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

Struggling with getting citadels

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
3,497 posts
5,943 battles

You should have played the game back when they didn't have the dispersion dial turned up to 11.  Hoo boy!  

These days the guns shoot much more like a shotgun than something that is minutely aimed.  Just point in the general direction and let RNG do the rest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
164
[PNP]
Members
493 posts
4,750 battles
20 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Can some one look at this replay and comment as to why citadels are so inconsistent people say shoot at the water line but doing that even at close range has not helped

20200922_000159_PASB012-North-Carolina-1945_47_Sleeping_Giant.wowsreplay

I just watched the replay of you shooting at the Montana at 11-7Km near the end of the match.

I really think you just got screwed by wonky dispersion. Seems like shells were hitting the superstructure or hitting the water killing the shell velocity. Then again, I don't know how low Monty's citadel sits from memory so it could be that as well.

Good thing about the replays is that it tracks player mouse movement too. Your aim looked fine. Probably just RNG screwing you :Smile-angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,545
[WOLF3]
Members
28,794 posts
25,049 battles
16 minutes ago, CommodoreKang said:

You should have played the game back when they didn't have the dispersion dial turned up to 11.  Hoo boy!  

These days the guns shoot much more like a shotgun than something that is minutely aimed.  Just point in the general direction and let RNG do the rest!

North Carolina actually had it's accuracy improved.  She actually received lots of buffs in around 2016 to get her to where she is right now.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Update_0.5.6

A late 2016 thread from the EU forums months after the changes went into effect.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/64454-north-carolina-opinions-post-buff/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
5,943 battles
5 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

North Carolina actually had it's accuracy improved.  She actually received lots of buffs in around 2016 to get her to where she is right now.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Update_0.5.6

A late 2016 thread from the EU forums months after the changes went into effect.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/64454-north-carolina-opinions-post-buff/

 

Yeah I wasn't clear.  I have a conspiracy theory that there's a super secret, dev eyes only dispersion dial that affects all gunnery.  I think that dial has been secretly turned up from 1 at closed beta to over 11 now.

The only ship I'm sure about is the DM though.  But I have to think that's one way they have to counter the power creep behind the scenes on the down low.   And there was a time when cruiser's were pretty darn likely to end up on the bottom if they made any mistakes at all given a well aimed broadside almost always generated citadels.

With the DM, it used to be that if you got real close and could penetrate something, it was going to the bottom.  Now, it is just like a shotgun no matter the range and aim is more of a nice to have than a necessity because god only knows what the dispersion is going to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,545
[WOLF3]
Members
28,794 posts
25,049 battles

I watched your replay, OP.

 

I'm assuming you were primarily wondering about the engagement against Montana at around 06:55 time stamp, range about 11km.

- Your first salvo was too far ahead and a bit high.

- The rest, RNG hated you.  NC is usually better than that, but in that particular fight, RNG hated you.  The dispersion had the shells land either too high in superstructure or splash in the water.

 

At around 12 or 13 minute mark, I know you were scoping out westward, but you panned your view several times and missed a broadside Iowa at about 12km who was trying to flee.  You missed a chance to try and smash him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,545
[WOLF3]
Members
28,794 posts
25,049 battles

If you're not aiming for Citadels, then you're not going to get Citadel hits.

 

The thing with Battleships is you have to be stubborn.  Sometimes things go awry, but eventually, the Battleship will get what's theirs if you stick to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,358 posts
4,615 battles
3 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

North Carolina actually had it's accuracy improved.  She actually received lots of buffs in around 2016 to get her to where she is right now.

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Update_0.5.6

A late 2016 thread from the EU forums months after the changes went into effect.

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/64454-north-carolina-opinions-post-buff/

 

Dear Wargaming, 

                               Please buff Alabama's sigma to 2.1

                                                                                               XOXO,

                                                                                                A Chicken Nugget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,545
[WOLF3]
Members
28,794 posts
25,049 battles
32 minutes ago, Yoshiblue said:

Dear Wargaming, 

                               Please buff Alabama's sigma to 2.1

                                                                                               XOXO,

                                                                                                A Chicken Nugget

The fun thing with NC over in the 2015-2016 era was she needed a lot of buffs.  Amagi, other than big gamewide changes, is pretty much untouched, IIRC.  She's always been alright.  AA always sucked though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,664 posts
42,437 battles

If you are sailing at a ship at full speed then the shells tend to rise up with that speed. So slower speed, less rise. Sail away, fall and similar characteristics with speed. Also target sailing at you dictates rise and sailing away dictates fall.

