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

Bow Camping, autobounce, and HE/AP value

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
16 posts
5,633 battles

Having spent a bit too much time in high tiered camp fests, I have come back to being annoyed that 32mm bounces battleship shells. Without this, bow camping (and long range camping due to plunging fire) would be less attractive.

 

Of course, shallowing the autobounce angle would increase "lol" pens, but if AP damage values were nerfed, and a ships hit pool was shifted to the citadel, this could be workable. Think of CV bombs. HE has higher total power, but AP bombs that have a citadel hit do more damage. (Not crazy, given that AP shells reduced their explosive power for the hardened exterior.)

 

For example, have the Iowa shells do 13,500 HE and 6,000 AP damage. HE won't pen a BB or CA citadel, and an AP cit hit would still do the most damage (but a lot less than now). The for, aft, and super structure would take a beating, but  if the health pool was shifted so that a ship could not sink unless it took a few cit hits ( fires, overpens, and flooding not withstanding), that could reduce the impact of buffed HE.

 

To sum up, a reduced autobounce angle (15-20) with inverted AP/HE damage output, and a citadel heavy health pool could help make the game less campy while reducing the devestating impact of an individuel cit hit. Given WG seems to be willing to some radical changes ( CVs, possibly subs), playing with shells might be worth a thought.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,429 posts

If an enemy team camps, you could just communicate with your teammates and charge them together. Charging or closing in fast is a military manouevre and always an option in certian circumstances. Some type battlecruisers and battleships had to do that as plunging fire was far more dangerous to them then flatter trajectory fire.

 

If it is one on one i often charge too, having battleship torpedo's or strong secondaries encourages that. When i lose that but can reach the enemy there is still the option of ramming.

 

That requires no game changes by WG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles

You could do that... or you could just get yourself a keyboard and move your ship. I wonder which of these 2 options is easier... :cap_old:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
16 posts
5,633 battles

Ah the critics are out! Rest assured I can find my WASD and know the value of flanking, but there isn't much you can do when the rest of your team doesn't. I can't say most high tier games are shining examples of manuver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
3,429 posts
13 minutes ago, WyomingNavy said:

Ah the critics are out! Rest assured I can find my WASD and know the value of flanking, but there isn't much you can do when the rest of your team doesn't. I can't say most high tier games are shining examples of manuver.

 

This is true, but still it is a (mass) player fault not to manuever. To change penetration values just to make bad players move....seems not desirable.

 

Maybe submarines will be able to make them move, if they can dive deep enough to avoid detection untill they are inside a camping zone. A few slaughterfests ( and a whole lot of whining they should be removed or nerfed ) later and the camping is something of the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-RM-]
Beta Tester
2,090 posts
8,430 battles

If you are forced to fight a bowcamping force, you either just roll with the Yamato who straight up counters bowcamping, or just fire HE. I know I know, you are not "supposed" to spam HE in a BB but if a target is bow camping then that target is 9/10 times sacrificing 33-50% of its firepower while you can utilise 100% of yours most of the time.

 

Alternatively, call it out to your cruiser buddies. Nothing is more enticing to a cruiser than a big, slow target that will catch most of the shells you throw at it. Bow camping only really works if A) that ship is in a strong position and can cover most approaches. Solution to this is to HE spam-torp it to death because it can't effectively disengage. Or B) your team throws themselves at the bow camping target providing easy damage. In this case ignore it and try to gain map control instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester, Players
2,160 posts
6,474 battles
1 hour ago, WyomingNavy said:

For example, have the Iowa shells do 13,500 HE and 6,000 AP damage.

Wait... are you really suggesting turning all BBs to HE only by default? Why would I ever fire AP when HE penetration deals 4500 damage?
Or did I misinterpret your grand plan?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
16 posts
5,633 battles
24 minutes ago, Blixies said:

Wait... are you really suggesting turning all BBs to HE only by default? Why would I ever fire AP when HE penetration deals 4500 damage?
Or did I misinterpret your grand plan?

