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

0.9.6 Agility Rework Effects - USA & Pan America

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,926 posts
11,161 battles

Once upon a time, I asked myself these questions:

On 2/4/2017 at 2:45 PM, LittleWhiteMouse said:

What makes a ship turn fastest?  Is it their turning circle?  Is it their rudder shift time?  Is it their top speed?  These questions need answering. 

These questions have created a project that has been active for over three years.  While these initial questions do have answers now (it's speed -- it's all about the speed), it only raised more questions.  Through investigating and cataloguing ship agility, patterns were discovered and through them, bugs in ship agility came to light.  My findings were passed onto Wargaming as bug reports and have resulted in two waves of major adjustments made.  The most recent of which came with patch 0.9.6 which corrected a lot of erroneous turning circle radii listings in port.  However, this came at a cost -- a cost to which many players may not be aware.

There's a lot of information to unpack with so many ships affected, so I thought it best to address these one nation at a time.

Other Nations:

I would like to thank the following people for assiting with this data collection:

Kuro1047, @Amaruk, @Aken_Bosch, Darksparker17, @razgrizMC, @brucent, @kuningas_arthur, VirtusIcognita, @Ace_Robz, SVlege, @_Sarcasticat_, @Glitchrr36, afriggingprick, @connorpiper, @dashtardly, @X15, kyuurin, TheHamFalls,  Neptune_Lord, Coke_can64, blackberu, drew-42, @Kodama_Prime, Saylor24, Pr0t4t0, llod1701, shadow_of_a_memory, @cmdr_bigdog, @Shrayes_Bhagavatula, @SgtBeltfed

and last and most defintely not least, @Lert

zVKt4id.pnglHOsJQv.png

No other nation was as significantly affected by the 0.9.6 agility rework as the American ships (well, Pan America falls under this umbrella too given the cloning of Nueve de Julio / Boise).  Though Germany's vessels got a lot of attention from the community when the notes were published, they were not the most significantly affected as most of their adjustments were subtle.  The American line has a few subtle changes of their own but many dramatic ones.  On top of this, there are still many problem ships that still need to be addressed.

Adjusted Ships

Spoiler

Phoenix, Tier IV Cruiser
6Rkr9XF.jpg

The Problem:  Phoenix bled too much speed in a turn and her turning radius was too large.

  • 630m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 664m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 666m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 630m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 629m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius and increasing sustained turning speed.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (from 670m to 630m)
  • BUFF - Slight increase in sustained turning speed (from 27.8kts to 28.1kts).
  • BUFF - Significant increase in rate of turn (from 6.4º/s to 6.8º/s)

VERDICT: BUFFED.

This is a nice start.  Phoenix was buffed, shrinking the amount of distance needed to enact a turn while simultaneously reducing the amount of speed lost while under manoeuvres.  Her rate of turn received a significant buff.  Phoenix bled a little too much speed previously -- not enough to be concerning.  However, the increase in speed brings her more closely in line with other cruisers.  These changes give her the agility she was originally intended to have.  Phoenix is now both faster and more agile.

Arkansas Beta, Tier IV Battleship
bL7y3eF.jpg

The Problem:  I have no freakin' clue.  Wargaming appears to be making stuff up.

  • 590m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 586m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 575m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming (uh... no.)
  • 590m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 586m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius (hey look, nothing's different)

Method:  ???

Verdict:  A MYSTERY FOR THE AGES!

I have no idea why Arkansas Beta was on this list in the first place, nor am I aware of anything changing. 

Langley, Tier IV Aircraft Carrier
ediIizL.jpg

The Problem:  Langley was too fast (ha!).

  • 730m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 688m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 700m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 730m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 726m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by reducing sustained turning speed.

  • NERF - Increase in turning circle radius (from 690m to 730m).
  • NERF - Reduction in sustained turning speed (from 10.7kts to 10.1kts)
  • NERF - Reduction in rate of turn (from 2.4º/s to 2.1º/s)

Verdict: NERFED.

