Progress in this game doesn't make any sense.

[Hauptbahnhof]

300mm belt could be penetrated by Pensacola from 5kms. 400mm could be penetrated be Des Moines/Baltimore from 2 or less. Depending on the method you've used to calculate penetration, of course. We use De Marre calculations.

As for destroyers - underwater hits. We are going to rework this part as we are not happy with DD "oneshots", yet we want to leave it as a way to hurt battleships and heavy cruisers.

 

Perhaps I was not clear. But I was referring to the example of 6" or smaller guns like the Cleveland spam ones, and on a bit larger ranges then point blank.

 

In reality 3 Cleveland class would not be able to sink a Yamato regardless of range, especially not if they are using AP ammo which would simply bounce on anything vital. There is simply no chance of 6" guns doing damage to 400mm thick Yamato main belt armor, nor the 200mm below waterline or deck armor.

 

Summary - armor is working as intended at the moment(and as it worked in real life), but the work is not done yet. It's the wrong assumptions and battle distances people are using in game. Even Yamato can be penetrated(there are some arguments about what penetration model should be used as a reference on NA forum) if it allows Des Moines to came into 2km distance.

 

Can you give any examples were a Battleship was sunk from 6" or even 8" gunfire? ( not just disabled or damaged ). Because to my knowledge no such examples exists in reality, yet it happens easily in WoWs

[Gryphonne]

300mm belt could be penetrated by Pensacola from 5kms. 400mm could be penetrated be Des Moines/Baltimore from 2 or less. Depending on the method you've used to calculate penetration, of course. We use De Marre calculations.

As for destroyers - underwater hits. We are going to rework this part as we are not happy with DD "oneshots", yet we want to leave it as a way to hurt battleships and heavy cruisers.

 

 

Thanks for the answers, but what about the fact that after tier 6 DDs can be seen from space by the dozens of planes flying around? Even when setting up a perfect ambush?

[Fominator]

Can you give any examples were a Battleship was sunk from 6" or even 8" gunfire? ( not just disabled or damaged ). Because to my knowledge no such examples exists in reality, yet it happens easily in WoWs

 

To be fair, when you are out of HP you are done, probably too damaged to keep fighting. The ships sinks because is an arcade game and is more visual (ships retreating, or unable to fight would be pretty lame IMO).

 

As for destroyers - underwater hits. We are going to rework this part as we are not happy with DD "oneshots", yet we want to leave it as a way to hurt battleships and heavy cruisers.

 

And speaking of DDs, what are the plans for them? Right now they are pretty useless after tier 6, torpedoes are too easy to spot and they have really long reload times. Minekaze outperforms the rest of the line by a wide margin.

[Orzch]

Maybe, torps should be detectable based on in what view mode you are?

I mean, if one is sniping at 15 km range he shouldn't be able to focus on closest surroundings.

[ArdRaeiss]

Can you give any examples were a Battleship was sunk from 6" or even 8" gunfire? ( not just disabled or damaged ). Because to my knowledge no such examples exists in reality, yet it happens easily in WoWs

South Dakota was renderen unable to fight back(for some time and some degree, of course, as it was the night battle and she has lost her radar) with damaged cables, FCS controls and such. It's the closest case of real life naval battle. The sinking of battleship by cruiser fire doesn't happend in real life... because no cruiser was alloved to the distance of belt penetration or to cause fires and unarmored compartments damage so big as it happens in game.

Dut to gameplay reasons(player always has to have ability to finish enemy ship) we gave cruisers(and destroyers) the ability to render ships mission killed(like what happened to Bismark - citadel [mostly] intact, ship is lost) by ruining everything outside of armored compartments and by setting fires. Or by going as close as possible with citadel hits. Or by causing underwater hits. Or by hitting unarmored decs of early battleships.

 

Otherwise we would went back to the "world of battleships domination" where no other ships were needed(lots of battleships, one-two carriers, one destroyer to cover with fog, one expendable cruiser to provide AA and destroyer protection).