Sailing wide, you have to make sure the target is not slightly sailing away or at you before taking the shot. Adjust accordingly based on your relative position and speed. 

By understanding relative position and speed of yourself and your target, you will consistently get more citadels RNG be damned.

This has boggled tanks players for 5 years, but none of them asked me, so it's not their fault. 😏

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,027
[HINON]
Members
13,824 posts
6 hours ago, CommodoreKang said:

And there was a time when cruiser's were pretty darn likely to end up on the bottom if they made any mistakes at all given a well aimed broadside almost always generated citadels.

There was a bug early on that gave citadels for any shell that touched the citadel including overpens and bounces. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
343
Members
1,797 posts
5,635 battles

I might join you here once I figure out to enable replays (used to be you had to edit the config files, don’t know now). You’re living my life as a BB driver. I’ve learned you can do solid damage without getting cits...but, damn is it frustrating. That’s doubly true when you and your team work to create crossfire opportunities or the reds misplay. 

I’ve had innumerable perfectly broadside targets hit the rudder after the shells were in the air for sweet WASD hax, it happens. I’ve also had targets commit to a turn or just keep on sailing broadside that are saved (over and over again) by RNG. When you hold up your end, you really feel like you oughta have something to show for it.

I recently acquired Georgia and it is nice when your shells go where aimed with more consistency, that’s for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487
[NSEW]
Members
2,147 posts
11,516 battles
51 minutes ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

If you are sailing at a ship at full speed then the shells tend to rise up with that speed. So slower speed, less rise. Sail away, fall and similar characteristics with speed. Also target sailing at you dictates rise and sailing away dictates fall.

Sailing wide, you have to make sure the target is not slightly sailing away or at you before taking the shot. Adjust accordingly based on your relative position and speed. 

By understanding relative position and speed of yourself and your target, you will consistently get more citadels RNG be damned.

This has boggled tanks players for 5 years, but none of them asked me, so it's not their fault. 😏

Wait a sec, so your own ships speed actually has a direct effect on your outbound shells?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
326
[-TCO-]
[-TCO-]
Members
649 posts
5,718 battles
7 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Can some one look at this replay and comment as to why citadels are so inconsistent people say shoot at the water line but doing that even at close range has not helped

20200922_000159_PASB012-North-Carolina-1945_47_Sleeping_Giant.wowsreplay

See if a clan mate will join you in a training room. Then you can practice without the pressure of incoming fire on stationary, moving and angled targets. It helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,664 posts
42,437 battles
17 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

Wait a sec, so your own ships speed actually has a direct effect on your outbound shells?

 

Yes. Even a turn while firing affects it.

Anything you do whether sailing fast, slow, at, away, turning in, turning out, and the target's own heading, speed, and if it is in the process of turning. 

FYI, most ships lock the turrets when the reticle shows ready to fire. But unlocks when sloughing the turrets and therefore cannot fire until the turrets stop turning.

You typically can tell by zooming in on your ship, move a turret and as it stops, you hear a sound like a thud. That is the lock being enabled.

Typically, it's no easy feat to hit a moving target and that is why plotting rooms, and range finders are used. But the math is hard because you have to calculate the variables I stated above with known gun characteristics, weather (humidity affects air density and creates more drag), the Earth's rotation in relation to your position, and ultimately the moment you fire.

Each variable in real does plague Naval gunnery at some point in history.

The Iowa class Battleships had at the time, the most accurate targeting computer ever. Then radar dialed it in even more. That led to artillery tables showing the adjustments needed based on target practice data of the ship during shakedown. Each ship was unique due to slight variables in barrel manufacturing and wear rates during combat. 

WG duplicates it, or to be more precise (pun intended), tries to simulate the real world with a dice roll and a sigma value for balance.

However, having said that, you can still put a little "English" on the shot if you know the other variables that are part of the gun's physics.

And knowing that will make you a better shooter.

Unless you were born in Texas, then you probably can do it naturally. Sure, Texans will act all surprised, but don't be fooled by the Annie Oakley's or Wyatt Earp's in game or that stream.