She is THE least agile ship in the game, being both slow and having horrid handling.  Nothing else in the game even gets close.  Interestingly, what amounts to a small adjustment to her sustained turning speed was enough to balloon her radius up to the desired level.  Previously, Langley held too much speed in a turn, maintaining 71% of her 4/4 turning speed (most carriers hold about 67%).  The changes made have brought her into line with other CVs in the game.  But this also illustrate how the turning radius of ships increases enormously at very slow speeds (below 15 knots).

New York, Tier V Battleship
AM35KbG.jpg

The Problem:  Though I hesitate to call it a problem, New York had improved energy preservation in a turn.

  • 600m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 641m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 557m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming (They're making stuff up, there is absolutely no freakin' way.)
  • 600m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 598m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by reducing sustained turning speed.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (640m to 600m)
  • NERF - Significant loss of sustained turning speed (from 18.4kts to 15.8kts)
  • NERF - Loss in rate of turn (from 4.4º/s to 4.1º/s)

Verdict:  NERFED

While they did correct her turning radius to it's as-advertised value in port, she lost the improved energy preservation she enjoyed previously which was what was causing her ballooned turning radius in the first place.  Rather than simply correct the value as they did with the British light cruisers, Wargaming instead elected to axe this bonus she enjoyed.  Though she needs less space to come about, this wasn't enough of a reduction to preserve her rate of turn.  Overall, the ship is much slower and more cumbersome than it was.  This is a real shame and the first of many USN battleships to be adversely affected by patch 0.9.6.

Did New York really need to be nerfed?

Texas, Tier V Battleship
qOidEpf.jpg

The Problem:  Like New York, Texas had improved energy preservation in a turn.

  • 600m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 647m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 648m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 650m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 642m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by increasing turning radius listing in port but not changing the ship's performance in any way.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE

Texas dodged a bullet.  As you'll see, the other mid-tier American battleships got their agility butchered.  She alone survives with her original agility values intact.  Like Warspite, she has become a dinosaur, with advantages grandfathered in.  Battleships normally turn at 75% of their 4/4 speed which for Texas should have put her at about 15.4kts in a sustained turn.  Instead, she preserves 91% of her 4/4 speed, allowing her to turn at 18.7kts.  This not only means that Texas isn't as slow as her 20.5 knot top speed would otherwise suggest, but she enjoys an increased rate of turn too making her surprisingly nimble.  With the changes made in patch 0.9.6, Texas is far and away better than New York where once it might have been open for debate.

So now we have another premium that is better than it's tech tree equivalent.

New Mexico, Tier VI Battleship
MxUL2Ni.jpg

The Problem:  New Mexico famously had improved energy retention.

  • 640m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 684m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 599m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming (I can't even...)
  • 640m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius (erroneously reported as 600m in the patch notes)
  • 635m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by reducing sustained turning speed.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (690m to 640m)
  • NERF - Significant loss of sustained turning speed (from 18.4kts to 15.9kts)
  • NERF - Loss in rate of turn (from 4.1º/s to 3.9º/s)

Verdict:  NERFED

This is the second casualty from the American battleship line.  Wargaming axed the sustained turning speed bonus New Mexico enjoyed.   While needing less space to come about is nice, it's not worth the loss of speed on an already ponderous ship.  One of the side effects here is that she handles little better than Arizona which is now hands-down the better ship just like Texas is to New York.  I find this very frustrating as this was one of the more interesting features of the American Standard-Type battleships.  I am sorry to see this trait go.

This is foreshadowing for what's about to happen to Colorado.

New Orleans, Tier VII Cruiser
f399pf9.jpg

The Problem:  Her turning radius was slightly too large.

  • 660m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 668m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 671m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 660m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 658m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (from 670m to 660m)
  • BUFF - Slight increase of rate of turn (from 6.0º/s to 6.1º/s)

Verdict:  BUFFED.

A nice little improvement for New Orleans.  It's too subtle for you to feel in game, though.  But still, it's nice to get this squared away.  the shrinking of her turning circle radius without affecting her speed resulted in the increased rate of turn.

