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

0.9.6 Agility Rework Effects - United Kingdom

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

43,496
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,711 posts
10,843 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 definitely not least, @Lert

2aITRgc.pngr0125mi.png

The British and British Commonwealth ships deserve some explanation before we go any further.

Nearly all of the British destroyers and light cruisers have improved energy preservation.  What this means is that at 4/4 engine settings, they accelerate, decelerate and maintain speed during a turn far more than they otherwise should.  Most cruisers can only maintain 80% of their 4/4 speed in a turn, meaning a 32 knot cruiser typically can only maintain about 25.6 knots through a turn.  Not so British Light cruisers, which hold onto anywhere between 97.5% and 98.5% of their 4/4 speed, meaning that same 32 knot ship would turn at 31.4 knots.  Destroyers normally hold onto about 83.5%. Again, British destroyers have the same bonus as British Light Cruisers, holding onto 97.5% and 98.5%. 

When Wargaming normally calculates the in-port value for the turning circle radius, this calculation is done assuming ships bleed speed normally.  If they don't, this in-port calculation is invariably off and does not reflect what the ship actually does at 4/4 engine power.  This was the case for the entire British Light Cruiser line.  As turning radius size increases the faster a ship goes, the values shown in port were too small and did not reflect what these ships would do in game.  It's important to keep in mind that this only applies to the 4/4 engine power setting -- not the 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4 setting.  Then British ships decelerate normally.  I'm still testing reverse speeds, so I can't speak with any authority there.  Check back with me in 2021.

With this in mind, many (most!) of these ships in this list are simply correcting the in-port turning circle radius to reflect what the ship was actually doing in game, not affecting the ship's performance in any way.
 

Spoiler

 

Black Swan, Tier I Cruiser
VPFBpo7.jpg

The Problem:  Turning circle radius did not account for Black Swan's improved engine power.

  • 320m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 351m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 352m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 350m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 347m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

The first of many in-port stat adjustments.

Weymouth, Tier II Cruiser
7BkYjRM.jpg

The Problem:  Turning circle radius did not account for Weymouth's improved engine power.

  • 500m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 557m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 560m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 560m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 556m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

The second of many in-port stat adjustments.

Caledon, Tier III Cruiser
DKwIX3m.jpg

The Problem:  Turning circle radius did not account for Caledon's improved engine power.

  • 530m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 586m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 585m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 580m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 584m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

The third of many in-port stat adjustments.  It's funny that Wargaming didn't round up to 590m like they do so often with these.  It stands out to me as anomalous -- they seem to love rounding up.  Oh well, it's still within +/- 10m I suppose.

Danae, Tier IV Cruiser
MKEm3If.jpg

The Problem:  Turning circle radius did not account for Danae's improved engine power.

  • 540m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 594m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 591m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 590m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 595m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

The fourth of many in-port stat adjustments. 

Emerald, Tier V Cruiser
noVJKf1.jpg

The Problem:  (C&P powers, go!) Turning circle radius did not account for Emerald's improved engine power.

  • 670m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 735m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 736m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 730m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 732m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

The fifth of many in-port stat adjustments. Again, some weird rounding going on here.  I would have labelled this as 740m to maintain consistency seen elsewhere, but oh well.

Iron Duke, Tier V Battleship
iabNGXK.jpg

The Problem:  According to Wargaming, her turning radius in game was too small.

  • 650m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 644m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 635m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming (???)
  • 650m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 641m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Turning speed reduced.  ???

  • NERF - Slight loss in sustained turning speed (from 16.9kts to 16.8kts)

Verdict:  NERFED

The sixth of ... wait.  Right, this isn't a cruiser.

Uh, this one is a head-scratcher.  I'm not even sure anything was done.  Not one of the test rotations managed to squeak out that 0.1 knots that was apparently lost but someone else might turn her in the future and find it didn't go missing (an extra half knot here or there can flip-flop on the UI).  I want to say nothing really changed here.

Leander, Tier VI Cruiser
iUURjfD.jpg

The Problem:  Turning circle radius did not account for Leander's improved engine power.

  • 640m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 715m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 713m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 710m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 714m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

Yeah, more of the same here -- just changing stats in port.

Perth, Tier VI Cruiser
oa8FPYi.jpg

The Problem:  Turning circle radius did not account for Perth's improved engine power.

