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

Secondary battery ranges

Secondary Battery Ranges  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. Should secondary battery ranges be per gun rather than per ship?

    • Yes - the different calibers should have their separate ranges
      50
    • No - Keep the simple, single range for all secondaries
      10

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,130 posts
2,554 battles

A little thing that has irked me so far in the game is how all the secondary batteries on a ship have identical ranges, despite most battleships and many cruisers (particularly Kriegsmarine cruisers) having mixed calibre secondaries, while logically the higher calibre secondaries (particularly turreted ones) should have longer ranges.

 

This is particularly noticeable on the high tier IJN battleships, as their higher calibre secondaries load AP for cruiser hunting duty, however they have their range tied down by the the 127mm dual-purpose batteries so in effect they aren't actually useful against cruisers as cruisers don't get as close as destroyers. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for the 127mm guns, as despite being identical to the ones mounted all the way back on the Kongo they have their ranges lifted all the way up to 7 km from a mere 4 km. This method of balancing secondaries ends up with ships having a fixed circle of secondary death, rather than a gradient of lethality as more guns get in range up close, as well as the previously mentioned issue of the anti-cruiser single purpse batteries not being able to do their job properly. The issue is also apparent to a lesser degree on the German ships, as they sometimes have up to 150mm single purpose secondary batteries in addition to their heavy AA artillery batteries (which are treated as a dual-purpose battery in the game) which suffer from the same problem, as making the 150mm battery have the range to be relevant against cruisers would make the DP batteries far too effective against destroyers.

 

Making the range per gun rather than per ship would solve these issues. It would allow each of a ship's secondary batteries do their own specific job without their performance affecting the other batteries, similar to how we already have ships with multiple AA batteries that each have their own ranges and purposes. For example, if the casemate mounted guns have ranges from 2.5 km up to about 4.5 km, the DP artillery would range from about 2.5 km (the early 76mm gun mounts) up to about 5 km (the standard mid-game 127mm DP mounts), possibly with the high-tech DP mounts being up to 6 km (such as the IJN 100mm and the US 5"/54), which would then allow the single purpose mounts such as the German 150mm and the IJN 155m guns have 7 km and above ranges. Obviously this would quite a bit of tweaking, both of the other aspects of the secondaries themselves as well as probably some balance changes to the ships most affected by the changes.

 

What do people think? Should the current simplification of secondary batteries be kept or should a more logical, but slightly more complicated, approach be taken? Would the current model for secondaries cause problems for any potential ships that are likely to be implemented?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,961 battles

Different AAA have different ranges, I don't see why different types of secondaries couldn't work like that.

 

Might also be a good way to roundabout buff the secondary armament accuracy in that some secondaries fire further but have the usual bad accuracy, but other secondary batteries fire more accurate, but have shorter ranges.

Edited by Aotearas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
78 posts
1,606 battles

Sure they could do that, but the only thing you will accomplish with that is that the smaller caliber secondaries will get a even shorter range. The secondaries as they are now have their range limited as a balance measure, NOT because it isn't technological feasible. (as demonstrated with the AA guns)

Edited by deathcaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,554 battles

Sure they could do that, but the only thing you will accomplish with that is that the smaller caliber secondaries will get a even shorter range. The secondaries as they are now have their range limited as a balance measure, NOT because it isn't technological feasible. (as demonstrated with the AA guns)

 

The way I see it, the current secondary battery model in the game severely gimps the high calibre secondaries in favour of the small dual purpose weapons as they are forced to share the same range. Overall, the high caliber secondaries already suffer from a relatively low rate of fire and being fewer in number, which really makes their job difficult if they are forced into the same range as the little guns.

 

To use the Yamato as an example as it is probably the ship that would be affected most: currently the Yamato's 155mm guns are limited to 7 km because giving its 127mm guns any more range would be overpowering. A separation of the ranges, forcing the 127mm guns down to 5 km would give destroyers much more freedom to engage the Yamato as it wouldn't have a 10+ km bubble of secondary death, it would only be 7 km or so once modules and skills are involved, as destroyers don't much care about the 155mm guns as they are too few, fire overpenetrating AP and fire too slowly to be a real threat. This nerf against destroyers would free up a good chunk of the Yamato's power budget, allowing the 155mm guns to go up to perhaps 9 km or so base range, which would then be capable of brawling with cruisers on thanks to the longer ranges and the reasonable penetration of the 155mm ammunition, while possibly getting an occasional lucky hit on destroyers outside the 127mm guns' ranges.

 

It wouldn't be about buffing or nerfing, it's about differentiating the mixed batteries and smoothing the secondary battery firepower over different ranges. It would be about giving different secondary batteries different functions rather than a simple bubble of secondary onslaught that blurs all the guns together into a hail of yellow and orange projectiles. I expect most ships that suffer a range reduction on part of their secondary battery would also get a range increase on another part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
18,781 posts
6,084 battles

I voted yes because it would make the gameplay deeper but I foresee many balancing issues arising from such a change and I'm not sure the added depth is worth all the rebalancing needed to add this feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,049 posts
8,360 battles

Not if it is just change the range of the guns as they are now. But with a more thorough overhaul of the secondary setup and the guns? Yes, count me in for this. So I voted for the optimal situation.

Edited by Unintentional_submarine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
1,761 posts
17,458 battles

I would vote for player controllable secondariers..... Carriers have use of ALT key, why not hold ALT down to switch to Secondary View/ targetting, that way the player actually has to make a conscious effort to damage an incoming ship rather than the current system of automated firing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
169 posts

every ship should have at least 5km secondaries,

Mikasa should have 6km... why ?  because she needs it

Case by case balancing WG, please.


 

That said I agree different caliber have different range, as long as they don't end-up as ornament again on almost every ships in the tech tree bar a certain few.

Edited by Francois424

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.

×