Boise and Nueve de Julio, Tier VII Cruisers
yqa6nmU.jpg

The Problem:  Someone sneezed while entering her turning circle radius data.

  • 690m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 806m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius (jeebus)
  • 813m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 690m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 686m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius.

  • BUFF - Massive reduction in turning radius (from 810m to 690m)
  • BUFF - Massive increase of rate of turn (from 4.6º/s to 5.4º/s)

Verdict:  BUFFED.

Both Boise and Nueve de Julio were significantly buffed and are easily the biggest winners of this update.  This was one of those cases where Wargaming sold a premium ship that did not perform as advertised -- Boise and Nueve de Julio's agility was downright appalling before.  It's not "good" now, being such slow cruisers, but at least they no longer turn as badly as a battleship.  This has now been corrected.  Boise wasn't even mentioned in the 0.9.6 patch notes but the two ships are effectively clones of one another, performance wise so thankfully what was applied to one applied to the other.  Both ships were tested independently for these results, just to be sure, and they're both a-okay. 

It's interesting to note this is the second time these ships have had their agility changed since their release.

Colorado, Tier VII Battleship
1YF99nd.jpg

The Problem:  I can't believe I'm saying this:  Colorado was too fast.

  • 640m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 713m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 604m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming (How are they so far off with the American Standards?)
  • 640m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius (erroneously reported as 610m in the patch notes)
  • 633m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by reducing sustained turning speed.

  • BUFF - Significant reduction in turning radius (710m to 640m)
  • NERF - Massive loss of sustained turning speed (from 19.2kts to 15.9kts)
  • NERF - Loss in rate of turn (from 4.1º/s to 3.9º/s)

Verdict:  NERFED

I guess California got indirectly buffed, what with the tech-tree American Standard-Type battleships getting their faces kicked in.  The cynic in me says this was implemented so that adjusting the speed Vermont, Minnesota and Kansas won't be considered.  Simultaneously, this also increases the power level of the Standard-Type premiums, if only by reducing the disparity between them and their tech-tree counterparts.  Needless to say, Colorado is a hell of a lot slower now.  I am very, VERY disappointed to see this go into effect.  She did not need this nerf.

Baltimore, Tier VIII Cruiser
7zVce4d.jpg

The Problem: Her turning radius was slightly too large.

  • 730m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 741m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 744m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 730m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 726m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (from 750m to 730m)
  • BUFF - Increase of rate of turn (from 5.4º/s to 5.5º/s)

Verdict:  BUFFED.

Like New Orleans, this is a happy little change.  The difference here is still subtle, but more sizable than what occurred with New Orleans, so you may have noticed Baltimore has a bit more wiggle in her tush.  It's nice to see this error corrected.  A good ship just got slightly better.

Alabama (and Alabama ST), Tier VIII Battleships
ngsgXhs.jpg

The Problem:  Their turning radii were slightly too large.

  • 710m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 719m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 725m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 710m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 703m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (from 720m to 710m)
  • BUFF - Increase of rate of turn (from 4.4º/s to 4.5º/s)

Verdict:  BUFFED.

This is again a small correction, bringing ships with slightly misaligned turning radius performance back to what the port says they should be able to do.  This makes Alabama as nimble as Massachusetts which didn't have this bug.  Lert helped test Alabama ST independently and confirmed this change was applied to her too.

Fletcher, Tier IX Destroyer
A3tGGDz.jpg

The Problem:  Her turning radius was too large.

  • 560m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 567m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 573m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 560m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 557m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (from 570m to 560m)
  • BUFF - Increase of rate of turn (from 8.3º/s to 8.5º/s)

Verdict:  BUFFED.

Again, another small adjustment like New Orleans, Baltimore and Alabama.  A good ship got even better, though you'll hardly tell the difference.  I checked Chung Mu, Black and Kidd to see if these changes were carried over to the other Fletcher-class destroyers in game but there was no difference from their previous performance statistics, so this change only affected Fletcher herself.

