A possible way to fix the bow on tanking/inactivity of BBs

[Helstrem]

Nerfing bow armor or buffing penetration against the bows is not the way to address the problem.  The only armor changes that I am aware need to be done are fixes to Montana and Nagato.

 

No, the real problem is the way shot dispersion works in WoWS.  In reality shots did not deviate very much to the left or right of the aiming point, but they did fall long and short a lot.  Instead of a circle shaped shot dispersion the dispersion should be a long, thin oval or a long, thin triangle with the point nearest the shooter.  What this does is make ships bow on more likely to be hit as the entire length of the ship is inside the dispersion area while a broadside ship only has a cross-section passing through the dispersion area.

 

Historically, for example, assuming Bismarck was aiming at Hood's center mass, the round that blew the Hood up would have missed her, hitting the water 100-200ft beyond the Hood had she been broadside to Bismarck rather than  bow on.  Because Hood was bow on to Bismarck, Bismarck's shells had an 860ft length of ship to land on, broadside on only a 104ft beam to land on.

 

Problem with this fix is that it may have other, undesirable effects on the game.  If you can think of any, please post them.

[Lert]

Estimating lead would become more important, estimating range less so. It would also lead to more shells missing broadside targets than hitting.

[Sinboto]

er, hood was hit when broadside to bismark or close enough to it as she was in a turn, she turned out too early. I get what you're trying to say but....

[Terrible_Turtle]

Estimating lead would become more important, estimating range less so. It would also lead to more shells missing broadside targets than hitting.

 

Thus making the WoWs meta more similar to historical tactics. 

 

Frankly, I think it's a great idea... although, as OP stated, it's a huge change and one WG is not likely to implement. 

[Xannari]

This physically makes sense also. You would need a drastic force acting on a shell to change it's trajectory along the plane perpendicular to the direction of travel, but a tiny force, even a due to a passage through the changing densities of the air, can have an effect along the plane parallel to the direction of travel. This is called the lifting body effect

[Sir_Godz]

they could increase the chance of turret disabling as well. Stationary targets would have a higher chance getting hit in the front turrets. Moving around lessons this chance a lot.

[Rhal_]

The OP's proposal is simple, elegant, and logical. I will go so far as to pronounce it as beautiful. 

 

Fighting ships were designed and intended to fight broadside, with the exception of aircraft carriers. Under the OP's proposal, ships that manage to cross the enemy's T have a significant advantage, just as they did historically. Under the OP's proposal, destroyer screening becomes very important due to all of the broadside BBs. It encourages historical game play, rather than the World of Tanks on the Water we have now. 

[Helstrem]

As an added note, I cannot recall ever reading about angling ships for better armor use in reality.

[Billmi]

This was brought up repeatedly in CBT, and i'm sure before that.

They want the WOT game mechanics, and nothing will change that. 

[TheFishlord]

As an added note, I cannot recall ever reading about angling ships for better armor use in reality.

 

It happened in several battles during WWI, but it was generally much more important to keep your range steady once you found it, and keep the fleet nicely lined up so that nobody rammed each other. The entire line of battle might change direction, but that would usually be with the goal of crossing the T, and not trying to angle. Individual ships wouldn't have the authority to make such sudden course changes, except in emergencies.

[Sinboto]

As an added note, I cannot recall ever reading about angling ships for better armor use in reality.

 

HMS Hood vs Bismark comes to mind.

 

Cleveland class Vs Myoko class comes to mind as well. 

 

[MrDeaf]

nerf bow armor... BUT! let BBs use -50% rudder mod

[Helstrem]

This was brought up repeatedly in CBT, and i'm sure before that.

They want the WOT game mechanics, and nothing will change that. 

Agreed.  I saw it back then too, but not since.  Difference is now they seem to want to do something about the bow on meta.

 

 

HMS Hood vs Bismark comes to mind.

 

Cleveland class Vs Myoko class comes to mind as well. 

