Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
anonym_PYC0RAuRIwe4

So why can't Halland shoot forward?

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
117 posts

And don't give me a historical reason, I don't care, this isn't a simulator. What's the balancing reason for Halland not being able to shoot straight in front? It already has only 2 guns facing in either direction so why have this extra layer of limitation. Its guns aren't that great anyway compared to other DDs.

 

 

EDIT: Just to clarify I meant Halland not being able to shoot forward at closer ranges below 7.4km, which is ~73% of its range and where most gunfights take place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,893 posts
12,609 battles
14 minutes ago, Vardog said:

And don't give me a historical reason, I don't care, this isn't a simulator. What's the balancing reason for Halland not being able to shoot straight in front? It already has only 2 guns facing in either direction so why have this extra layer of limitation. Its guns aren't that great anyway compared to other DDs.

 

 

I wonder if those two launchers for ASW rockets have something to do with limited forward firing arc at shorter ranges:cap_yes:

 

In case you've missed the memo on Halland - she is no gunbote. Nor gudbote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
117 posts
3 minutes ago, Panocek said:

I wonder if those two launchers for ASW rockets have something to do with limited forward firing arc at shorter ranges:cap_yes:

 

You mean those ASW rockets that serve no purpose other than decoration? Doesn't sound like a good justification to me, from a balance standpoint there's no reason why Halland shouldn't be able to shoot forward, it only makes gunfights awkward.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,893 posts
12,609 battles
Just now, Vardog said:

 

You mean those ASW rockets that serve no purpose other than decoration? Doesn't sound like a good justification to me, from a balance standpoint there's no reason why Halland shouldn't be able to shoot forward, it only makes gunfights awkward.

Its not like main game mode is about to be hit with submarines, no? Then, I suppose she will be reinforced with better ASW options, maybe even ranged ASW unlike usual depth charges found on other destroyers.

 

And then in WG wisdom she is shoehorned into torpedoboat role with illusion of being "solution to CV problem".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,758 posts
4,137 battles
28 minutes ago, Vardog said:

What's the balancing reason for Halland not being able to shoot straight in front? It already has only 2 guns facing in either direction so why have this extra layer of limitation. Its guns aren't that great anyway compared to other DDs.

Well...

14 minutes ago, Panocek said:

I wonder if those two launchers for ASW rockets have something to do with limited forward firing arc at shorter ranges:cap_yes:

...I seem to have read something along these lines, yes.

 

But even if those ASW weapons are somewhat in the way of firing straight forward (I can't check this right now), this is not - in all fairness - enough of a reason to limit the forward firing capabilities as you describe, unless there are also balance issues involved. The Okhotnik's rear-mounted guns can all fire straight astern, with no concern for the fact that all but one of them are in each other's way (they are all placed in a straight line on the same level). Even with allowances made for a presumed historical lack of care for crew comfort in the imperial Russian navy, the first such salvo would blow all but one of those gun mounts off the deck.

 

So if there is a limitation of effective firing arcs on the Halland, any well-conceived drive to have it alleviated will have my moral support. Equal rights for Swedes and Russians!

:Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,893 posts
12,609 battles
29 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

Well...

...I seem to have read something along these lines, yes.

 

But even if those ASW weapons are somewhat in the way of firing straight forward (I can't check this right now), this is not - in all fairness - enough of a reason to limit the forward firing capabilities as you describe, unless there are also balance issues involved. The Okhotnik's rear-mounted guns can all fire straight astern, with no concern for the fact that all but one of them are in each other's way (they are all placed in a straight line on the same level). Even with allowances made for a presumed historical lack of care for crew comfort in the imperial Russian navy, the first such salvo would blow all but one of those gun mounts off the deck.

 

So if there is a limitation of effective firing arcs on the Halland, any well-conceived drive to have it alleviated will have my moral support. Equal rights for Swedes and Russians!

:Smile_great:

And then, Halalaland can lob shells over those launchers past 7.5km.

shot-20-05-28-20-33-41-0681.jpg

IIRC Le Fantasque 4th gun also needs enough elevation to be able to fire over Oerlikon.

 

And in case you've missed the memo - you're playing game developed by Russians, published by Belorussians with Russian being primary market:cap_tea:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
117 posts
18 minutes ago, Panocek said:

And then, Halalaland can lob shells over those launchers past 7.5km.

 

Which makes no sense for DD with only 1 gun turret on each end of the ship. I hope this is simply an oversight on WG's part and not a design choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
7,969 posts
16,841 battles

I really hadn't noticed that Halland can't fire forward - shows you how often I directly charge towards the enemy, as opposed to reflexively angling slightly...!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,893 posts
12,609 battles
2 minutes ago, Vardog said:

 

Which makes no sense for DD with only 1 gun turret on each end of the ship. I hope this is simply an oversight on WG's part and not a design choice.

Or it is not oversight, because WG decided shells can't fly too close to ASW launchers. Might scare them or something:cap_book:

 

Again, Fanta and her 4th turret can't open fire at edge of firing arc due to Oerlikon at distances below 9km

Spoiler

shot-20-05-28-21-03-07-0375.jpg

shot-20-05-28-21-03-11-0953.jpg

And here, gun just barely clears 20mm PewPewKanone

shot-20-05-28-21-03-55-0962.jpg

 

8 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

:cap_hmm:

Torps with no impact on BBs or even CBs, so any excessively horny bigbote can rush you and you can't exactly nuke him off. Guns are decent, but cripplingly short ranged, making island camping very situational. And then no smoke, so you can't do pew pew without island.