Iowa, Tier IX Battleship
YvlL96o.jpg

The Problem:  Iowa is too slow and her turning radius is too large.

  • 920m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 1011m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 1010m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 920m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 914m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius and reducing speed slightly.

  • BUFF - Massive reduction in turning radius (from 1020m to 920m)
  • BUFF - Increase of rate of turn (from 3.5º/s to 3.9º/s)
  • NERF - Loss of sustained turning speed (from 23.2kts to 22.9kts)

Verdict:  BUFFED.

Iowa remains a problem ship, but at least Wargaming is chipping away at her chronic agility problems.  The correction of her turning circle radius is most welcome.  While it wasn't as bad as some of the other ships that needed addressing, this makes for a quite sizable change.  But make no mistake, Iowa is still a lame-duck.  Her agility should be much better than it is currently as she bleeds far too much speed in a turn.  Battleships normally turn at 75% of their 4/4 speed.  Iowa turns at 69% (nice).  Thus, she should be coming about at about 24.8kts instead of the 22.9kts she's managing now.  Were Wargaming to correct this while maintaining her current turning radius, her rate of turn would increase to 4.1º/s -- a massive (for a battleship) 0.6º/s increase over her original 0.9.5 stat. 

Missouri, Tier IX Battleship
76uf8O3.jpg

The Problem:  To perhaps the surprise of no one, Missouri inherited Iowa's issues with her slow turning speed and overly large turning radius.

  • 920m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 997m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 994m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 990m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 986m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by increasing turning radius listing in port and reducing her speed.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (from 1000m to 990m)
  • NERF - Loss of sustained turning speed (from 23.8kts to 23.6kts)

Verdict:  NO APPRECIABLE PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE

I'm inclined to call this one a nerf, but admittedly no one is going to feel these changes.  On paper it appears that Missouri getting boned, losing her 920m radius and instead being shackled with a 990m radius, but she actually had worse than that previously.   Like Iowa, Missouri has issues.  She's too slow, turning at 71% of 4/4 speed instead of 75% which would give her that same 24.8kt floor from which to come about.  Had this been corrected while maintaining her 990m turning radius, she would have ended up with a 3.9º/s rotation rate instead of the 3.7º/s rate of turn she's stuck with now.  At least Iowa has something going for her over Mo, though it's not enough to dethrone this ship from being the powerhouse that it is.

Des Moines, Tier X Cruiser
G1jmoVs.jpg

The Problem:  Twofold.  Her turning radius was slightly too large.  Additionally, her Legendary Upgrade preserved way too much speed in a turn.

  • 770m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius (Base Ship)
  • 777m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius (Base Ship)
  • 865m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius (Legendary Upgrade)
  • 782m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming (Base Ship)
  • 770m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 767m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius and removing energy preservation bonus for Legendary Upgrade.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (from 780m to 770m)
  • BUFF - Increased rate of turn (from 5.2º/s to 5.3º/s)
     
  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius for Legendary Upgrade (from 870m to 770m)
  • NERF - Massive loss of sustained turning speed for Legendary Upgrade (from 31.4kts to 26.4kts)
  • NERF - Reduced rate of turn for Legendary Upgrade (from 5.6º/s to 5.3º/s)

Verdict:  BUFFED (Base Ship) / NERFED (Legendary Upgrade).

Let me be clear:  Des Moines herself wasn't nerfed but her Legendary Upgrade was and to an enormous degree.  If you were only playing Des Moines because of her legendary upgrade, then your ship got hit really, really hard.  The upgrade used to allow Des Moines to preserve 95% of her turning speed instead of the 80% cruisers normally have.  This gave her near British-cruiser levels of agility with the upgrade installed.  It's important to note that the increased turning radius with the upgrade was normal -- increases in speed always balloon the size of turning radii at speeds greater than 20kts. 

Montana, Tier X Battleship
6bzahJX.jpg

The Problem: Montana's turning radius was way too large and the ship too slow.

  • 950m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 1020m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 1026m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming (uh... no.)
  • 950m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 940m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius and reducing speed slightly.

