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

AP vs HE & Fire Mechanics.. help me understand this nonsense

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,986
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,856 posts
12,340 battles

Tested by firing a single HE volley from one turret in a destroyer at an AFK BB from 7km range (nearly max for that IJN DD). Fired one at a time until a fire was ignited.

 

Ceased firing after fire was lit. Waited for fire to run its course before torpedoing the BB down.

 

Stats at the end showed the fire did 9.2k damage.

 

Repeated test this time driving a BB. Hit another BB with a single turret of HE and the fire was lit... then switched to AP (he was near full health being hit by one torpedo so he had apparently used his repair to stop flooding). Fire ran its course, total damage in the end was 8k (probably he had fire fighting damage control gear and capt skill).

 

Now, the thing is, an AP round hitting a battleship in a non-magazine/citadel on average does 1k to 2k damage. The average HE shell from same BB does also 1k to 2k damage but does not strike citadels nearly as often.

 

HE from cruisers also hits for 600 to 1.2k damage on a BB. Fire damage not included.

 

So... I wonder what WG is thinking with this kind of setup? If a DD with a single HE fire can hurt it far more than its guns possibly could... considering that its gun caliber would never penetrate a BB's armor and that a high explosive round striking said armor would not 'burn' the ship at all... why is this being allowed?

 

Should it not be:


AP have high penetration and high chance of citadel/magazine detonation on armored targets but high chance of overpenetration/low damage on low armor targets (CA's, DD's).

HE only causing fires if the round penetrates, HE having high chance of destroying AA mounts and soft armored components like torpedo tubes

 

?

 

This would make DD's only able to hurt BB's with torpedoes (as it should be), CA's only able to hurt BB's with AP at close range (under 7km avg).. both can wreck a BB's AA and other soft components with HE. Likewise BB's would do almost nothing to DD's and CA's with AP but hurt them with HE (the round switching with a 20+  second reload is the balancing act) and BB's would only hurt other BB's with HE IF their gun caliber is much bigger than their opponents armor (aka 2 tier higher BB vs lower tier BB).

 

On the plus side, CA's and DD's can HE a BB to wilt its AA defenses down from range so the carrier can take it down easier.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5 posts
1,418 battles

I'm neither a game developer nor a historian, but as a player I think fire at the moment is very strong. 4 fires can do about... 1,000 per second? Your repair goes off for what, 2 minutes? So you have 30 seconds to kill the CA before you burn down for unholy amounts of damage. If RNG screws you over on a great shot, you're dead, and if your aim isn't incredible, you're dead.

 

To me fire just seems like the "surefire" (hue) for CAs atm, there seems to be absolutely no reason for them to use AP.

 

That's my opinion on the current state, and as for your supposition, I believe that's how the system should be, but atm they seem to just pour kerosene on the decks of battleships and light it up like a bonfire.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
2,485 posts
977 battles

 

This would make DD's only able to hurt BB's with torpedoes (as it should be), CA's only able to hurt BB's with AP at close range (under 7km avg).. both can wreck a BB's AA and other soft components with HE. Likewise BB's would do almost nothing to DD's and CA's with AP but hurt them with HE (the round switching with a 20+  second reload is the balancing act) and BB's would only hurt other BB's with HE IF their gun caliber is much bigger than their opponents armor (aka 2 tier higher BB vs lower tier BB).

 

On the plus side, CA's and DD's can HE a BB to wilt its AA defenses down from range so the carrier can take it down easier.

AP against DDs... yeah it's going to overpen.

But BB not doing anything to CAs? Uwotm8 you must be aiming too high and hitting the bridge structure than.

I citadel cruisers all the time with the Warspite (and back in CBT the Fuso/Nagato). You gotta aim near the waterline to hit either under the turrets (magazines) or their smokestacks (boilers) to do massive dmg to cruisers.

 

I see what you're trying to suggest, but taking away a BB's ability to AP cruisers to death would nerf BBs much more than any sort of buff from reducing HE/fire dmg.