They are just messing with you.

And ever since Mathew Quigley went down under, rest assured,  some down under can bring the thunder. 

Anyone, with practice can do this. The key is practice.

Only the best shooters work hard at it. None of this is going to be easy.

Do the work and you will be successful.

Just remember, some pirates are not that innocent. They know how to shoot 😏 .

And some down under might look like they feel bad when they delete you, but they actually don't. They actually love it when they do that. 😏

The Dark Side of BB players is that they actually never feel guilty about catching a ship wide.

Harr harr!:Smile_izmena:

 

 

 

 

Edited by SteelRain_Rifleman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
588
[BOTO]
Members
1,418 posts
17,022 battles
1 hour ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

If you are sailing at a ship at full speed then the shells tend to rise up with that speed. So slower speed, less rise. Sail away, fall and similar characteristics with speed. Also target sailing at you dictates rise and sailing away dictates fall.

Sailing wide, you have to make sure the target is not slightly sailing away or at you before taking the shot. Adjust accordingly based on your relative position and speed. 

By understanding relative position and speed of yourself and your target, you will consistently get more citadels RNG be damned.

This has boggled tanks players for 5 years, but none of them asked me, so it's not their fault. 😏

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  You seem to be implying that shell speed/arc is influenced by the speed of the ship.  Or am I misunderstanding you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,664 posts
42,437 battles
27 minutes ago, Aaron_S_Merrill said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  You seem to be implying that shell speed/arc is influenced by the speed of the ship.  Or am I misunderstanding you?

Trajectory. Move 1 meter per second forward and shoot at an object stationary. If you change that speed then the shell moves that much distance to that difference. In this example, the shell will travel 1 meter per second based on distance if say the target computer tells you that it takes 10 secs to get there. That would be a total of 10 meters assuming that RNG gave you a zero dispersion value that will fly over the target from the point of aim. 

I know, try not to think about it. But I do a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
588
[BOTO]
Members
1,418 posts
17,022 battles
5 minutes ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

Trajectory. Move 1 meter per second forward and shoot at an object stationary. If you change that speed then the shell moves that much distance to that difference. In this example, the shell will travel 1 meter per second based on distance if say the target computer tells you that it takes 10 secs to get there. That would be a total of 10 meters assuming that RNG gave you a zero dispersion value that will fly over the target from the point of aim. 

I know, try not to think about it. But I do a lot. 

Your original post implied something completely different. Your targeting computer takes into account the movements of your own ship, your aim is based on the movements of the ship you're targeting.  You're definitely overthinking this and it's probably affecting your accuracy as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
Members
5,514 posts
10,677 battles
1 hour ago, Mahrs said:

I might join you here once I figure out to enable replays (used to be you had to edit the config files, don’t know now). You’re living my life as a BB driver. I’ve learned you can do solid damage without getting cits...but, damn is it frustrating.

They are enabled by default now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,000
Members
5,514 posts
10,677 battles
9 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Can some one look at this replay and comment as to why citadels are so inconsistent people say shoot at the water line but doing that even at close range has not helped

20200922_000159_PASB012-North-Carolina-1945_47_Sleeping_Giant.wowsreplay

I am going to trust what  the others have said but also note that where to hit for cits differs between ships and even nations.  Some you don't have to aim for the water line because their citadel sits above the water line.  Some it is better if they are in a hard turn toward you as that gets the citadel below the water to above.  German ships can be citadeled pretty easy if you hit the VERY back of the ship - if you go for the side you need to aim higher to avoid belt armor and the Yamato - just under the first turret or between the first and second turret. 

US ships use plunging fire pretty well but you do need to be at range for that.  It was not till recently and I picked up the Izumo that I got more than 5 cits in one game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,664 posts
42,437 battles
23 minutes ago, Aaron_S_Merrill said:

Your original post implied something completely different. Your targeting computer takes into account the movements of your own ship, your aim is based on the movements of the ship you're targeting.  You're definitely overthinking this and it's probably affecting your accuracy as a result.

Hmm, it's actually not unless you think 40% hit rate is not good from downtown.

But I did demonstrate this to another player to help once and it helped them. I used the training room and lined up stationary Battleships for the test. Then I sailed in and out at full, half, and quarter speed to demonstrate the adjustments needed at various ranges. 