Yep. An AP hit to the citadel would still do more damage. I also suggessted shifted HP pool to the citadel. If only 40% of a ships HP was outside the citadel, additionnel HE would do 0 damage. Citadel hits would be nessary to kill the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
13,783 posts
19,478 battles

Has been tested, was discarded due to overwhelming negative player reaction.

 

However the ability to bow camp is indeed one of the primary reasons why high tier games are far more static than low-mid tier matches. Honestly I wish here WG would've pushed through the change regardless of player reaction like they always tend to do instead of listening to the playerbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,882 posts
16,293 battles
On 3/9/2019 at 5:54 PM, Beastofwar said:

 

This is true, but still it is a (mass) player fault not to manuever. To change penetration values just to make bad players move....seems not desirable.

 

Maybe submarines will be able to make them move, if they can dive deep enough to avoid detection untill they are inside a camping zone. A few slaughterfests ( and a whole lot of whining they should be removed or nerfed ) later and the camping is something of the past.

 

InB4 BB get 12 km hydro and IJN torp boats are finally put in the grave.

 

We've been there before, back in vanilla WoWs when DD stealth had no counter but another DD.

 

Basically WG pampered to the BB community by introducing first floatplanes, then radar, then RPF, then radar extension module, then adding radar to every cruiser they release, then increasing CV population, then buffing radar duration and range and nerfing floodings. Not arguing we didnt need radar to deal with the smoke meta, but somewhere along the way the balance seems to have tipped over.

 

If you want camping discouraged, add sharks with lasers attached to their head and have them attack ships that stay in the same position for > 2 minute unless they pay 1 mio. credits :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,973 posts
7,346 battles

Stop with the sub meme. They would add a mountain a problem and not solve a single one. Subs are basically nerfed DDs in everything but the stealthiness. We don't need any of that.

 

Easiest counter to 32mm is Yamato. Second best is to move your battleship so that you can crossfire the enemies that are bowtanking your team Yamato/Musashi. There are always some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
5,976 posts
11,338 battles
15 hours ago, GulvkluderGuld said:

 

InB4 BB get 12 km hydro and IJN torp boats are finally put in the grave.

 

We've been there before, back in vanilla WoWs when DD stealth had no counter but another DD.

 

Basically WG pampered to the BB community by introducing first floatplanes, then radar, then RPF, then radar extension module, then adding radar to every cruiser they release, then increasing CV population, then buffing radar duration and range and nerfing floodings. Not arguing we didnt need radar to deal with the smoke meta, but somewhere along the way the balance seems to have tipped over.

 

If you want camping discouraged, add sharks with lasers attached to their head and have them attack ships that stay in the same position for > 2 minute unless they pay 1 mio. credits :cap_haloween:

Pampered? These DD nerfs were needed back then and some of these nerfs have been reverted. Actually, DD is the most buffed ship in the last 1 1/2 years or so.

There is no balance that got tipped over. I think some DD-only players remember the old days and perhaps want those back. But I think it's good those days are dead and burried permanently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
4,501 posts
15,942 battles

Might as well hi-jack this thread. Damage saturation and damage done working as intended?

 

Spoiler

 

shot-19_03.11_18_22.01-0264.thumb.jpg.d6b20b3cfdeb46608a8cbc008acd73bb.jpgshot-19_03.11_18_22.07-0055.thumb.jpg.2dc6155b892317df228c57377b7eb829.jpgshot-19_03.11_18_22.16-0344.thumb.jpg.9ac49735b1b668bef777576f84373db9.jpgshot-19_03.11_18_22.24-0649.thumb.jpg.483edb7127c34fd519ece788bf2d949e.jpgshot-19_03.11_18_22.32-0447.thumb.jpg.b5ae03ca8dda0c96d927cec9489dd635.jpgshot-19_03.11_18_22.36-0068.thumb.jpg.322885cc37ff8d430a6b823b714f2136.jpg

 