  • 640m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 703m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 704m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 700m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 701m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

Again, they changed the stats in port and nothing else.

Warspite, Tier VI Battleship
hB9aZDd.jpg

The Problem:  Warspite's bled too much speed in a turn and thus had too large of a turning radius in game.

  • 550m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 567m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 573m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 550m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 547m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method:  Correction made by increasing her turning speed.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (from 570m to 550m)
  • BUFF - Increased her turning speed (from 17.4kts to 17.6kts)
  • BUFF - Increased rate of turn (from 4.7º/s to 5.0º/s)

Verdict:  BUFFED.

Bae-bote got buffed!

Warspite is a dinosaur from the long-long ago.  As best I can tell, she is the last holdover from the OLD agility back in Closed Beta, back when many battleships were more agile than cruisers and some destroyers.  How times have changed.  One of these holdovers was Warspite didn't maintain enough speed in a turn as she should.  Battleships are supposed to turn with 75% of their 4/4 speed.  Warspite sat at 73.7% -- missing the precious 0.2 knots that's now been given back.  This little nudge slipped her into that perfect goldilocks zone where turning radii are at their smallest (between 15 and 20 knots), thus correcting her slight turning radius discrepancy.

Warspite didn't need the buff, but as a self avowed teaboo, I'll take it.

Jervis, Tier VII Destroyer
JMONSIL.jpg

The Problem:  Jervis's turning radius was larger than what she was performing in port.

  • 590m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 601m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 603m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 590m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 587m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (from 600m to 590m)
  • BUFF - Increased rate of turn (from 9.1º/s to 9.3º/s)

Verdict:  BUFFED.

Funny story about the British destroyers -- they've already had their in-port turning radii adjusted once when I brought up this issue back when they were in testing.  Wargaming corrected most of the but I failed to update many of my records (oops).  So when I first saw the changes made, I erroneously thought all of the British DDs were getting mondo-buffed.  But nope, just me and some bad record-keeping.  Boooo!  Anyway, that crisis aside, this change to Jervis is hella subtle, but that extra 0.2º/s rotation is nice.  You probably won't feel this one, even if she is ostensibly buffed.  It's a gain of 0.9s on a 360º turn.  You'd get more of an impact on your reaction time with a strong cup of coffee or a good night's sleep.

Fiji, Tier VII Cruiser
UrDWt7B.jpg

The Problem:  Turning circle radius did not account for Fijis improved engine power.

  • 590m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 665m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 666m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 670m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 664m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

Rejoice in another predictable solution.

Belfast, Tier VII Cruiser
AZIntj0.jpg

The Problem:  Turning circle radius did not account for Belfast's improved engine power.

  • 680m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 737m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 736m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 730m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 736m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

Yeah, I'm going to call it.  730m is the wrong value to assign here.  Belfast's radius should be listed as 740m.

Edinburgh, Tier VIII Cruiser
dztx536.jpg

The Problem:  Turning circle radius did not account for Edinburgh's improved engine power.

  • 680m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 737m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 736m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 730m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 736m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

Again, this should be 740m and not 730m.  I find it interesting to see that Belfast didn't exactly clone Edinburgh's turning performance according to Wargaming (736.26m for Edinburgh vs 736.38m for Belfast).  I'm sure I could discern something interesting out of that difference if I put my mind to it.

Neptune, Tier IX Cruiser
FmCZxyy.jpg

The Problem:  Turning circle radius did not account for Neptune's improved engine power.

  • 710m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 795m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 793m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 790m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 792m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

Only one more cruiser to go!

Lion, Tier IX Battleship
acC9cfx.jpg

The Problem:  Lion's turning a little too sharply.

  • 830m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 820m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 820m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 830m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 822m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius.

  • NERF - Increase in turning radius (from 820m to 830m)

Verdict:  NERFED

They barely moved the needle on this one.  If you've read my follow up post regarding calculating margins of error, the absolutely tiny adjustment Wargaming made here certainly falls under that umbrella.  There's really no way for you to feel this difference at all in game.  It's maybe (MAYBE) a tenth of a second's difference for a 90º turn.

Minotaur, Tier X Cruiser
wO05N01.jpg

The Problem:  In Port Radius too small.  Blah blah blah.

  • 660m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 754m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 754m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 750m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 752m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

Okay, last one.  Nothing out of the ordinary to report.  Let's get onto the Conqueror-class ships.