Edited by Fog_Carrier_Shoukaku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
29 posts
150 battles

congrats on making sense here have a plus1 you have noticed HE is a silly magic ammo something the developers cant figure out

Edited by jetblackISSP
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
45 posts
2,223 battles

The whole point of AP is to go for citadel hits on targets that you can penetrate, with all the associated risks of bounces, spalling damage, and overpenetration. HE, on the other hand, cannot citadel anything except certain very lightly armored CVs and CLs, but does more consistent damage.

Edited by Eidolone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69
[PEPE]
Beta Testers
231 posts
1,819 battles

Tested by firing a single HE volley from one turret in a destroyer at an AFK BB from 7km range (nearly max for that IJN DD). Fired one at a time until a fire was ignited.

 

Ceased firing after fire was lit. Waited for fire to run its course before torpedoing the BB down.

 

Stats at the end showed the fire did 9.2k damage.

 

Repeated test this time driving a BB. Hit another BB with a single turret of HE and the fire was lit... then switched to AP (he was near full health being hit by one torpedo so he had apparently used his repair to stop flooding). Fire ran its course, total damage in the end was 8k (probably he had fire fighting damage control gear and capt skill).

 

Now, the thing is, an AP round hitting a battleship in a non-magazine/citadel on average does 1k to 2k damage. The average HE shell from same BB does also 1k to 2k damage but does not strike citadels nearly as often.

 

HE from cruisers also hits for 600 to 1.2k damage on a BB. Fire damage not included.

 

So... I wonder what WG is thinking with this kind of setup? If a DD with a single HE fire can hurt it far more than its guns possibly could... considering that its gun caliber would never penetrate a BB's armor and that a high explosive round striking said armor would not 'burn' the ship at all... why is this being allowed?

 

Should it not be:

 

AP have high penetration and high chance of citadel/magazine detonation on armored targets but high chance of overpenetration/low damage on low armor targets (CA's, DD's).

HE only causing fires if the round penetrates, HE having high chance of destroying AA mounts and soft armored components like torpedo tubes

 

?

 

This would make DD's only able to hurt BB's with torpedoes (as it should be), CA's only able to hurt BB's with AP at close range (under 7km avg).. both can wreck a BB's AA and other soft components with HE. Likewise BB's would do almost nothing to DD's and CA's with AP but hurt them with HE (the round switching with a 20+  second reload is the balancing act) and BB's would only hurt other BB's with HE IF their gun caliber is much bigger than their opponents armor (aka 2 tier higher BB vs lower tier BB).

 

On the plus side, CA's and DD's can HE a BB to wilt its AA defenses down from range so the carrier can take it down easier.

I'd love to help but it makes little sense to me either. I mean, i get a general idea how AP works. You know, angled armor= bounce and thin armor= over penetration.

 

Problem is, HE doesn't care about your armor, how thick it is or how well angled it is. It just does damage. It takes no consideration to the armor in fact. It just works. AP, is the opposite. It is armor dependent. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
2,485 posts
977 battles

I'd love to help but it makes little sense to me either. I mean, i get a general idea how AP works. You know, angled armor= bounce and thin armor= over penetration.

 

Problem is, HE doesn't care about your armor, how thick it is or how well angled it is. It just does damage. It takes no consideration to the armor in fact. It just works. AP, is the opposite. It is armor dependent. 

 

 

 

Armor is actually taken into consideration with HE. It's why a lot of HE hits to the belt armor result in 0 dmg or low dmg rolls, while HE hits to the thin bridge/superstruture result in medium dmg rolls.

Oddly enough the chance to do fires with either hit location is the same... which imho is pretty stupid.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69
[PEPE]
Beta Testers
231 posts
1,819 battles

 

Oddly enough the chance to do fires with either hit location is the same... which imho is pretty stupid.