  • BUFF - Massive reduction in turning radius (from 1020m to 950m)
  • BUFF - Slightly increase of rate of turn (from 3.3º/s to 3.4º/s)
  • NERF - Loss of sustained turning speed (from 22kts to 21kts)

Verdict:  BUFFED.

Iowa's cursed pedigree carries over to Montana and the tier X battleship suffers from the same problems.  Though Wargaming corrected her turning circle radius, Montana is painfully slow for a battleship, maintaining only 70% of the 75% 4/4 speed she should through a turn.  If she kept her 950m turning radius and managed her 24kt speed she should, she'd have a rate of turn of 3.9º/s.  So Montana isn't fixed.  Not yet.  She's still far too slow while under manoeuvres.  We're getting there, though.

Midway, Tier X Aircraft Carrier
FVeTUg6.jpg

The Problem:  Her functional turning radius was waaaaay too small.

  • 1230m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 830m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 836m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming (uh... no.)
  • 1230m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 1223m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius and slightly reducing her turning speed.

  • NERF - Massive increase in turning radius (from 830m to 1230m)
  • NERF - Loss of sustained turning speed (from 22.2kts to 22kts)
  • NERF - Massive reduction in rate of turn (from 4.1º/s to 2.8º/s)

Verdict:  NERFED

BWAHAHAHA.  Midway got schooled HARD.  Her performance in game was so far off from what she should have been doing.  She's had her agility reined in.

Outstanding Issues

According to Wargaming, only the British light cruisers and destroyers are intended to have any form of energy preservation going forward.  For the American line, this necessitates addressing the following ships, including nerfing Texas.  This may seem like a long list, but the American line is one of the oldest in the game so it's filled with more problems than most because standardization was not yet present when they were implemented.  These problems carry over onto their sister ships in the case of premiums.
 

Spoiler

 

Chester, Tier II Cruiser (needs to be BUFFED.)
5gg3lo6.jpg

Problem:  Loses too much speed in a turn.

  • Should turn at about 19.4kts instead of 19kts.
  • Turning radius appears to be 470m instead of 460m.
  • Rate of turn would increase from 6.2º/s to 6.5º/s.

Albany, Tier II Cruiser (needs to be NERFED.)
9KpaHas.jpg

Problem:  Preserves too much speed in a turn.

  • Should turn at about 16.1kts instead of 16.5kts
  • Rate of turn would decrease from 7.1º/s to 6.9º/s

Texas, Tier V Battleship (needs to be NERFED.)
Hk5lTRj.jpg

Problem: Preserves too much speed in a turn.

  • Should turn at about 15.4kts instead of 18.7kts.
  • Rate of turn would decrease from 4.5º/s to 3.6º/s.

Sims, Tier VII Destroyer (needs to be BUFFED.)
2OSwlus.jpg

Problem:  Turning radius too large and loses too much speed in a turn.

  • Should turn at about 30.9kts instead of30.1kts.
  • Turning radius is 510m instead of 500m.
  • Rate of turn would increase from 9.2º/s to 9.5º/s

Cleveland, Tier VIII Cruiser (needs to be BUFFED.)
2zAXaoH.jpg

Problem:  Loses too much speed in a turn.

  • Should turn at about 26.1kts but just manages 25.1kts.
  • Rate of turn would increase from 5.8º/s to 6.1º/s.

Azur Lane Montpelier, Tier VIII Cruiser (needs to be BUFFED.)
AX1eKDR.jpg

Problem:  Loses too much speed in a turn.

  • Should turn at about 26.1kts but just manages 25.1kts.
  • Rate of turn would increase from 5.8º/s to 6.1º/s.

Black, Tier IX Destroyer (needs to be NERFED.)
zOjkFNN.jpg

Problem:  Preserves too much speed in a turn.

  • Should turn at about 29.3kts instead of 30.3kts.
  • Rate of turn would decrease from 8.4º/s to 8.1º/s

Iowa, Tier IX Battleship (needs to be BUFFED.)
jFFgkTy.jpg

Problem:  Loses too much speed in a turn.

