Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
dagger1013

BB SAP needs its bounce angles nerfed, not damage/reload/accuracy

4 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

148
[LSNB]
Members
212 posts
6,513 battles

Tl,dr: Catch-22, either angle and get penned anyways, or get your bow overmatched. Change angles for BB SAP from 70-80 to 60/67.5 and compensate with better sigma and reload.

 

BB SAP is going to be an absolute balance nightmare, solely due to its bounce angles, not its damage, reload, or accuracy.

Lets look at 3 cases:

BB SAP vs T8+ CAs

T7+ BB SAP vs <T8 BBs

T8+ BBs vs T8+ BBs

So, case 1, BB SAP vs T8+ CAs. BB SAP with the bounce angles in development at 70/80 will create a huge power disparity between the US/KM cruisers and all other nations. Currently, they enjoy a small advantage in being able to bow tank 380mm+ AP. However, this advantage is only slight as other nations still have a 27mm upper belt that they can angle to bounce 380s. Here's the issue with BB SAP. Bounce checks don't even start until 70 degrees of impact. Bounces are not guaranteed until 80 degrees. This means that while KM and USN cruisers can just sit bow in and mitigate 90% of incoming SAP damage, other cruisers will be functionally unable to. If they try and angle to bounce the SAP, their bow is going to be exposed, and the SAP just overmatches through. If they try and hide their bow, their upper belt just gets penned even if they angle because of its absurd bounce angles. This creates a massive power gap in cruisers, and will make it extremely difficult to balance the RM BBs. If you adjust them to have a favorable matchup against the KM and US CAs, they will just absolutely dumpster the other cruiser lines. If they get balanced around the other cruiser lines, you will see US, and especially the KM cruisers with their enhanced HE pen just park nose in to a BB and burn them down. Clearly this should not happen.

Case 2, T7+ BB vs <T8 BB is much the same. The <T8 BBs literally cannot angle. Either they get overmatched through the nose, or the enhanced bounce angles rip through their side armor, assuming they don't get overmatched anyways like poor Nagato and Colorado. While you could argue that this should be fine, since it's a tier advantage anyways, T7 already suffers enough when uptiered, and the T7 Francesco Caracciolo already gets access to 381mm guns. It could very well become the next SinOP.

Case 3, T8+ BB vs other T8+ BB. This I feel is the least impactful case, but it still bears mentioning. Having to essentially be perfectly bow on in order to mitigate damage from a ship feels incredibly frustrating. It means that the Italian BBs can get crossfires more easily, as well as set them up easier as opponents have to respect them so much that they end up showing more side to an ally BB, compared to if they were angling against two ships with standard shells.

So what do I propose? I believe that BB SAP should get, at maximum equivalent angles to USN CAs, with bounce checks starting at 60 degrees with guaranteed bounces at 67.5 degrees. This way, they RM BBs can receive in compensation a bit more gunnery reliability with higher sigma, and slightly shortened reloads, like giving reverting VV to 30 from 33, and going from 35 to 33 for Lepanto, and 38 to 35 for Colombo. I feel this would feel better for both parties, those on the receiving end feel like they get more counterplay, while players in the RM BBs can be rewarded more for good aim, positioning, and have better ability to reliably punish mistakes with the better accuracy, and a faster reload means that the gameplay experience is less boring. I feel these angles are more than generous enough to make up for a lack of HE.

Alternatively, maybe we could do all that and give them back some of the absurd damage they initially had if the angles were like those on the Pyotr Bagration, with 55/65, but I do admit at that level the delineation between when to use SAP and when to use AP becomes less clear as the angling required approaches similar amounts.

So, what do you guys think?

Edited by dagger1013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,536
[PSA]
Members
5,114 posts
3,732 battles

Disagree. SAP ships don't have HE. So a sharply angled target would effectively take zero damage. Low damage is better than no damage.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[LSNB]
Members
212 posts
6,513 battles
32 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Disagree. SAP ships don't have HE. So a sharply angled target would effectively take zero damage. Low damage is better than no damage.

That's only true for the cruisers because they lack overmatch. 

The BBs get overmatch, why is why the enhanced angles are such a problem. Either they angle not enough and get penned anyways, or they do angle steeply to bounce the SAP only to have it overmatch their bows. 

The proposed change would mean that ships who get their extremities overmatched have the option to actually angle. I've also proposed compensatory accuracy buffs, so the RM BBs can aim higher and more consistently go for superstructure, and because it's SAP it never overpens, or try and precisely aim for the extremities. 

Against perfectly bow in targets that they already cannot overmatch, the better accuracy and reload means more effective DPM by aiming for the superstructure. 

Edited by dagger1013
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,536
[PSA]
Members
5,114 posts
3,732 battles

Honestly, if it's overmatched, it's overmatched. I'd rather just drop the damage to allow these ships to be able to do some damage. Note that SAP shells that hit main belts or strong upper belts like on German and Russian BBs will still shatter.

Remember that SAP is basically there as a replacement for HE. HE does less damage but can set fires. And it's not like anyone ever took a big HE volley and triple fire from a Conqueror and thought "Glad it's not SAP!"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×