 

Hood was charging Bismarck not for angling purposes but to close the range to eliminate plunging fire as a risk.  Vice-Admiral Lancelot Holland was well aware of Hood's vulnerability to plunging fire due to poor deck armor and was working to get Hood through the danger.  She didn't make it through and was destroyed by plunging fire.  She would have gone broadside once close enough to eliminate plunging fire as a threat.  She turned early due to Bismarck's very accurate fire.

[MrDeaf]

As an added note, I cannot recall ever reading about angling ships for better armor use in reality.

 

no, there were studies done on this.

 

Fuso, for instance, had poor and thin armoring when compared to USN standard BBs, like NM, so a study was done to find the best way to get Fuso into effective range.

The conclusion was that Fuso would have to angle and use smoke cover from DDs while advancing into effective range.

[VTAdmiral]

Too elegant of a solution for WG to ever implement. It just works too well, makes too much sense, and is too similar to the real performance of the vehicles in this game.

Hood was charging Bismarck not for angling purposes but to close the range to eliminate plunging fire as a risk.  Vice-Admiral Lancelot Holland was well aware of Hood's vulnerability to plunging fire due to poor deck armor and was working to get Hood through the danger.  She didn't make it through and was destroyed by plunging fire.  She would have gone broadside once close enough to eliminate plunging fire as a threat.  She turned early due to Bismarck's very accurate fire.

 

The captain knew and tried to close to safe range, which put him in a disadvantageous T-cross position. When it became clear that he couldn't get close enough without risking the ship, he swung broadside to get the aft guns into the fight-- despite the risk, and that's when Bismarck nailed her. She actually went broadside right when the German rangefinders had locked onto her distance and she just stopped changing it.

[Sinboto]

Hood was charging Bismarck not for angling purposes but to close the range to eliminate plunging fire as a risk.  Vice-Admiral Lancelot Holland was well aware of Hood's vulnerability to plunging fire due to poor deck armor and was working to get Hood through the danger.  She didn't make it through and was destroyed by plunging fire.  She would have gone broadside once close enough to eliminate plunging fire as a threat.  She turned early due to Bismarck's very accurate fire.

You've contradicted yourself here mate, he knew that the deck armor was at risk from bismarks' shells, and wanted to close the distance to force the german ship to fire at another angle away from it. Yes this counts as angling, much in the way a tank would angle their weaker armor  away from the enemy and present a tougher section, he swung out too early and the rest is history. 

[13th_Earl_White_Haven]

Nerfing bow armor or buffing penetration against the bows is not the way to address the problem.  The only armor changes that I am aware need to be done are fixes to Montana and Nagato.

 

No, the real problem is the way shot dispersion works in WoWS.  In reality shots did not deviate very much to the left or right of the aiming point, but they did fall long and short a lot.  Instead of a circle shaped shot dispersion the dispersion should be a long, thin oval or a long, thin triangle with the point nearest the shooter.  What this does is make ships bow on more likely to be hit as the entire length of the ship is inside the dispersion area while a broadside ship only has a cross-section passing through the dispersion area.

 

Historically, for example, assuming Bismarck was aiming at Hood's center mass, the round that blew the Hood up would have missed her, hitting the water 100-200ft beyond the Hood had she been broadside to Bismarck rather than  bow on.  Because Hood was bow on to Bismarck, Bismarck's shells had an 860ft length of ship to land on, broadside on only a 104ft beam to land on.

 

Problem with this fix is that it may have other, undesirable effects on the game.  If you can think of any, please post them.

 

Yes, just yes. I wish the game worked tbis way so much. 

[Wo_9]

re-vert turning circle and rudder-shift nerfs if ur gonna change BB tactics. 

[Helstrem]

You've contradicted yourself here mate, he knew that the deck armor was at risk from bismarks' shells, and wanted to close the distance to force the german ship to fire at another angle away from it. Yes this counts as angling, much in the way a tank would angle their weaker armor  away from the enemy and present a tougher section, he swung out too early and the rest is history. 

 

He wasn't charging to force the Bismarck to fire at another angle of armor.  He was charging to get close enough that plunging fire wasn't a thing.  While she was at range she was vulnerable to plunging fire regardless of which way her bow pointed.