Nothing new, it just got very clear and somewhat annoying in this situation. Both IFHE and AP was used and I barely managed to get the last few hundred HP from him. 50 hits and 500 damage HE and AP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
311 posts
14,067 battles


Really stupid idea, bow tanking is skill mate, knowing when and how can bow tank, when to move, when to reverse and you want idiot proof gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
13,783 posts
19,478 battles
1 hour ago, Yamato942 said:

bow tanking is skill mate

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,882 posts
16,293 battles
5 hours ago, NothingButTheRain said:

Pampered? These DD nerfs were needed back then and some of these nerfs have been reverted. Actually, DD is the most buffed ship in the last 1 1/2 years or so.

There is no balance that got tipped over. I think some DD-only players remember the old days and perhaps want those back. But I think it's good those days are dead and burried permanently.

First, you respond to a haft decent jibe at the radar buffs and proliferation.

Nobody wants the smoke meta back, but right now WG makes the same mistake with radar that they already made once with smoke. 

 

And no, dds have not the buffed much compared to all the indirect and direct nerfs i listed (and that doesn't even count the increased armor thickness of new lines and adding more and more islands on the maps).

Unless you count the release of overpowered new lines, which really isn't specific for DDs, all dd buffs amounts to are Gearing got Fletcher torps, shima got a stealth buff and the russian line got some much needed love.

 

Recent games sees 4-5 radars on each team (since every cruiser these days get Radar) plus often CVs too.

No surprise the supercruisers are popular - flanks are basically impossible if a team plays with half a brain and 5 radars.

We exchanged smoke meta for bow-tank behind your waifu rock meta. Yay (not)

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FIFO]
Beta Tester
435 posts
1,644 battles

plunging fire..based on the popularity of the strategy I'm not sure this is actually modeled sufficiently to actually be effective. the majority of shots I see being fired by enemies in battles and streams of various content creators are aimed for direct hits, never once have I seen a CC or an enemy use "plunging fire"  

Otherwise one would say that max range AP shooting with relatively slow shells against big targets like battleships would be relatively popular, as even 152mm shells maintain a 100mm+ penetration at max range, and most BB's have a 50mm or so armored deck. and unlike bow tanking, you cannot angle your deck against shots from above.

 

AP tends to have a lot of negatives compared to its HE brother and could use a small buff, notably the smaller calibers. battleship AP however is the odd exception..since battleships have calibers so high that they benefit from overmatch against various targets, and have very high base penetration. this ends up removing the ricochet/bounce problems from a number of targets, a benefit smaller standard AP shells from CA/CL/DD do not share.

 

HE damage is lower because the shell is much more reliable then its equivalent..because it does not care about angle or range, cannot overpen, can add DoT effects on top of dealing damage and every target you can shoot at has at least 1 area that the shell will inflict penetration level damage to that is always available to shoot at (initially at least, until this area is saturated). this is the reason "HE spam" is so prevalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
13,783 posts
19,478 battles
13 hours ago, conductiv said:

plunging fire..based on the popularity of the strategy I'm not sure this is actually modeled sufficiently to actually be effective.

 

Well, plunging fire literally doesn't exist. The combat distances in this game are far too close for plunging fire to occur with auto bounce.

To pick an example, the NC is notorious for having perhaps the worst shell arcs of all high tier BBs. Auto bounce occurs at <30°, meaning that angle of fall of a shell must be greater than that to overcome it. We know from previous tests that angle of fall is accurately modeled after real life values, so all we need to do is look up the distance a gun needs for an angle of fall of 30°+ at e.g. navweaps.

And according to navweaps a NC would need a distance of around 24-25km. Hilariously impractical in any but the most extreme ingame scenarios. That's what a ship with notoriously bad shell arcs needs. A Yamato meanwhile would need somewhere around 30km for plunging fire to occur.

 

So unless overmatch is involved deck penetrations in this game do not exist. However a longer distance can be helpful for penetrations below the waterline due to the ballistic properties of shells striking the sea before a ship and prevent overpens as the shell loses more energy while traveling a longer distance.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×