Conqueror & Thunderer, Tier X Battleships
d1gkWa2.jpg

The Problem:  In Port Radius too small.

  • 820m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 929m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 938m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 940m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 929m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Adjusted in-port turning radius.  Ship performance was not touched.

Verdict:  NO PERFORMANCE CHANGES MADE.

The corrections made here are analogous to but not the same as the British cruisers.  While it is just an in-port data entry correction, kiss your hopes and dreams that these ships were going to be buffed to reflect their in-port stats.  It's totally understandable why.  I don't think anyone could claim with a straight face that Conqueror or Thunderer needed any buffs.  I'm not going to lie, though -- I would have cackled gleefully if they had and cheerfully set more of my fellow players ablaze.  Rule Britannia... ♫

Audacious, Tier X Aircraft Carriers
ANxP7Yl.jpg

The Problem:  Audacious comically lost more than half her speed in a turn.

  • 1040m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  • 1111m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 1123m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 1040m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 1036m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Correction made by increasing sustained turning speed.

  • BUFF - Reduction in turning radius (from 1120m to 1040m)
  • BUFF - Massively increased turning speed (from 14.9kts to 21.4kts
  • BUFF - Massively increased her rate of turn (from 2.1º/s to 3.2º/s)

Verdict:  BUFFED.

So, aircraft carriers are supposed to maintain 66.7% (2/3s) of their 4/4 speed in a turn.  Someone sneezed when entering this value for Audacious -- she only preserved 44.6%.  She held the distinction for being THE WORST turning ship in the game.  Thankfully, she's passed that torch onto Langley and she's now one of the more agile tier X aircraft carriers (that's not a hard feat to accomplish given that they all turn like pigs). 

 

Outstanding Issues

Oh, jeez.  Are these actually outstanding issues?  With Wargaming erring on the super-generous side for British ships, I don't think that anything falling within my +/- 10m range are worth looking at more closely.  I'ma let this one be.

That's it for the British and Commonwealth ships.  Next up:  Soviet Bias and You!

Edited by LittleWhiteMouse
  • Cool 8
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[ARC]
Members
1,077 posts
11,580 battles
28 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

 Lion, Tier IX Battleship
acC9cfx.jpg

The Problem:  Lion's turning a little too sharply.

  • 830m - 0.9.5 Port Turning Radius
  •  820m - 0.9.5 Tested Turning Radius
  • 820m - 0.9.5 Turning Radius according to Wargaming
  • 830m - 0.9.6 Port Turning Radius
  • 822m - 0.9.6 Tested Turning Radius

Method: Correction made by adjusting size of turning radius.

  • NERF - Increase in turning radius (from 920m to 930m)

Verdict:  NERFED

They barely moved the needle on this one.  If you've read my follow up post regarding calculating margins of error, the absolutely tiny adjustment Wargaming made here certainly falls under that umbrella.  There's really no way for you to feel this difference at all in game.  It's maybe (MAYBE) a tenth of a second's difference for a 90º turn.

Mouse, I think there were some typos in your turning circle values...

Otherwise, great job again. Do you know if they test turning circles with the same method as you do? Because that could account for some of the differences shown in the Tested Turning Radius and the Wargaming Turning Radius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43,496
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,711 posts
10,843 battles
34 minutes ago, hanesco said:

Mouse, I think there were some typos in your turning circle values...

Otherwise, great job again. Do you know if they test turning circles with the same method as you do? Because that could account for some of the differences shown in the Tested Turning Radius and the Wargaming Turning Radius

Thank you.  I've been up all night putting this and the German one together, so it's little wonder that there are a few typos.  It took me three tries to spell "putting" right for crying out loud.  It's time to get some sleep.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35,736
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
25,786 posts
21,696 battles
1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Outstanding Issues

The only outstanding issues here are these threads. Every time you issue one it's quite outstanding.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,421
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,878 posts
22,438 battles
24 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

It took me three tries to spell "putting" right for crying out loud.

Did you keep spelling it like the golf version? :cap_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[ARC]
Members
1,077 posts
11,580 battles
2 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Thank you.  I've been up all night putting this and the German one together, so it's little wonder that there are a few typos.  It took me three tries to spell "putting" right for crying out loud.  It's time to get some sleep.

Damn, go take a rest girl. I think you have done enough already to put this up, just don't rush it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×