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

ammo weight and propellant type from UAD type systems

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[NOWH]
Players
754 posts
5,934 battles

edit--by ammo weight i specifically mean the weight of the fired shell, not that munition compliment should be added.--

 

would similar options be useful in wows?

what would predictable consequences be(for better or worse)?

 

i suspect it would need to be much more limited than the options in uad, as well as some ships not having assess to some options if used here.

since players would find certain utterly broken ship/ammo weight/propellant combos.

 

being able to raise or flatten shell trajectories, as well as manipulate penetration vs range would add a bit of variability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,223 posts
12,008 battles

Variable propellant charge to fiddle with shell velocity and thus AP pen could be a thing, but in practice it would mean everyone would go with overcharge unless it comes with significant reload penalty.

 

Ammo load... you're physically incapable of burning through standard ammo load within 20min timespan, even if you were to fire constantly. Also I doubt reduced ammo loads would give any measurable advantages. Maybe 0.5kts speed improvement, but also raise citadel? If anything, most people would go extra ammo to hide citadel even further at speed expense

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NOWH]
Players
754 posts
5,934 battles

ammo weight not load. i mean the weight of the shell. il clear up the op.

a heavy shell having lower initial velosity and higher arc trajectory, but keeping its speed,

lighter shell being the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
2,742 posts
6,714 battles

Comrade, is your Kremlin getting farmed from behind island by pesky capitalist light cruiser? No problem, just reduce the powder charge and watch your shells float over island. And since shell is going slower, it will not even overpenetrate, da?

 

Nah, I'll pass. It'll make balancing even more of a nightmare than it currently is and increase the skill gap in the game by a considerable margin.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NOWH]
Players
754 posts
5,934 battles

heh. this would be set up in equipment, not changed mid battle. but thats an interesting point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,250 posts
7,172 battles
1 hour ago, SkollUlfr said:

edit--by ammo weight i specifically mean the weight of the fired shell, not that munition compliment should be added.--

 

would similar options be useful in wows?

what would predictable consequences be(for better or worse)?

 

i suspect it would need to be much more limited than the options in uad, as well as some ships not having assess to some options if used here.

since players would find certain utterly broken ship/ammo weight/propellant combos.

 

being able to raise or flatten shell trajectories, as well as manipulate penetration vs range would add a bit of variability.

It would be a fun thing to customize the ships more to your liking including the shells, etc. But it would make Balancing indeed more tricky as all options need to be balanced somewhat against each other and it would be very hard to predict the impact of such freedom. Therefore I doubt it is an option although I would support it.

 

I would even be in favor of heavily modifying your ships and ships visuals. But again I doubt WG can make that work in this game 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
1,597 posts
21,264 battles
1 hour ago, Panocek said:

Variable propellant charge to fiddle with shell velocity and thus AP pen could be a thing, but in practice it would mean everyone would go with overcharge unless it comes with significant reload penalty.

No, historically the OP is quite right in specifying shell weight rather than charge/shell energy.

The charge you can use is largely dictated by the gun (naturally you'd want the biggest bang your gun can safely support over a sufficiently long service life).

The optimization problem historically was which shell weight to use, lighter weight shells with straight arcs to go for belt-shots and shorter flight-times, diving shells, medium weight or heavy/super-heavy shells to aim for more deck-penetrations ect. This is also heavily influenced by the ranges you expect to shoot at and (strongly related) what your ships immunity zone was against likely opponents.

 

Though I don't think this idea could be reasonably balanced and most ppl would prolly have straight up no idea what to go for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NOWH]
Players
754 posts
5,934 battles
4 hours ago, rnat said:

 

Though I don't think this idea could be reasonably balanced and most ppl would prolly have straight up no idea what to go for.

the game already has this though as a choice between ship lines. its just not advertised/listed well.

 

iirc, usn tending to have heavy shells giving some nasty plunging fire that have have to predict better for, and ussr tending to have light shells making it easier to slap things at closer ranges, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
1,597 posts
21,264 battles
11 minutes ago, SkollUlfr said:

the game already has this though as a choice between ship lines. its just not advertised/listed well.

Indeed. I prolly should have mentioned that, since giving the player the choice kind of takes away from that historically-based flavor.

KM preferred high velocity shells as well iirc.

Share this post


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

×