Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Leo_Apollo11

From NA forum: "What the Supertest "Zero Damage" Penetration Change Means for BBs" byLittleWhiteMouse

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
2,842 posts
8,031 battles

Hi all,

 

From NA forum:  "What the Supertest "Zero Damage" Penetration Change Means for BBs" byLittleWhiteMouse @LittleWhiteMouse :

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/172555-what-the-supertest-zero-damage-penetration-change-means-for-bbs/

 

Quote

This is one hell of a proposed change.  I stress that it's merely proposed at this stage and that it doesn't mean that it's entering the game for sure.  There's a lot of implications for this, but the big one here is that it's a very solid hit against battleship survivability, particularly in the hands of veteran players.  Here's why:

 

Anti-torpedo bulges are now counted as part of the ship's hull.  Penetrating there now results in a loss of hit points.  As they count as part of the hull, this will mean that hits against a battleship's bulge will now result in 0.33x penetration (so a 10,000 max damage AP shell will strike for 3,300 damage).  The belt armours found underneath now only serve to prevent citadel damage. AP shells, even smaller caliber AP shells from destroyers and light cruisers, now have renewed purpose in chewing up big chunks of battleship health this way.  While they would have no chance of penetrating the belts before (and would result in shattered ribbons), they now will eat into the ship's hit point total despite shattering against the belt underneath.  This also means that against enemy battleships, angling means less.  Trying to bait shells into your angled belt won't mean anything anymore if said belt is covered by an anti-torpedo bulge. 

 

Short of being able to ricochet the round entirely off whatever armour value of your bulge (19mm for tier IV and V, 25mm for tier VI and VII and 32mm for tiers VIII+) you will take penetration damage.  This will only encourage more "bow-in" style game play and punish those daring to try and use their armour to tank.  Effectively, the affected battleships now have worse armour than an Omaha when it comes to stopping AP penetration damage.

 

Here's the list of (current) affected battleships:

fOtCHW6.png
Ironically, a lot of the A-Hull premiums like Mutsu, Ashitaka and Kii now have better AP penetration protection than their "upgraded" counterparts.

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,487 posts
10,344 battles

The proposal talks about 10% damage, not 33%.

Either LWM is mistaken or has more information about the change than is written in the devblog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
2,842 posts
8,031 battles

Hi all,

 

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

The proposal talks about 10% damage, not 33%.

Either LWM is mistaken or has more information about the change than is written in the devblog.

 

AFAIK she is "SuperTester" on NA - isn't she?

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
13,487 posts
10,344 battles
5 minutes ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

 

AFAIK she is "SuperTester" on NA - isn't she?

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

She is writing about the proposal and does not explain why she uses different numbers. Sounds odd to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
2,842 posts
8,031 battles

Hi all,

 

17 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

A topic about LWMs calculations already exists:

 

 

 

Darn... sorry... didn't see that you posted the link on her NA Forum post in "Spoiler" / "Hidden"... :Smile_hiding:

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×