AA is decent, but it takes only one DD caliber HE to knock one AA mount. And what was the point of Halland without AA again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
117 posts
2 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

I really hadn't noticed that Halland can't fire forward - shows you how often I directly charge towards the enemy, as opposed to reflexively angling slightly...!

 

Good for you, how does your comment relate to the issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
117 posts
6 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Again, Fanta and her 4th turret can't open fire at edge of firing arc due to Oerlikon at distances below 9km

 

Again, you're missing the point. There's a world of difference between not being able to use a portion of your firepower and not being able to shoot AT ALL. Fantasque has 5 guns, Halland has 2 and he can't even use a single turret while facing forwards, that's a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,598 posts
1 minute ago, Vardog said:

 

Again, you're missing the point. There's a world of difference between not being able to use a portion of your firepower and not being able to shoot AT ALL. Fantasque has 5 guns, Halland has 2 and he can't even use a single turret while facing forwards, that's a problem.

Then turn

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
9,071 posts
46,281 battles
4 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Torps with no impact on BBs or even CBs, so any excessively horny bigbote can rush you and you can't exactly nuke him off. Guns are decent, but cripplingly short ranged, making island camping very situational. And then no smoke, so you can't do pew pew without island.

AA is decent, but it takes only one DD caliber HE to knock one AA mount. And what was the point of Halland without AA again?

Still I won't say it's useless. I'm fine with it. The same you can say about Marceau they has also some big cons. Even though I'm really having fun playing it. I need to pay more on Halland but I'm not having the "useless" feeling like I had on Hayate with smoke (now I use TRB on it and my PR went up from pitiful 620 to 974 and I'm doing my best to improve it) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
7,969 posts
16,841 battles
3 minutes ago, Vardog said:

 

Good for you, how does your comment relate to the issue?

By possibly implying it isn't really an issue if I haven't even noticed it (admittedly after only 82 battles, across all modes).

 

As to reasons why: as others have pointed out, there are enormous great AS rockets in the way, and balance-wise, everything else will be balanced around this as an overall whole (not that the effect is anything very much)...

 

It's not like it's the only ship in the game to have some aspect of its firing arc blocked...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,758 posts
4,137 battles
1 hour ago, Panocek said:

And in case you've missed the memo - you're playing game developed by Russians, published by Belorussians with Russian being primary market:cap_tea:

I try not to see Russian bias in every questionable aspect of the game...  :cap_win:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
117 posts
23 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

By possibly implying it isn't really an issue if I haven't even noticed it (admittedly after only 82 battles, across all modes).

 

I'm honestly not surprised, judging by your below average stats, that YOU can't picture any situations where not being able to shoot forward would be an issue. I however, not only can, but WERE in those situations enough times to notice this annoying design choice that makes no sense for a DD with only 2 gun turrets. It's already bad enough that Halland doesn't get 360 turrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,893 posts
12,609 battles
27 minutes ago, Vardog said:

 

Again, you're missing the point. There's a world of difference between not being able to use a portion of your firepower and not being able to shoot AT ALL. Fantasque has 5 guns, Halland has 2 and he can't even use a single turret while facing forwards, that's a problem.

Then do just this

25 minutes ago, domen3 said:

Then turn

Still don't like it? Don't play it.

 

WG doesn't add vertical limitations to firing arcs "by accident". You can reeee about this "feature" all you want, but chances of WG fixing that are about as high as me getting Enterprise from my daily Coal crate.

 

3 minutes ago, Vardog said:

 

I'm honestly not surprised, judging by your below average stats, that YOU can't picture any situations where not being able to shoot forward would be an issue. I however, not only can, but WERE in those situations enough times to notice this annoying design choice that makes no sense for a DD with only 2 gun turrets. It's already bad enough that Halland doesn't get 360 turrets.

If you find yourself forced to use guns and at the same time you're limited to "bow on only" situations doesn't mean Halland "need fixing asap", but someone, somewhere quacked up considerably and looks for scapegoat.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,893 posts
12,609 battles
1 minute ago, domen3 said:

? Did you quote the wrong person?

More like I've forgot to quote text only, without recalling entire post with the owner:cap_book:derp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
7,969 posts
16,841 battles
19 minutes ago, Vardog said:

below average stats

Stat-shaming? Really? I've never made any secret of being rubbish.

 

If you're resorting to trying to rubbish someone's view on grounds of stats, it's strongly suggestive that you've lost the argument...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
117 posts
11 minutes ago, Panocek said:

If you find yourself forced to use guns and at the same time you're limited to "bow on only" situations doesn't mean Halland "need fixing asap", but someone, somewhere quacked up considerably and looks for scapegoat.

 

One last time, you're missing the point. Next time I'm just going to ignore you. I'm asking for a valid, balance-related argument as to why Halland should not be able to shoot straight in front of itself. What about this ship justifies it not being able to shoot straight forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,893 posts
12,609 battles
4 minutes ago, Vardog said:

I'm asking for a valid, balance-related argument as to why Halland should not be able to shoot straight in front of itself

Because Wargaming decided so. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,598 posts
4 minutes ago, Vardog said:

 

One last time, you're missing the point. Next time I'm just going to ignore you. I'm asking for a valid, balance-related argument as to why Halland should not be able to shoot straight in front of itself. What about this ship justifies it not being able to shoot straight forward.

Because there is a physical obstruction in the way.

/thread

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
117 posts
1 minute ago, Panocek said:

Because Wargaming decided so. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

1 minute ago, domen3 said:

Because there is a physical obstruction in the way.

/thread

 

That's what I thought. All bark and no bite.

Share this post


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

×