Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Myrmidon19

Mode with Finite Ammo

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[NORKS]
Players
91 posts

Was talking to my friend the other night about it maybe being cool to have a mode or modifier where ships have historically accurate quantities of ammunition for their respective weapons. Neither of us are hugely knowledgeable about the period so I honestly have no idea how much ammunition ships typically carried or how long it lasted etc. Would be interesting to hear if anyone knows even just for the sake of learning something new. Find myself randomly looking at ships all the time on wikipedia since starting warships, it's a new fascination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
24,656 posts
13,660 battles

It has no noticeable effect on BB, Cruisers and Gunboats.

The Torpboats will be practice targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAU]
[MIAU]
Players
4,028 posts

As long as you only look at guns, all ships have plenty of ammunition for a 20 minute battle.

 

The only ones you screw over are DDs that rely on their torps, as those become oneshot consumables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
13,036 battles

Only ships that would be effected by this at all would be anything with torpedo armament as most ships didn't really have torpedo reloads at all (and when they had, it's not something you reloaded in an active battlezone). For guns every ship that I ever heard about had sufficient ammunition load to not be able to expend all of it in a twenty minute window.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,375 posts
2,939 battles
3 hours ago, Aotearas said:

(and when they had, it's not something you reloaded in an active battlezone)

 

Technically it could be done. Practically... It could be done but don't count on it too much.

 

3 hours ago, Aotearas said:

For guns every ship that I ever heard about had sufficient ammunition load to not be able to expend all of it in a twenty minute window.

Fast firing ships could. Firing constantly, Fletcher could initially expand its main battery ammos in 15min (until the quantity was raised) - less if you only count Common shells. The same goes for other US DD classes around the time. However, realistically, many factors prevented them from staying at the highest ROF possible for 15mins straight.
Nontheless, running out of ammo during a battle is not something that absolutely never happened. Just take a glance at Samar's escort Destroyer. If memory serves, John C Butler did expand pretty much everything. Samuel B. Roberts was not far off from completly emptying at least one of her magazines.

 

6 hours ago, Myrmidon19 said:

Find myself randomly looking at ships all the time on wikipedia since starting warships

Ammos aside, it's a good thing you're going through wikipedia. Even that is better than the "sources" WG offers -.-"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAU]
[MIAU]
Players
4,028 posts
2 hours ago, LastButterfly said:

Just take a glance at Samar's escort Destroyer. If memory serves, John C Butler did expand pretty much everything. Samuel B. Roberts was not far off from completly emptying at least one of her magazines.

And just how long did that battle take?

From what I remember one specific gun crew in that battle needed more then 30 minutes of continous fire to empty their ammo.

 

So while it might not be unheard of to empty your ammunition, it most certainly took them more time then the 20 minute battles we have in WoWs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
9,327 posts
10,972 battles
8 hours ago, Myrmidon19 said:

Was talking to my friend the other night about it maybe being cool to have a mode or modifier where ships have historically accurate quantities of ammunition for their respective weapons. Neither of us are hugely knowledgeable about the period so I honestly have no idea how much ammunition ships typically carried or how long it lasted etc. Would be interesting to hear if anyone knows even just for the sake of learning something new. Find myself randomly looking at ships all the time on wikipedia since starting warships, it's a new fascination.

Pointless unless you introduce 30min+ battles. Most ships in game are unable to expend all their ammo reserves even when going full dakka for 20min, let alone in actual combat ie when you open fire at something worth firing at.

 

More believable would be barrel overheating, but then this feature would impact cruisers and destroyers only... And battleships already have too much in their favor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,375 posts
2,939 battles
2 hours ago, Egoleter said:

And just how long did that battle take?

From what I remember one specific gun crew in that battle needed more then 30 minutes of continous fire to empty their ammo.

 

So while it might not be unheard of to empty your ammunition, it most certainly took them more time then the 20 minute battles we have in WoWs.