 

That makes so much sense. Smh. I don't understand that either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
745 posts
3,021 battles

I think this is all stuff they're still working on! I hadn't played many games on closed beta before Update 0.3.1 came out but did hear players report that with that update the armor dynamics suddenly started working more accurately. This is why I'm a little hesitant to put much effort in understanding all this all right now, for fear they're working on the solution and like that ... it's all gonna change! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,986
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,856 posts
12,340 battles

AP against DDs... yeah it's going to overpen.

But BB not doing anything to CAs? Uwotm8 you must be aiming too high and hitting the bridge structure than.

I citadel cruisers all the time with the Warspite (and back in CBT the Fuso/Nagato). You gotta aim near the waterline to hit either under the turrets (magazines) or their smokestacks (boilers) to do massive dmg to cruisers.

 

I see what you're trying to suggest, but taking away a BB's ability to AP cruisers to death would nerf BBs much more than any sort of buff from reducing HE/fire dmg.

 

I said that this is how it SHOULD be not how it is now.

 

A BB's AP round hitting a cruiser would also go through..remember those shells are designed to punch through other battleship's armor not the thin armor cruisers get. That is why a BB caliber HE shell should be much more effective vs a cruiser since the shell would very likely penetrate. However, AP does trigger citadel hits a lot more than HE so you can still fire AP at a cruiser for that glorious citadel hit.

 

Again, the whole balancing act to this effectiveness shell type split is that the BB has a very,very long reload time. Having AP loaded and 2 cruisers show up...well, you've basically found yourself in a situation where that first AP broadside better ding a citadel 'cause you'll be helpless for 30 seconds until the HE shells load....all the while those cruiser are closing in at very high speeds to get into the range their AP rounds will start penetrating you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,890
[-K--]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,179 posts
10,923 battles

So... I wonder what WG is thinking with this kind of setup? If a DD with a single HE fire can hurt it far more than its guns possibly could... considering that its gun caliber would never penetrate a BB's armor and that a high explosive round striking said armor would not 'burn' the ship at all... why is this being allowed?

 

It's done for balance reasons, to keep DDs as a viable ship class. If you're going to complain about differences between this game and historic reality, why not start with, oh, i don't know,  INVISIBLE FORCEFIELD WALLS IN THE FREAKIN' OCEAN :)

 

AP have high penetration and high chance of citadel/magazine detonation on armored targets but high chance of overpenetration/low damage on low armor targets (CA's, DD's).

 

(1) Again balance

(2) In this case, even from the historical perspective you aren't right in relation to CAs. Cruisers had armor (for instance Cleveland-class had a 3.25-5in main belt), and that amount of armor is certainly enough to initiate the AP shell fuse. That's one of the reasons why US BB designers adopted all-or-nothing in the first place.

Edited by vakhnenko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7 posts
7,494 battles

err...DD's and CC's have a magical abundance of torps...how does that balance?  Why aren't they used more like a consumable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
698 posts
36 battles

HE only causing fires on targets it penetrates defeats the point. If you could penetrate, you'd be using AP. Anyone using HE on a target he could be citpenning is making a mistake, as has been pointed out many times in many other threads. That people are "getting by" just fine without ever learning how to properly use AP is working as intended from WG's "make the game accessible" standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,986
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,856 posts
12,340 battles

 

It's done for balance reasons, to keep DDs as a viable ship class. If you're going to complain about differences between this game and historic reality, why not start with, oh, i don't know,  INVISIBLE FORCEFIELD WALLS IN THE FREAKIN' OCEAN :)

 

 

(1) Again balance

(2) In this case, even from the historical perspective you aren't right in relation to CAs. Cruisers had armor (for instance Cleveland-class had a 3.25-5in main belt), and that amount of armor is certainly enough to initiate the AP shell fuse. That's one of the reasons why US BB designers adopted all-or-nothing in the first place.

 

The DD has the most powerful weapon in the game and has stealth. So no, HE fire is not 'balance' for them, its just bad design.

 

Cruiser armor belts were butter to the hot knife of a battleship caliber round..and AP shells did not have fuses, that's what HE shells have.