Of course the real targets are also moving. So, that also is an adjustment.

Bear in mind, target computer is only calculating the ship you are aiming at but can't predict if it changes heading suddenly or is angled. (There is probably "something" for that, but definitely deemed bad idea by WG). You still have to determine where your point of impact  yourself. 

Try it in the training room yourself. I would do a demo, but I am stuck at work. I don't float home until the afternoon central time zone US.

I don't mind overthinking when most players underthink and can't hit the broadside of a barn while standing in it. 😏😎

Good luck.👍

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
588
[BOTO]
Members
1,418 posts
17,022 battles
18 minutes ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

Hmm, it's actually not unless you think 40% hit rate is not good from downtown.

But I did demonstrate this to another player to help once and it helped them. I used the training room and lined up stationary Battleships for the test. Then I sailed in and out at full, half, and quarter speed to demonstrate the adjustments needed at various ranges. 

Of course the real targets are also moving. So, that also is an adjustment.

Bear in mind, target computer is only calculating the ship you are aiming at but can't predict if it changes heading suddenly or is angled. (There is probably "something" for that, but definitely deemed bad idea by WG). You still have to determine where your point of impact  yourself. 

Try it in the training room yourself. I would do a demo, but I am stuck at work. I don't float home until the afternoon central time zone US.

I don't mind overthinking when most players underthink and can't hit the broadside of a barn while standing in it. 😏😎

Good luck.👍

 

Your hit rate is 24.47%, so I don't know where you're getting 40% from.

I've spent quite a bit of time in the training room, when shooting at a stationary target I simply aim at the section of the ship where I want my shells to hit and.........that's where they hit (given the ships dispersion and RNG of course).

You adjust your aim based on the target's speed and course.  It's that simple.  I know some players use the hash marks on the aiming reticle and in conjunction with the indicated shell flight time based on that information.  I aim intuitively and I know there are a lot of other players (including quite a few much better than I) that do the same.  Either way works, it comes down to personal preference.  Some players, for whatever reason, just aren't good at deflection shooting and never really get the hang of it.  You'll particularly see this when players are trying to hit ships that are kiting away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
421
[CHBK]
Members
1,041 posts
3,938 battles

dude, sometimes I don't know, its just dispersion.  i remember a battle not long ago, in the hood there was a stopped broadside furutaka about 13km out it took me 3 volleys(two 2kish volleys) to finally land a citadel on the 3rd..

First volley was water line, second volley was just below the waterline, 3rd was at that damn upper armor belt and that got me the cit.

The only time I can land "guaranteed" citadels, is on broadside targets 10km or closer.  If you aim slightly below the waterline at that range its practically a guarantee you will get a cit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49
[-TKS-]
Members
271 posts
9,087 battles
46 minutes ago, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

Hmm, it's actually not unless you think 40% hit rate is not good from downtown.

But I did demonstrate this to another player to help once and it helped them. I used the training room and lined up stationary Battleships for the test. Then I sailed in and out at full, half, and quarter speed to demonstrate the adjustments needed at various rAanges. 

Of course the real targets are also moving. So, that also is an adjustment.

Bear in mind, target computer is only calculating the ship you are aiming at but can't predict if it changes heading suddenly or is angled. (There is probably "something" for that, but definitely deemed bad idea by WG). You still have to determine where your point of impact  yourself. 

Try it in the training room yourself. I would do a demo, but I am stuck at work. I don't float home until the afternoon central time zone US.

I don't mind overthinking when most players underthink and can't hit the broadside of a barn while standing in it. 😏😎

Good luck.👍

 

I've heard about this but i'm 99.9% sure that WG hasn't gotten that carried away with in game physics. if this were true a stationary ship should have more accuracy to hit than a moving ship, and i've yet to see any difference in accuracy between moving and stationary. Also if this were true you should be able to get citadels easier on maps with larger waves.

 

i'll 100% agree with you IRL but not in game. I am also not going to disagree you have a better hit % then others but, this game has a ton of RNG in it and some people just have better RNG than others for no particular reason. If you can find a way to prove that there is THAT much physics in the background of the game, in the way of a datamine or WG employee admitting to it, then the rest of the community will take it more than  tinfoil hat conspiracy,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×