 

And speaking of DDs, what are the plans for them? Right now they are pretty useless after tier 6, torpedoes are too easy to spot and they have really long reload times. Minekaze outperforms the rest of the line by a wide margin.

Top tier DDs are mostly fine. Especially in open ares(surprise) like the map you've got for Space Event. They are unforgiving - that's for sure.

Yet tweaks are going to be done.

[Gryphonne]

South Dakota was renderen unable to fight back(for some time and some degree, of course, as it was the night battle and she has lost her radar) with damaged cables, FCS controls and such. It's the closest case of real life naval battle. The sinking of battleship by cruiser fire doesn't happend in real life... because no cruiser was alloved to the distance of belt penetration or to cause fires and unarmored compartments damage so big as it happens in game.

Dut to gameplay reasons(player always has to have ability to finish enemy ship) we gave cruisers(and destroyers) the ability to render ships mission killed(like what happened to Bismark - citadel [mostly] intact, ship is lost) by ruining everything outside of armored compartments and by setting fires. Or by going as close as possible with citadel hits. Or by causing underwater hits. Or by hitting unarmored decs of early battleships.

 

Top tier DDs are mostly fine. Especially in open ares(surprise) like the map you've got for Space Event. They are unforgiving - that's for sure.

Yet tweaks are going to be done.

 

 Otherwise we would went back to the "world of battleships domination" where no other ships were needed(lots of battleships, one-two carriers, one destroyer to cover with fog, one expendable cruiser to provide AA and destroyer protection).

 

 

They are NOT fine. That the Gearing is OK-ish based on your space battle experience is great, the DDs are mostly NOT fine though. The constant spotting by planes and scout planes is ridiculous. More so because the ropedoes can be spotted by planes as well. Totally breaking the point of stealth AND ambush AND surprise. Super high risk vs terrible reward.

[Gerudan]

Can you give any examples were a Battleship was sunk from 6" or even 8" gunfire? ( not just disabled or damaged ). Because to my knowledge no such examples exists in reality, yet it happens easily in WoWs

 

You do recognize, that it is still a game, right? Sure, BBs should have an advantage over CAs, but being almost immune to their damage? That would be really frustrating. 

[Fominator]

Top tier DDs are mostly fine. Especially in open ares(surprise) like the map you've got for Space Event. They are unforgiving - that's for sure.

Yet tweaks are going to be done.

 

Not in my experience, Mutsuki and Hatsuharu have worse torpedoes, detectability and speed than Minekaze. Then, with Fubuki and Kagero, in their usual engage range (7-8 km) torpedoes are really forgiving, most players can start evasive maneuvers after spotting the torpedoes and evade all of them, or getting just 1 hit, then you are useless for 2 minutes. That's really unrewarding and frustrating for DD players.

 

I didn't played enough with Shimakaze, since there isn't enough players at tier 10 for 12 vs 12 battles.

 

I won't take in account the space event, Shimakaze wasn't in it and it was filled with bad players (the ones that don't even bother to evade torpedoes).

[Hauptbahnhof]

 

South Dakota was renderen unable fight back with damaged cables, FCS controls and such. It's the closest case of real life naval battle. The sinking of battleship by cruiser fire doesn't happend in real life... because no cruiser was alloved to the distance of belt penetration.

Dut to gameplay reasons(player always has to have ability to finish enemy ship) we gave cruisers(and destroyers) the ability to render ships mission killed(like what happened to Bismark - citadel [mostly] intact, ship is lost) by ruining everything outside of armored compartments and by setting fires. Or by going as close as possible with citadel hits. Or by causing underwater hits. Or by hitting unarmored decs of early battleships.

 

 Otherwise we would went back to the "world of battleships domination" where no other ships were needed(lots of battleships, one-two carriers, one destroyer to cover with fog, one expendable cruiser to provide AA and destroyer protection).

 

If you balanced the game historically you would have bigger maps and much faster Carrier airplanes making Carriers historically deadly.

 

This would mean Destroyers and Cruisers are invaluable thanks to their AAA, and that playing them would mainly focus on using Dual Purpose guns to fire on aircraft.