 

HE only causing fires on targets it penetrates defeats the point. If you could penetrate, you'd be using AP. Anyone using HE on a target he could be citpenning is making a mistake, as has been pointed out many times in many other threads. That people are "getting by" just fine without ever learning how to properly use AP is working as intended from WG's "make the game accessible" standpoint.

 

Wrong. If the AP round you are hitting the target with is over-penetrating then it is going in one side and out the other without delivering its kinetic energy load into the target itself. That is why I'm suggesting that HE rounds that penetrate be the ones to set fires..if they don't then they destroy AA/Torp tubes. Which again, is why a BB firing AP at a cruiser or DD or even a carrier would have to hope for a citadel hit to do any significant damage.. an HE round on those targets would've penetrated, detonated, dealt damage and caused a fire. Likewise, CA's cannot AP penetrate a BB unless they're at close range and their HE simply does not penetrate a BB's armor, but an AP round penetrating a BB's armor is slowed down enough by the armor to cause damage.

 

The balance again is, the BB's super slow reload means does need to pick targets carefully and use the right ammo. This delay gives time to the smaller ships to close in to where their weapons are effective. Its balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,978 posts
2,472 battles

Ok I will make it easy to understand.

 

On a cruiser AP = HE + Fire damage.  Simple.

 

It is a way for a Cruiser or any ship really to maintain a constant DPS even if it has trouble penning the target with AP.  Basically a balancing mechanic that make keeping ships doing a very narrow range of damage that is easily controlled and monitored by the devs.  Really there is no issue aside from the perception that fire actually does a hell of alot more damage than it actually does.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,986
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,856 posts
12,340 battles

9k damage from a single fire proc from a DD on a BB is 'perception'? its hard numbers. they're absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,890
[-K--]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,179 posts
10,923 battles

 

The DD has the most powerful weapon in the game and has stealth. So no, HE fire is not 'balance' for them, its just bad design.

 

So play DDs then, and and pwn people :) Or, more likely than not, you'll realize that the tin cans have their own limitations

 

and AP shells did not have fuses, that's what HE shells have.

 

Ugh... With this level of ignorance, perhaps you shouldn't talk about historic inaccuracies (which don't matter anyway, since this is an arcade and not a simulator).

 

no21987-German_38cm_apc.jpg

 

And again, let me re-iterate: cruiser main belts do have enough armor to initiate the fuse. Friedman in his "US Battleships" writes that that was one of the considerations for all-or-nothing -- better to let the AP shell pass through thin STS plate completely, that to initiate it on relatively thin armor (say, ~5"), which it will easily defeat and then proceed to burst inside the ship.

Edited by vakhnenko
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
972 posts
822 battles

 

So play DDs then, and pwn people :) Or, more likely than not, you'll realize that the tin cans have their own limitations

 

 

If you are actively using your guns on a DD and its not against another DD, you are one dead, foolish DD lol Torps for IJN, Ambush with torps or Support fire (tho honestly its like 0-400 damage a hit, not even worth it) for USN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
698 posts
36 battles

 

Support fire (tho honestly its like 0-400 damage a hit, not even worth it) for USN

 

Hey, with all the complaints about HE and fires flying about it must count for something. Not like there's anything else you can do in a USN DD, you'll eventually get matches where the BBs don't sail down narrow channels and hug islands and you've got to make credits somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,890
[-K--]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,179 posts
10,923 battles

 

If you are actively using your guns on a DD and its not against another DD, you are one dead, foolish DD lol Torps for IJN, Ambush with torps or Support fire (tho honestly its like 0-400 damage a hit, not even worth it) for USN

 

Shhh, let him find out the hard way, that DDs shooting HE aren't an uber kill-all weapon he must imagine them to be :)
Edited by vakhnenko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
197 posts
1,666 battles

Well I have to say that generally speaking, I'm not afraid of a CA slinging HE at me in my BB.   I give lessons in "Citadels 101" to them.  

