19mm respectively. When I tested Alsace's secondaries (no IFHE) against Lion in 0.9.3, she scored 363.1 DPS (21,800 DPM). Today I also tested Alsace's secondaries (no IFHE) against Amagi in 0.9.3, and she scored a 283.3 DPS (17,000 DPM). Amagi's desk is narrower than Lion's. The composition of the damage is the same: mostly from fire.

I have noticed that the said Turret X (as in Alsace's 1-2-3-Superstructure-X-Y-Z configuration) seems more accurate, and each time it fires, the 3 shells tend to have at least 1 that hits. Its accuracy doesn't seem to reach the "bugged" territory in my opinion though, especially if compared to Massachusetts.

1.thumb.jpg.ad3e4474b381a27df3ed1f799c073849.jpg

2.thumb.png.9945db087b8c88af27b4e819e6838b8b.png

 

Are you counting fire into your dps numbers? I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[APES]
Members
993 posts
6,323 battles

Today I spent 1,000 doubloons to test out the IFHE secondaries on Sinop, and here are the results:

0.thumb.png.09d905fe62b562f7c0cd5dd25386530a.png

Generally I think the IFHE bonus on secondaries DPS needs to be at least 25%~30% to be worthwhile. With Sinop, IFHE secondaries aren't worth it.

1 v Wor no ifhe.png

2 v Hel no ifhe.png

3 v Bis no ifhe.png

4 v Dev no ifhe.png

5 v Wor ifhe.png

6 v Hel ifhe.png

7 v Bis ifhe.png

8 v Dev ifhe.png

République. IFHE doesn't seem worth it. It only increases secondary DPS when brawling CLs. But if an CL is potato enough to brawl a République, she will be instantly deleted by those overmatching 17-inch main guns already.

r.thumb.png.7f3feef96fcb25193b3d6fcaaeb79924.png

1188975730_1vWornoifhe.thumb.png.12f55ec6d23b72b83fea523f3ba5c018.png

1073151050_2vMosnoifhe.thumb.png.f9625c982e97938d42df728337d11f9c.png

1800274703_3viowanoifhe.thumb.png.6eea11d20f6bcf98eff277b803c0cee0.png

 

 

 

4 v Wor ifhe.png

5 v Mos ifhe.png

6 v iowa ifhe.png

Edited by _Marines

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.

×