  • Should turn at about 24.8kts but just manages 22.9kts. 
  • Rate of turn would increase from 3.9º/s to 4.1º/s.

Missouri, Tier IX Battleship (needs to be BUFFED.)
ph1OUXn.jpg

Problem:  Loses too much speed in a turn.

  • Should turn at about 24.8kts but just manages 23.6kts. 
  • Rate of turn would increase from 3.7º/s to 3.9º/s.

Montana, Tier X Battleship (needs to be BUFFED.)
WswAuFD.jpg

Problem:  Loses too much speed in a turn.

  • Should turn at about 24kts but just manages 21kts. 
  • Rate of turn would increase from 3.4º/s to 3.9º/s

In addition, Wargaming should double check the turn radius of the following ships:  Clemson, Nicholas, Farragut, Pensacola, Atlanta, Flint, Benson and Seattle.  Given the patterns seen so far, their turning radii all appear to be 10m too big.

 

Alright, this concludes the closer look at how the American ships had their agility changed with patch 0.9.6.  As one of the few lines other than the British that had a glut of ships with improved energy preservation, they were hit quite hard.  I reiterate how disappointing it is to see Wargaming nerf the American Standard Types so heavily, especially on the eve of the new American battleship line being released.  I am not overly optimistic looking forward.

Edited by LittleWhiteMouse
  • Cool 15
  • Thanks 11
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,181
[ARGSY]
Members
25,226 posts
19,224 battles
6 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Alabama (and Alabama ST), Tier VII Battleships

Typo. Should be VIII.

7 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

She's had her agility reigned in.

Typo. Should be "reined-in" (as the term originally relates to horses).

If I'm trying to turn to avoid torpedoes, and I want them to cross ahead of me instead of clipping my bow, isn't bleeding off speed a desirable trait?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,763
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts

Does that mean that the USN BBs that have improved energy retention all lost or will lose their improved energy retention?  Or am I not getting something? 

Any effects on Wyoming and South Carolina? 

Given how much the "standards" suffer from their slow max speeds, the ability to retain a bit more of that speed in a turn was a crucial offset, and it's just strange that WG thinks removing that from these ships is a good idea or necessary change. 

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,013
[WOLFG]
Members
13,273 posts
12,586 battles

I keep thinking I should grind the Colorado.

I keep finding reasons not to grind the Colorado.

  • Funny 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,926 posts
11,161 battles
10 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Typo. Should be VIII.

Typo. Should be "reined-in" (as the term originally relates to horses).

If I'm trying to turn to avoid torpedoes, and I want them to cross ahead of me instead of clipping my bow, isn't bleeding off speed a desirable trait?

Thanks for those!

If you want to turn to avoid torpedoes, what you want most is rate of turn, followed by a smaller turning radius.  The former will change your heading faster, allowing you to navigate in between the runs of the fish.  The latter means you can do so in less space.  I have not spent time checking deceleration rates of ships, so I couldn't tell you if some ships slow down faster than others (I imagine they do, but I couldn't tell you which ones and by how much).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,926 posts
11,161 battles
11 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Does that mean that the USN BBs that have improved energy retention all lost or will lose their improved energy retention?  Or am I not getting something? 

Any effects on Wyoming and South Carolina? 

Given how much the "standards" suffer from their slow max speeds, the ability to retain a bit more of that speed in a turn was a crucial offset, and it's just strange that WG thinks removing that from these ships is a good idea or necessary change.

New York, Texas, New Mexico and Colorado all had improved energy retention.  They all lost it except for Texas.
Iowa, Missouri and Montana all have worse energy retention than they should.  Wargaming needs to buff them.

Wyoming and South Carolina were unaffected.  North Carolina also wasn't changed.

And you're absolutely correct about the retention of that speed being a huge boon.  It increased their overall average speed over the course of a match.  Now they'll be that much slower overall.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
810 posts
10,893 battles
12 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

If I'm trying to turn to avoid torpedoes, and I want them to cross ahead of me instead of clipping my bow, isn't bleeding off speed a desirable trait?