 

I never prematurely pop my extinguisher to stop a fire.  If I'm under focus fire, I'll wait for 2 to start.  It usually takes them a while to get 2 fires up, once that happens I'll pop the extinguish and repair.  At best, they're dead at or before that point.  At worst they manage to start a single fire on my after that, but then they're dead and I don't care.

 

I'm much more afraid of AP than I am of HE and fires.  AP will kill you instantly.  You can drive around for a long time while on fire, still doing your full damage to anything and everything around y ou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,031 posts
684 battles

9k damage from a single fire proc from a DD on a BB is 'perception'? its hard numbers. they're absurd.

 

That 9k was against an AFK BB, which is not a normal occurrence. 

 

I average better damage against cruisers while in my BBs using AP than using HE even with fire included. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,031 posts
684 battles

Well I have to say that generally speaking, I'm not afraid of a CA slinging HE at me in my BB.   I give lessons in "Citadels 101" to them.  

 

I never prematurely pop my extinguisher to stop a fire.  If I'm under focus fire, I'll wait for 2 to start.  It usually takes them a while to get 2 fires up, once that happens I'll pop the extinguish and repair.  At best, they're dead at or before that point.  At worst they manage to start a single fire on my after that, but then they're dead and I don't care.

 

I'm much more afraid of AP than I am of HE and fires.  AP will kill you instantly.  You can drive around for a long time while on fire, still doing your full damage to anything and everything around y ou.

 

This is my experience and feelings also. An enemy BB/cruiser firing AP scares me more that HE. Citadel damage can not be healed like fire damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
501 posts
3,962 battles

AP against DDs... yeah it's going to overpen.

But BB not doing anything to CAs? Uwotm8 you must be aiming too high and hitting the bridge structure than.

I citadel cruisers all the time with the Warspite (and back in CBT the Fuso/Nagato). You gotta aim near the waterline to hit either under the turrets (magazines) or their smokestacks (boilers) to do massive dmg to cruisers.

 

I see what you're trying to suggest, but taking away a BB's ability to AP cruisers to death would nerf BBs much more than any sort of buff from reducing HE/fire dmg.

That depends on the battleship. Some battleships have high firing arcs and yet others like iowa have a flat firing arc.... And remember citadels are below the waterline.. Soo you will over penetrate very very often on cruisers on said battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,978 posts
2,472 battles

9k damage from a single fire proc from a DD on a BB is 'perception'? its hard numbers. they're absurd.

 

Yes it is.  It is perception because your not looking at the overall picture.  Instead your looking at the one or two circumstances when you get unlucky and take a large amount of fire damage.   Sure that stuff happens too me to.  Had 3 fires going the other day on my Ishizuchi about 30 seconds after I had repaired a fire and I had to sit there and take it.  Lost probably 25k HPs or more, but I can count those circumstances on one hand and I am talking more than 200 battles in BBs between CBT and the current OBT.  Died a couple times to uncontrolled flooding too, less than a handful of time.  Died to a multiple torpedo hit attack occasionally as well, both ship launched and air dropped.  Maybe one in ten matches if that.  Sure this sort of stuff happens but people make it out like it happens every match for BB captains and that isn't even close to the truth.  All these BB captains want to do is focus on the few times it happens and QQ about it.

 

Overall though, your not taking any more damage from fires than you do from Citadel hits so what is up with all the QQing?  I mean a Citadel hit is much more devastating because unlike a fire using the "R" key doesn't automatically negate all the damage it can do.  Additionally even if you have 4 fires going, it still takes time to die, time where you can continue to fire your guns. Time for your "R" skill to become available gain.  Time for you potentially heal yourself.  Time were your normal repair crews might put out the fires.  Citadel hits just damage you and damage you big time.

 

So yeah, perception is the issue.   Many BB captains think fire is doing a hell of alot more than it is (WG even posted that fire was only doing something like 10-15% of the total damage out there, 30% if you combine it with the damage from HE)  If it is only mathematically doing 10-15% of the total damage done out there, then it isn't burning BBs to the waterline on a regular basis, not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×