 

The other reason you historically needed Destroyers and Cruisers was ASW and Torpedo boat defense ( Destroyer is short for torpedo boat destroyer), which also is not needed since neither submarines nor torpedo boats are in the game.

 

The third historical use was close gunfire support on naval landings, which is also not in the game. ( or at least is greatly simplified as area control of capture areas ).

 

So IMO it can hardly come as a surprise that Destroyers and Cruisers have little uses if you cut out all 3 of their historical roles from the game can it?

 

Battleship AA is seriously overpowered right now so they don't really need AA escort. Japanese BB AA should pretty much suck, but 2 Kongo Battleships and up can consistently annihilate approaching airplane squadrons.

 

 

But I think that is enough off-topic, so please ignore my ramblings

 

 

You do recognize, that it is still a game, right? Sure, BBs should have an advantage over CAs, but being almost immune to their damage? That would be really frustrating. 

 

I didn't ask for Battleships to be immune to sinking. Just that it has to be done indirectly through disabling them, maneuvering around wearing them down with HE shells. Not by penetrating AP shells.

[ArdRaeiss]

most players can start evasive maneuvers after spotting the torpedoes and evade all of them, or getting just 1 hit, then you are useless for 2 minutes. That's really unrewarding and frustrating for DD players.

Torpedo spotting range is 2kms as far as i known(could check it again). At this range destroyer could evade easily, cruiser could have some hard time and battleship will be hit unless he's really lucky. There are two ways to avoid that - to zig-zag as if torpedoes are already in the water(and they usually are) or to use allies and scout plane in attempt to spot them earlier.

 

If you balanced the game historically you would have bigger maps and much faster Carrier airplanes making Carriers historically deadly.

This would mean Destroyers and Cruisers are invaluable thanks to their AAA, and that playing them would mainly focus on using Dual Purpose guns to fire on aircraft.
The other reason you historically needed Destroyers and Cruisers was ASW and Torpedo boat defense ( Destroyer is short for torpedo boat destroyer), which also is not needed since neither submarines nor torpedo boats are in the game.

Battleship AA is seriously overpowered right now so they don't really need AA escort. Japanese BB AA should pretty much suck, but 2 Kongo Battleships and up can consistently annihilate approaching airplane squadrons.

I didn't ask for Battleships to be immune to sinking. Just that it has to be done indirectly through disabling them, maneuvering around wearing them down with HE shells. Not by penetrating AP shells.

Bigger maps equals to longer matches. This is bad for game pace in random battles. But we are looking to how we can introduce bigger maps anyway.

Destroyers were created as anti-ship. ASW and AA duties were adde later as they were cheap, expendable and numerous.

Cruiseres have got unique ability to decrease strike planes precision, thus providing great support for the ships group.

Why? If you could penetrate belt/deck/barbette - why should we stop shell from doing just that? It's the battleship player's mistake to be in such close range.

[Fominator]

 

IIRC torpedo acquisition range was buffed by a 40% during the CBT patch, so is around 2,7kms now, including planes.

 

Usually you use torpedoes against CAs and BBs. Most CAs can evade all of them unless they are in unable to maneuver, getting 1 hit is pretty common though. Same for BBs, with a good shot overlapping the spreads, getting more than 2 hits is pretty hard, unless the player doesn't take evasive maneuver. With 2 or even 3 hits, adding the RNG of the damage + bulge reduction, 2 hits aren't heavy damage, and they can repair most of it.

 

Right now torpedoes are just a filter for bad players, and a good game shouldn't be balanced around these.

 

[Hornet331]

300mm belt could be penetrated by Pensacola from 5kms. 400mm could be penetrated be Des Moines/Baltimore from 2 or less. Depending on the method you've used to calculate penetration, of course. We use De Marre calculations.

As for destroyers - underwater hits. We are going to rework this part as we are not happy with DD "oneshots", yet we want to leave it as a way to hurt battleships and heavy cruisers.

