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

ST - 203 mm SAP shells

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG]
WG Staff, Administrator, Community, WG Team
5,185 posts
4,292 battles

Ricochet angles for 203 mm semi-armor-piercing shells changed from 80-85 to 75-80.

 

Due to over performing ricochet angles and subsequently high damage, 203 mm SAP shells were too effective: angling offered almost no protection against them due to such parameters.

 

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary, and balancing ricochet angles and other parameters of the new shell type may take several test iterations.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RO-RN]
Players
973 posts
13,908 battles

These shells are to OP against destroyers!!!! I got hit from a venezia for 8k damage and that was only 6 SAP shells out of what? 15? Same goes for the t10 italian destroyer nerf sap aganist destroyers!

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4_0_4]
Players
8,130 posts
14,609 battles
12 hours ago, Animalul2012 said:

These shells are to OP against destroyers!!!! I got hit from a venezia for 8k damage and that was only 6 SAP shells out of what? 15? Same goes for the t10 italian destroyer nerf sap aganist destroyers!

 

And BB-AP does less?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,866 posts
14,654 battles
5 hours ago, Zemeritt said:

And BB-AP does less?

Yes, 23,400 (1560 x 15) is quite a lot more damage than any BB, the heaviest of which is 16,200 (1350 x 12) with worse dispersion and reload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
30,910 posts
15,691 battles
On 8/23/2019 at 5:00 PM, Tanatoy said:

Ricochet angles for 203 mm semi-armor-piercing shells changed from 80-85 to 75-80.

 

Due to over performing ricochet angles and subsequently high damage, 203 mm SAP shells were too effective: angling offered almost no protection against them due to such parameters.

 

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary, and balancing ricochet angles and other parameters of the new shell type may take several test iterations.

I still strongly suggest that SAP shells do less damage than AP shells, but more than normal HE shells.

 

  • AP shells need are role, if SAP does more damage than AP, AP is useless, except on citadels, and we all know how good you can predict these with long reloads
  • you can then speed up the reload, which gives players a better handling of the ships
  • you should also think about limiting SAP damage to DD to 20%, as an intermediate round between AP and HE should do
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,694 posts
3,784 battles

definitely agree that AP has to do more damage than SAP otherwise there is literally no point to have it. citadels itself cant compesate the fact that it has way worse bounce angles and can even overpen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
6,067 posts
12,155 battles
1 minute ago, puxflacet said:

definitely agree that AP has to do more damage than SAP otherwise there is literally no point to have it. citadels itself cant compesate the fact that it has way worse bounce angles and can even overpen.

Well, but actually that makes sense. High risk, high reward or constant decent damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,694 posts
3,784 battles
On 8/31/2019 at 12:58 PM, Pikkozoikum said:

Well, but actually that makes sense. High risk, high reward or constant decent damage.

No, there is no trade. SAP does more damage all the time. Why switching to AP when even SAP is even able to citadel things(?) (if Im not mistaken I even saw that Venezia citadelled other cruiser with SAP, thats just ridiculous). The long reload just asks for this question: should i go with guarantee damage or switch to even bigger alpha strike? But currently the AP doesnt offer that choice

 

EDIT: that SAP citadel had to be a bug

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2 posts
3,982 battles

Mhh okay still the soviets didn't have a rl submarine in wwII only nations was GB DR AM and the JP but sovejts never mind so wg team why you don't do realistic and accept that you better implement first the nation where use more submarines than nations they didn't use it so much so what I wanna tell her that first AM DR and JP get submarines not sovejts at 3rd place but yea wows will be like wot op Rus ships see like the last slomenks he fire zao and worchster like and range like desmoins fire rate like the minotaur pff idk what for complex sometimes the wg team have 

  • Funny 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,866 posts
14,654 battles
40 minutes ago, Khronberserker said:

still the soviets didn't have a rl submarine in wwII

What? In 1939 the Soviets had 120k tons of submarines and by 1941 the Soviets had the largest submarine fleet in the world.

 

And what does this have to do with SAP shells?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,799 posts
18,563 battles

Funnily enough, submarines are one of the few ships soviets actualy did have, unlike the various trees in the game right now...

 

Anyway, I'm all for reducing the alpha on SAP to below AP values and reducing reoad times. Then we'll see how they'd work.

Something like 4000 Alpha to Venezia's SAP would already reduce the volley to almost Zao levels of HE, I don't think that should worry DDs in any way then (...more than Zao and other cruisers). No limits against DDs needed then.

Share this post


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

×