No, since you can lose speed by going full reverse regardless and it's equally likely that you will want to retain speed so that torpedoes go behind you instead of hitting you in the butt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18,181
[ARGSY]
Members
25,226 posts
19,224 battles
5 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

New York, Texas, New Mexico and Colorado all had improved energy retention.  They all lost it except for Texas.

Odd. My New Mex didn't FEEL any different when I took her out on the weekend. Neither did the Colorado, for that matter. Maybe because I'm so used to them waddling along somewhere in the trail of my children's pet tortoises. 

The other time I want to go slower around the corner is when I'm turning in the vicinity of islands. It can save me from barging into things.

7 minutes ago, WernerHerzdog said:

No, since you can lose speed by going full reverse regardless and it's equally likely that you will want to retain speed so that torpedoes go behind you instead of hitting you in the butt.

The American standards are so slow that accelerating out of the spread is a less likely thing, IMHO, than throwing on a hard turn to bleed off speed and let a spread pass ahead of me. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,148
[A-I-M]
Members
4,084 posts
15,213 battles
20 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Typo. Should be VIII.

Typo. Should be "reined-in" (as the term originally relates to horses).

If I'm trying to turn to avoid torpedoes, and I want them to cross ahead of me instead of clipping my bow, isn't bleeding off speed a desirable trait?

And if you’re trying to kick your tail out and away to avoid torpedoes headed for your aft, it’s not. The problem is you can always throttle down to get rid of speed, but you can’t always find more speed.

 

A “buff” that takes speed away is dubious as a “buff.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,253
[PISD]
Members
1,999 posts
6,619 battles

So basically the old standard will be even less agile while the fast battleship will be even more agile. I am all in for normalization of parameters, but it seems like buffing ships that did not need it (Alabama, Baltimore, Des Moines, Boise, Montana) while nerfing  ships that needed some love (Colorado and the other standard). Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,108
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
21,338 battles
42 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Once upon a time, I asked myself these questions:

Was the tier 9 Pan-Asian DD Chung Mu affected by the Fletcher changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
810 posts
10,893 battles
9 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

The American standards are so slow that accelerating out of the spread is a less likely thing, IMHO, than throwing on a hard turn to bleed off speed and let a spread pass ahead of me. 

It doesn't matter how fast you are. Even if you're stopped it's equally likely that a torpedo will hit you in the front as in the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,926 posts
11,161 battles
1 minute ago, Umikami said:

Was the tier 9 Pan-Asian DD Chung Mu affected by the Fletcher changes?

She was not.  Neither was Black or Kidd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
242 posts
2,836 battles

This doesn’t really make sense. Why are they getting nerfed? The turning is the only good aspect of the maneuverability.
Hopefully these changes won’t be drastic. Playing the T5 French BB, which had terrible energy retention(max speed 21 knots) pissed me off so much. What a slug.

edit: talking about dreadnought USN BBs, oops 

Edited by 457th_FighterGroup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,926 posts
11,161 battles
Just now, 457th_FighterGroup said:

This doesn’t really make sense. Why are they getting nerfed? The turning is the only good aspect of the maneuverability.
Hopefully these changes won’t be drastic. Playing the T5 French BB, which had terrible energy retention(max speed 21 knots) pissed me off so much. What a slug.

These changes are already implemented.  They were applied last patch (0.9.6 - we're now in 0.9.7).  I held off on publishing my findings because Wargaming told me there were some mistakes they were aware of and I was led to believe corrections would be coming.  That doesn't appear to be the case, so I'm going ahead and sharing what I've learned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,108
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
21,338 battles
2 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

She was not.  Neither was Black or Kidd.

Thank you for all your work, and the prompt answer; you're the best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
242 posts
2,836 battles
3 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

These changes are already implemented.  They were applied last patch (0.9.6 - we're now in 0.9.7).  I held off on publishing my findings because Wargaming told me there were some mistakes they were aware of and I was led to believe corrections would be coming.  That doesn't appear to be the case, so I'm going ahead and sharing what I've learned.