 

Well to bad engagement ranges are so compressed in this game, that the 300mm at 5km should be 300mm at 3km at most. (8" mark 9 has a range of ~27,6km, in game 16,2km)

Compressing range but not penetration.... yeah that sure goes well.

[Bl4ckh0g]

 

Well to bad engagement ranges are so compressed in this game, that the 300mm at 5km should be 300mm at 3km at most. (8" mark 9 has a range of ~27,6km, in game 16,2km)

Compressing range but not penetration.... yeah that sure goes well.

 

well If a Pensacola closes to 5 km from a Battleships she's already dead If that BB pays any attention whatsoever

  The 105 pound armor piercing shell fired at 2810 feet per second could pierce up to 5 in (127 mm) of hardened armor plate out to 9,200 yards; the 130 pound AP shell introduced just before World War Two fired at 2500 feet per second could penetrate out to 15,700 yards.

from wikipedia

 

so a Cleveland could penetrate 127 mm of armor from 4700 meters, the Kongou has a 120mm belt armor IIRC so yeah

Edit: A 8"/55 gun could penetrate 254 mm of armor with a 152 kg AP shell from 9880 meters

On the matter of torpedoes the problem is that they can be spotted from relatively far away rendering them rather useless... Basically if you want to hit a BB with most of your torps you need to close in less than 3,5 km against a cruiser less than 2,5 km which is suicidal

 

On another note the Carriers have some terrible tier to tier progression a one tier higher carrier can annihilate the other one with ease rendering the other ship completely useless

also It's rather unsatisfactory to play with carriers, your only dmg source is the torp bombers  the dive bombers usually do no more than 5k dmg per battle which is rather bad

 

And yeah it would be nice that if Higher tier DDs would be you know actually better than a lower tier one 

[ArdRaeiss]

Well to bad engagement ranges are so compressed in this game, that the 300mm at 5km should be 300mm at 3km at most. (8" mark 9 has a range of ~27,6km, in game 16,2km)

Compressing range but not penetration.... yeah that sure goes well.

Ranges are not compressed. They are capped at what is called "effective fire control range" - i.e. range at what proper fire countol could be provided by FCS depending on FCS height and model. Like in real life you are starting battle at maximum fire range that is usually inside of your own IZ(versus own guns, Iowa not included). Yes, the real naval battles happened mostly outside of IZ... as they were trying to sink each other before coal/oil and shells were exhausted, not to seat in some kind of theoreticaly less vulnerable position.

Don't forget - there are only one hit at the range of 25kms and one at 24.5 despite all pre-war maneuvers, trainings and radars.

[Hornet331]

So why do the shells then drop at at ~30-40° at 16km when the range is capped, when in reality they should drop at 17° 

To me thats compression and not capping.

 

For clarification:

Capping to me means that you cap the elevation angle and there for the range and just as you said that was actual practice.

This does not happen in game, we shoot at higher angles for lower ranges and shells drop at high angles at ranges they shouldn't, thats why I call it compression.

[Bl4ckh0g]

So why do the shells then drop at at ~30-40° at 16km when the range is capped, when in reality they should drop at 17° 

To me thats compression and not capping.

 

I can double that they really seem to do a sudden drop at the end of their fall

[Hauptbahnhof]

 

Torpedo spotting range is 2kms as far as i known(could check it again). At this range destroyer could evade easily, cruiser could have some hard time and battleship will be hit unless he's really lucky. There are two ways to avoid that - to zig-zag as if torpedoes are already in the water(and they usually are) or to use allies and scout plane in attempt to spot them earlier.

 

Bigger maps equals to longer matches. This is bad for game pace in random battles. But we are looking to how we can introduce bigger maps anyway.

Destroyers were created as anti-ship. ASW and AA duties were adde later as they were cheap, expendable and numerous.

Cruiseres have got unique ability to decrease strike planes precision, thus providing great support for the ships group.

Why? If you could penetrate belt/deck/barbette - why should we stop shell from doing just that? It's the battleship player's mistake to be in such close range.

 

One thing I would like to see is variable torpedo detection range.