 

Yes, ultimately plunging fire vs too close for plunging fire is about the angle a round strikes the deck, but is not what people mean when they talk about angling in WoWS.  What they are talking about is angling the main belt against incoming fire, something that was unheard of, or almost unheard of, in reality.  In reality, barring special circumstances like HMS Hood's known deck armor weakness, the goal was to get all guns to bear and hit the enemy.  None of this pretending Yamato or Iowa didn't have a rear turret stuff.

[Reymu]

Just seriously increase the BB MB dispersion when it's beyond a certain range, like 15km or so. There. They can't snipe very effectively. They'll have to get closer to be dangerous.

[VTAdmiral]

Just seriously increase the BB MB dispersion when it's beyond a certain range, like 15km or so. There. They can't snipe very effectively. They'll have to get closer to be dangerous.

 

Or, or, or, and hear me out here

 

Rather than this ahistorical, arbitrary change, we turn dispersion into an ellipse that is historical and in tune with the way the guns actually work in reality, which actually punishes bow-on gameplay and makes broadsides less dangerous to show-- permitting battleship maneuvering with more freedom and indirectly buffing cruiser survivability.

[blacksoul1987]

I really wish this was how it worked.  Its silly that showing your broadside is a bad thing to do in this game.

[Xannari]

I really wish this was how it worked.  Its silly that showing your broadside is a bad thing to do in this game.

 

It actually does make sense though, as the goal of ships in historical surface ship warfare was to incapacitate the crew, and knock out ship systems to make it inoperable. Here, it is straight up destruction since there is no crew, and ship systems cannot be destroyed

[blacksoul1987]

this game doesn't take into account how belt armor is intended to work either it treats all armor the same.  For instance Montana is designed to have an immunity zone against its own shells from 16km to 32km, but in this game you can pen the side armor with its own guns from around 20k.  This game seems to treat everything as though it is class B armor.  But class A belt armor works differently it is face hardened and its goal is not to outright stop the projectile from entering the ship but rather to damage the projectile so it cannot detonate once it does.   once a shell impacts the armor both the shell and armor tend to break up  then behind the Class A armor is a layer of cement that is designed to distribute the impact in a wider area across the next layer which is a thin 1" thick STS plate that is designed to deform in a trampoline like effect in an attempt to catch all the fragments, the remaining shards that manage to break through would then be stopped from reaching the vitals by 1" sts over the vitals.  Montana should not be able to citadel itself without getting closer than 16km.

 

Edit: the effect of this is that you should get partial penetration damage rather than citadel damage past 16km as shell fragments would still be sent inside the ship.

[Pugilistic]

Nerfing bow armor or buffing penetration against the bows is not the way to address the problem.  The only armor changes that I am aware need to be done are fixes to Montana and Nagato.

 

No, the real problem is the way shot dispersion works in WoWS.  In reality shots did not deviate very much to the left or right of the aiming point, but they did fall long and short a lot.  Instead of a circle shaped shot dispersion the dispersion should be a long, thin oval or a long, thin triangle with the point nearest the shooter.  What this does is make ships bow on more likely to be hit as the entire length of the ship is inside the dispersion area while a broadside ship only has a cross-section passing through the dispersion area.

 

Historically, for example, assuming Bismarck was aiming at Hood's center mass, the round that blew the Hood up would have missed her, hitting the water 100-200ft beyond the Hood had she been broadside to Bismarck rather than  bow on.  Because Hood was bow on to Bismarck, Bismarck's shells had an 860ft length of ship to land on, broadside on only a 104ft beam to land on.

 

Problem with this fix is that it may have other, undesirable effects on the game.  If you can think of any, please post them.

 

 

Thus making the WoWs meta more similar to historical tactics. 

 

Frankly, I think it's a great idea... although, as OP stated, it's a huge change and one WG is not likely to implement. 

 

This was brought up repeatedly in CBT, and i'm sure before that.

They want the WOT game mechanics, and nothing will change that. 

 

​I have repeatedly posted that the dispersion ellipse should basically be rotated 90 degrees to reflect IRL naval gunnery.

 

It would instantaneously end the prevalence of the prolonged bow-on stationary part of the current BB meta. Open Pandora's box, too.