Ya whoops I didn’t read your stuff correctly. Glad my Texas wasn’t affected but RIP to the other ships, especially CO. Poor thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,411
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead
16,487 posts
4,774 battles
24 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

These changes are already implemented.  They were applied last patch (0.9.6 - we're now in 0.9.7).  I held off on publishing my findings because Wargaming told me there were some mistakes they were aware of and I was led to believe corrections would be coming.  That doesn't appear to be the case, so I'm going ahead and sharing what I've learned.

Glad you did.  More coming?

BTW, I put a link to this evaluation in the wiki 0.9.6 release notes.

Edited by iDuckman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,926 posts
11,161 battles
17 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

Glad you did.  More coming?

BTW, I put a link to this evaluation in the wiki 0.9.6 release notes.

Yes, I'll do them all.  Germany next since it got so much bad press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[GLF]
Beta Testers
773 posts
52 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Thank you for all your work, and the prompt answer; you're the best!

^^^ this in spades!

and I would insert "hard" between 'your' and 'work'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,182
[WOLF5]
Supertester
5,233 posts
4,348 battles

And here I thought the USN standard BB speed retention in turns was intended, as a way to make up for their lack of straight line speed.:Smile_amazed: Nope, the only thing they had going for them was a bug:Smile_facepalm:

Though to be fair the writing was on the wall with CA not having it. I really think they should have left that speed retention in for all USN standards. It made them quite nimble (hah) for dodging torps when combined with the low length to beam ratio for a small turning circle. I get they wanted to standardize things, but I don't think anyone could argue USN BBs needed a nerf. This is a bug that IMO should have been left as a feature.

The other question is why are the turning rates and circles so bugged? Seems like a rather fundamental thing that shouldn't be unknown. Just strange that something like that has to be figured out by the community.

As always, great work Mouse:Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303
[GLF]
Members
1,186 posts
18,991 battles
1 hour ago, DrHolmes52 said:

I keep thinking I should grind the Colorado.

I keep finding reasons not to grind the Colorado.

Colo still plays just fine as long as T9 ships don't shoot at you. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[ARC]
Members
1,079 posts
11,708 battles
36 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

And here I thought the USN standard BB speed retention in turns was intended, as a way to make up for their lack of straight line speed.:Smile_amazed: Nope, the only thing they had going for them was a bug:Smile_facepalm:

Though to be fair the writing was on the wall with CA not having it. I really think they should have left that speed retention in for all USN standards. It made them quite nimble (hah) for dodging torps when combined with the low length to beam ratio for a small turning circle. I get they wanted to standardize things, but I don't think anyone could argue USN BBs needed a nerf. This is a bug that IMO should have been left as a feature.

The other question is why are the turning rates and circles so bugged? Seems like a rather fundamental thing that shouldn't be unknown. Just strange that something like that has to be figured out by the community.

As always, great work Mouse:Smile_great:

I found it strange WG did not promote their US BBs that way, so that was the reason...well, at least the option remains for them to buff those ships (willful thinking, I know...)

 

About the bug in turning circles, it seems the Ui doesn't show the turning circle calculated by the game, but it seems is just a display value. If WG try to tweak something even before the ship going into supertest hands, then the UI value will never be consistent enough. 

Thank you for your work Mouse, good to see you back on form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,763
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Yes, I'll do them all.  Germany next since it got so much bad press.

I've got plenty of German ships I can voluntwirl when you do. 

Spoiler
  • Karls
  • Konigsberg
  • Nurnberg
  • Graf Spee and HSF Graf Spee (long story)
  • Yorck
  • Hipper
  • Prinz Eugen
  • Agir
  • (Could move up re-adding Roon on my schedule.
  • Hindenburg
  • Konig
  • Bayern
  • Gneisenau
  • Scharnhorst and B (for Narai)
  • Tirpitz and B (lucky crate) 
  • Odin
  • FDG
  • Grosser Kurfurst 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×