 

For example like this:

 

Fully functional Battleship: 3km

Battleship with damage to superstructure: 2km

Battleship with all spotting locations destroyed: 1km

 

You could also make it easier to damage the rudder with HE shell fire and impair steering ( most Battleships had backup rudders so they could still steer, but not enough to avoid torpedoes )

 

That would mean the main way to defeat a Battleship with smaller ships becomes just like history, to shell it with HE and then finish it off with torpedoes.

 

 

You can also apply the same detection malus to spot enemy ships ( -67% detection range if all spotting is knocked out ), and put a communication component/antenna on the ships which when destroyed cut the ship of from team information and spottings.

 

That would really allow divebombers and light shell fire to temporary render Battleships in a very vulnerable situation without being able to outright sink them without using torpedoes.

 

[Gryphonne]

Torpedo spotting range is 2kms as far as i known(could check it again). At this range destroyer could evade easily, cruiser could have some hard time and battleship will be hit unless he's really lucky. There are two ways to avoid that - to zig-zag as if torpedoes are already in the water(and they usually are) or to use allies and scout plane in attempt to spot them earlier.

 

Bigger maps equals to longer matches. This is bad for game pace in random battles. But we are looking to how we can introduce bigger maps anyway.

Destroyers were created as anti-ship. ASW and AA duties were adde later as they were cheap, expendable and numerous.

Cruiseres have got unique ability to decrease strike planes precision, thus providing great support for the ships group.

Why? If you could penetrate belt/deck/barbette - why should we stop shell from doing just that? It's the battleship player's mistake to be in such close range.

 

Better check, torpedo spotting range is 2.7km AND planes can spot torpedoes. This combination makes long range runs useless. In fact, I never fire anymore from more than 3km. I just rush ahead to my target, see which way his guns are pointing and then depending on circumstances I drive right into his face or let loose at 2.5km (taking the fastest possible torpedo on the ship because the slower ones can STILL be dodged anyway). Gives me great xp, but I hardly think this is the way DDs are supposed to be played.

[Bl4ckh0g]

Ranges are not compressed. They are capped at what is called "effective fire control range" - i.e. range at what proper fire countol could be provided by FCS depending on FCS height and model. Like in real life you are starting battle at maximum fire range that is usually inside of your own IZ(versus own guns, Iowa not included). Yes, the real naval battles happened mostly outside of IZ... as they were trying to sink each other before coal/oil and shells were exhausted, not to seat in some kind of theoreticaly less vulnerable position.

Don't forget - there are only one hit at the range of 25kms and one at 24.5 despite all pre-war maneuvers, trainings and radars.

 

I thought about it for some time, Would it be possible to display a ship's IZ against it's own guns in the port at the survivability tab? Would help a lot of people immensely 

[ArdRaeiss]

So why do the shells then drop at at ~30-40° at 16km when the range is capped, when in reality they should drop at 17° 

To me thats compression and not capping.

 

For clarification:

Capping to me means that you cap the elevation angle and there for the range and just as you said that was actual practice.

This does not happen in game, we shoot at higher angles for lower ranges and shells drop at high angles at ranges they shouldn't, thats why I call it compression.

This is just the visual illusion, check from the "receiving side" or look at allies from afar - shells are falling with small angles as they should depending on shell(gun, velocity) and distance.

 

Ranges in game are capped by minimal value of [maximum gun elevation if limited by FCS abilities; gun's maximum range at max elevation]. And you have to check again - there are no "shoot up at 50+ degrees to hit the deck" as it was in NF1 - at low ranges you are shooting at low angles... unless this is the far range for that gun(Cleveland? Mogami?).

 

You could also make it easier to damage the rudder with HE shell fire and impair steering ( most Battleships had backup rudders so they could still steer, but not enough to avoid torpedoes )

Rudders are underwater, they are nearly invulnerable to HE shells and HE bombs. They were armored on capital ships, so you just can't hit it with smal caliber HE and AP could be not string enough to penetrate armor.

[Fominator]

Rudders are underwater, they are nearly invulnerable to HE shells and HE bombs. They were armored on capital ships, so you just can't hit it with smal caliber HE and AP could be not string enough to penetrate armor.

