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

maneuvrability data ?

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,032 posts
3,686 battles

I recently started to play DD more and I'm gutted by the apparent disconnect between the quoted engine HP (horsepower) figures and how the ship behaves.

 

Acasta with 34.000 HP barely loses 2 knots when turning full rudder, while the smaller, shorter, lighter Mutsuki fitted with 38.500 HP is less agile. Acceleration across ships seems also completely disconnected from quoted HP.

It doesn't make any sense.

 

Is somewhere data available on real turn rates and acceleration of ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
30,027 posts
15,424 battles

Horsepower alone is not enough. You also have to consider tonnage and hull form.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,358 posts
12,044 battles
19 minutes ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

I recently started to play DD more and I'm gutted by the apparent disconnect between the quoted engine HP (horsepower) figures and how the ship behaves.

 

Acasta with 34.000 HP barely loses 2 knots when turning full rudder, while the smaller, shorter, lighter Mutsuki fitted with 38.500 HP is less agile. Acceleration across ships seems also completely disconnected from quoted HP.

It doesn't make any sense.

 

Is somewhere data available on real turn rates and acceleration of ships?

Keep in mind UK destroyers have artificially overbuffed acceleration and speed loss as part of their "gimmick". Supposedly to reflect on their above average seaworthiness and range. Or something like that.

 

That and speed loss during turn is dictated by ship class - UK CL/DD retain 99% of their speed mid turn, normal cruiser and DD have, I think, 80% speed, battleships have 75% and carriers about 50%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,032 posts
3,686 battles
20 hours ago, Panocek said:

Keep in mind UK destroyers have artificially overbuffed acceleration and speed loss as part of their "gimmick". Supposedly to reflect on their above average seaworthiness and range. Or something like that.

 

That and speed loss during turn is dictated by ship class - UK CL/DD retain 99% of their speed mid turn, normal cruiser and DD have, I think, 80% speed, battleships have 75% and carriers about 50%.

thanks for the explanation, but what nonsense.

the IJN had some of the most modern ships.

 

but OK, like in all WG games there is "secret data" making objective comparisons based on data impossible. "Balanc" da totshna tovaritsh

 

20 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Horsepower alone is not enough. You also have to consider tonnage and hull form.

yes, nearly all of these are clearly in favor of Mutsuki in this argument, especially draft and installed power.

considering the below characteristics, Mutsuki should manoeuver significantly better than Acasta, especially on acceleration, yet the opposite happens in the game.

 

Why even bother to publish installed Power in the game if WG is going to ignore it?

 

Acasta:

Displacement:
Length: 323 ft (98.5 m) (o/a)
Beam: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)
Draught: 12 ft 3 in (3.73 m)
Installed power:
  • 34,000 shp (25,000 kW)

 

Mutsuki:

Displacement:
  • 1,336 t (1,315 long tons) (normal)
  • 1,800 t (1,772 long tons) (deep load)
Length:
  • 97.54 m (320 ft 0 in) (pp)
  • 102.4 m (335 ft 11 in) (o/a)
Beam: 9.16 m (30 ft 1 in)
Draft: 2.96 m (9 ft 9 in)
Installed power:
  • 38,500 shp (28,700 kW)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,358 posts
12,044 battles
1 minute ago, HassenderZerhacker said:

thanks for the explanation, but what nonsense.

the IJN had some of the most modern ships.

 

 

yes, nearly all of these are clearly in favor of Mutsuki in this argument, especially draft and installed power.

considering the below characteristics, Mutsuki should manoeuver significantly better than Acasta, especially on acceleration, yet the opposite happens in the game.

 

Why even bother to publish installed Power in the game if WG is going to ignore it?

 

Acasta:

Displacement:
Length: 323 ft (98.5 m) (o/a)
Beam: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)
Draught: 12 ft 3 in (3.73 m)
Installed power:
  • 34,000 shp (25,000 kW)

 

Mutsuki:

Displacement:
  • 1,336 t (1,315 long tons) (normal)
  • 1,800 t (1,772 long tons) (deep load)
Length:
  • 97.54 m (320 ft 0 in) (pp)
  • 102.4 m (335 ft 11 in) (o/a)
Beam: 9.16 m (30 ft 1 in)
Draft: 2.96 m (9 ft 9 in)
Installed power:
  • 38,500 shp (28,700 kW)

This is part where you familiarize yourself with word "arcade" and "gameplay reasons":cap_tea:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,032 posts
3,686 battles
1 minute ago, Panocek said:

This is part where you familiarize yourself with word "arcade" and "gameplay reasons":cap_tea:

 

I would not have a problem with that if they weren't publishing misleading data or if there was a way to compare real manoeuvrability and real acceleration of ships.

 

I'm fine with arcade adjustments, I'm not fine fine with lack of transparency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,358 posts
12,044 battles
Just now, HassenderZerhacker said:

 

I would not have a problem with that if they weren't publishing misleading data or if there was a way to compare manoeuvrability and acceleration of ships.

 

I'm fine with arcade adjustments, I'm not fine fine with lack of transparency

In World of Tanks you have engine horsepower stat present. But whole stat can and is often "adjusted" for "gameplay reasons" via invisible from player perspective "ground resistance", so tank with underpowered engine can keep up with the rest or to trim down "excessive" acceleration when needed while giving pretense of realism.

 

Also

-Russians

-transparency

pick one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,032 posts
3,686 battles
14 minutes ago, Panocek said:

In World of Tanks you have engine horsepower stat present. But whole stat can and is often "adjusted" for "gameplay reasons" via invisible from player perspective "ground resistance", so tank with underpowered engine can keep up with the rest or to trim down "excessive" acceleration when needed while giving pretense of realism.

 

Also

-Russians

-transparency

pick one

 

in WoT, ground resistance adjustments are known and they can be looked up on websites. there are even formulas for determining acceleration.

Share this post


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

×