 

You're cherry picking the facts in wows that you want to be true and denying the others. Everybody knows spacetime is not even a thing in the game, and yet you're coming here with you're "battles in wows last only 20mins" like it's an absolute truth comparable to the real thing.
No ounce of realism here. Not even a drop. Thus, what matters is that a battle is a battle, and claiming that a ship running out of ammo within a battle never happened, would be factually wrong.

 

That is all I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Spoiler

Also, as I said, a Fletcher class could theorically expand its main gun ammos in less 15min, so either way, even if battle duration was an absolute truth comparable to the real thing, it's still within the realm of possible.

If I may ask, I would like you to take another look at the 5 last words of the previous sentence. They're important.

 

Thank you for having taken the time to read them once more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,375 posts
2,939 battles
19 minutes ago, Egoleter said:

And you are not?

I doubt it. For instance, I never used the example of Samar to pretend running out of ammunition was a common occurence. I merely used it to deny the false belief that it never happened.

 

You on the other end seem pretty intent on reading but a shard of everything I write and ignoring the rest. That is the very core meaning of cherry picking. I apologize if I employed an expression you were not familiar with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,375 posts
2,939 battles
Vor 7 Stunden, Egoleter sagte:

edit

 

I apologize if you misunderstood my tone ; however, there was no veiled insult in my posts. Nor were there any insult at all.

When I said you were cherry picking the facts, I did not imply you were doing it out of malice. It was just a plain statement that meant you have achieved a conclusion without looking at all the data - the very essence of cherry picking.

You taking that as an insult may be partly my fault. Maybe the tone I employed was wrong. If you'd wanted me to speak in a more informal manner you should've said so~ I ain't a native speaker so I ain't verry much in touch with the subtule nuances words and expressions can carry. That's also why I try to stay formal - 'cause when I go casual mode, is also when I allow myself some sarcasm - a pretty complex thing in a foreign language. You're quick to offend someone without wantin' to, or fail when you're trying to do exactly that.

However, I'd like to be fair with you. I ain't apologizing. I never intended to insult you, and as far as I can tell there's nowt insulting in my previous posts, so maybe you should tone down your sensitivity a lil'. Everybody out there ain't on attack mode towards you. Some people are just defending their point of view. That was my case~

 

Back on the topic at hand - and and this is why I would have liked for you to be upfront instead of using short acid answers to what you thought was an agression. It seemed there's a misunderstanding. You're talking about the game all over, but I ain'. In fact I don't think I have in any of the messages you quoted. My goal, was to dispel the false believe that ships never ran out of ammo during a battle. Hence why I took Samar - the contrary to "never" is "at least once" so once's plenty enough.

Did I say anything 'bout ammo count being a game option ? Nope. How much did I argue about which class such a system would punish ? Nada. And just so ya know, back when I was playin' this game, I used to be a pretty hardcore destroyer guy. Obviously I'd know and despise the effects this very concept of limited ammuniton would have on 'em, for it'd destroy half of the class - if not all.

 

And no, I didn't ignore that you admitted running out of ammo happened. For two reasons - firstly, cause I can't see anywhere in the thread where you admitted it, and secondly, 'cause it doesn't matter, because if you pay attention, the first message I wrote here wasn't an answer to you, and yet you seemed to have taken it as a personnal attack for reasons beyond me. I didn't ignore what you wrote about how it would punish destroyers, I was simply not talking about the same subject at all. And I never pretended that you said ships have infinite ammo or game modes could run for a different time - regarding this second point, I merely said that game time was not an equivalent of rzal-world time, taht's a totally different concept, but anyway.

 

All this doesn't matter much anyway. At first, all I wanted to say is that ships expanding their ammos within 20min was a factual possibility in the real world, and that it even happened within the blurry time limits of what we call a battle, so the idea was not completely irrealistic. I didn't say anything about it being good or bad. But the real problem here is that you seemingly took that message - which was not even directed at you - as an attack.

 

Hell, if anything, from my viewpoint, you're the one who came out of nowhere and attacked me like I was spreading a horrible lie.

Ya should take a step back and re-read the conversation with that in mind.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×