 

That reminds me. Why torpedoes can't  crit the rudders? One of these kind of hits doomed Bismarck.

[Hauptbahnhof]

Rudders are underwater, they are nearly invulnerable to HE shells and HE bombs. They were armored on capital ships, so you just can't hit it with smal caliber HE and AP could be not string enough to penetrate armor.

 

The rudders are not armored to my knowledge. They have to be exposed to the water and streamlined shape in order to work.

 

Your perhaps thinking about the room with the steering mechanism? That room is normally protected and armored indeed, but it is not the weakpoint of the entire rudder and steering system.

 

I'm pretty sure that the rudder itself could be damaged by nearby HE hits from torpedoes ( like Bismarck ), bombs or small caliber shells exploding on or just below the surface nearby.

[ArdRaeiss]

The rudders are not armored to my knowledge. They have to be exposed to the water and streamlined shape in order to work.

Your perhaps thinking about the room with the steering mechanism? That room is normally protected and armored indeed, but it is not the weakpoint of the entire rudder and steering system.

Torpedo hit is completely different from bomb or shell hit - it has waaay more explosives and it explodes underwater. HE shells just could not reach the rudder itself - unless it's the DD where it does not needed(her steering is fragile enough as is).

Torpedoes could hit and crit the steering. HE shells could not hit rudders and could have hard time reaching steering mechanism if there is any armor present.

 

I thought about it for some time, Would it be possible to display a ship's IZ against it's own guns in the port at the survivability tab? Would help a lot of people immensely 

Someday maybe. I wish we could provide penetration curves for guns in "Modules" in the client to check before the battle... Well, something will be done, just not soon.

[Hauptbahnhof]

Torpedo hit is completely different from bomb or shell hit - it has waaay more explosives and it explodes underwater. HE shells just could not reach the rudder itself - unless it's the DD where it does not needed(her steering is fragile enough as is).

 

Torpedoes explode underwater just like bombs and HE shells can do if they are near misses, they all throw up water plumes.

 

It may be true that small HE shells lack the explosives and power to be of much harm. But it's not true that the airdropped bombs has significantly less explosives then the torpedo, especially if we compare with the lighter airlaunched torpedoes.

 

Airlaunched Torpedoes:

British 18 inch Mark XI Torpedo (1934): 211 kg TNT ( likely used against Bismarck )

British 18 inch Mark XV Torpedo (1942): 247 kg Torpex

USNavy Mark 13 Mod1: 181 kg

USNavy Mark 13 Mod2: 270 kg

IJN Type 91: 204 kg

 

Divebomber Bombs:

IJN D3A: 1x250 kg

IJN D4Y: 1x500 kg or 2x250 kg

USN SBD Dauntess: 1x1000lb (450kg)

USN SB2C Helldiver: 1x1000lb (450kg)

 

So the biggest divebomber bombs ( what they would use against armored capital ships ), are around 500kg, of which is 250kg explosives, fully comparable to the explosive charges of airdropped torpedoes that evidently could cripple rudders on Battleship sized ships.

[Hornet331]

This is just the visual illusion, check from the "receiving side" or look at allies from afar - shells are falling with small angles as they should depending on shell(gun, velocity) and distance.

 

Ranges in game are capped by minimal value of [maximum gun elevation if limited by FCS abilities; gun's maximum range at max elevation]. And you have to check again - there are no "shoot up at 50+ degrees to hit the deck" as it was in NF1 - at low ranges you are shooting at low angles... unless this is the far range for that gun(Cleveland? Mogami?).

 

Rudders are underwater, they are nearly invulnerable to HE shells and HE bombs. They were armored on capital ships, so you just can't hit it with smal caliber HE and AP could be not string enough to penetrate armor.

 

I am on the reciving end, and at max range ~16km shells do not drop at ~17° but much larger for 8" guns. In fact every gun larger than 15xmm suffers from this, jap 41cm is the same. Near max (ingame) range they drop far steeper than they should if the only cap would be angle cap on the guns.