Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[Hades_warrior]

4 minutes ago, avenger121 said:

 

Yeah, because the Nelson will be exactly like the other tech tree ships. I mean look at the Missouri, it is just another Iowa, nothing special like premium ship effects on it, ............

 

 

Then you feel free to buy him, and any other ship you want. But you should respect others opinions if someone think something is wrong, even if you dont feel that way.

Like I said, i'll save my EXP for other RN BBs in line.

[mtm78]

1 minute ago, WestyII said:

WG dont model armour quality. KGV had exceptional cemented armour (14" built, equivalent to 17.5"). So she wont be an accurate representation of the class for training room duels.

Re Nelson at 350k FXP: If it is too much FXP, how are we supposed to grind this is we are meant to spend time with our families? 

This discussion is fruitless, that is why WG decided to not model armor qualities. There isn't one single credible source which properly equates every kind of armor we have in game, it would be impossible to actually accurately mimic 'equivalent armor thickness' for all qualities of armor.

 

Just using armor thickness is about as fair as you can make it. 

[Sub_Octavian]

2 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

This discussion is fruitless, that is why WG decided to not model armor qualities. There isn't one single credible source which properly equates every kind of armor we have in game, it would be impossible to actually accurately mimic 'equivalent armor thickness' for all qualities of armor.

 

Just using armor thickness is about as fair as you can make it. 

Unfortunately, that's true.

[WestyII]

Just now, mtm78 said:

This discussion is fruitless, that is why WG decided to not model armor qualities. There isn't one single credible source which properly equates every kind of armor we have in game, it would be impossible to actually accurately mimic 'equivalent armor thickness' for all qualities of armor.

 

Just using armor thickness is about as fair as you can make it. 

Eh, we can agree to disagree.

Not taking into account armour quality, makes the armour thickness meaningless. Would be better using arbitrary values based on real life performance. Oh well, now we have one of the best armoured ships in the world, having subpar armour, which is weird. 

[txtspeak]

2 minutes ago, WestyII said:

Eh, we can agree to disagree.

Not taking into account armour quality, makes the armour thickness meaningless. Would be better using arbitrary values based on real life performance. Oh well, now we have one of the best armoured ships in the world, having subpar armour, which is weird. 

Just WGs staggering incompetence, nothing new here... *sigh*

[mtm78]

11 minutes ago, WestyII said:

Would be better using arbitrary values based on real life performance.

 

7 minutes ago, txtspeak said:

Just WGs staggering incompetence, nothing new here... *sigh*

 

This is the problem. There are no unified sources which have tested all armor represented in game ( using a single testing method ). Therefore, it's impossible to actually put values on 'real life performance'. There is a lot of national bias going on, with multiple countries making claims about their armor qualities and 'testing' which supports it. A lot of this data is controversial though, as there was a lot of PR going on. And the few tests done after the war are to limited in scope to apply to all the different armor ( periods ). 

 

Btw, if you want to model 'relative quality' do you also model fatigue? Some battleships had very thick armor but when the war broke out this armor was old and brittle and no where near as effective as it looked. How far would WG need to take this before it was 'realistic' enough?

 

Again, it might not be what you want but I don't see how WG could actually model 'armor quality' in a way which wouldn't just bring more controversy to the game and make the game's engine needlessly complicated in the same time ( and the more complicated, the bigger the risks of bugs ). 

[WestyII]

Just now, mtm78 said:

Snip

Stop being rational.You raise some very good points, I had not considered armour fatigue, however I am aware of different tests giving vastly different results. 

Tricky one. It seems you are damned if you do, and damned if you dont. KGV is probably the biggest loser out of this method, and the Sovetsky Soyuz is probably the biggest winner. 

[Exocet6951]

16 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

 

This is the problem. There are no unified sources which have tested all armor represented in game ( using a single testing method ). Therefore, it's impossible to actually put values on 'real life performance'. There is a lot of national bias going on, with multiple countries making claims about their armor qualities and 'testing' which supports it. A lot of this data is controversial though, as there was a lot of PR going on. And the few tests done after the war are to limited in scope to apply to all the different armor ( periods ). 

 

Btw, if you want to model 'relative quality' do you also model fatigue? Some battleships had very thick armor but when the war broke out this armor was old and brittle and no where near as effective as it looked. How far would WG need to take this before it was 'realistic' enough?

 

Again, it might not be what you want but I don't see how WG could actually model 'armor quality' in a way which wouldn't just bring more controversy to the game and make the game's engine needlessly complicated in the same time ( and the more complicated, the bigger the risks of bugs ). 

 

And then there are the different methods of showing off the material's practical quality.
Some nations take from the production line to test, others create special batches.
 

Worst of all, there's then the type of ammunition in relation to the armor to consider.
Maybe some nations pumped out numbers which took into consideration a more favorable scenario where the steel has better resistance towards that kind of shell, while other nations took the worst possible case scenario.

 

 

In short at this point it's speculative, although I would be willing to bet that US and British steel was indeed of higher quality, while German steel was on average not as good as what source documents might say. 
**cough** Hello German testing methods using specially crafted material being completely unrepresentative of large scale production **cough**

 

 

 

Tricky one. It seems you are damned if you do, and damned if you dont. KGV is probably the biggest loser out of this method, and the Sovetsky Soyuz is probably the biggest winner. 

 

I wouldn't be so sure about Russian ships.
For all the propaganda that might have been going around at the time, Russian testing methods were generally very rational, and strict.
It probably stems from the fact that when you create equipment in such large quantities, you want to know for sure what it's capable of doing on average, not what it could do in the best case scenario.
Well, at least for the Red Army.
I'm only speculating that their navy was held at the same standard.

[Fat_Maniac]

1 hour ago, creamgravy said:

 

Nelson and Missouri are grinding goals in a f2p grinding game. You'll need to pay crazy money to get them right away.

 

Phil's estimate of 300-400k is too low for me. 450k would be my base figure.

I actually thought 500k - 600k based on Missouri being T9 at 700k a t7 would simply be 7/9ths of that or 583.33333333K

 

[WestyII]

4 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

I wouldn't be so sure about Russian ships.
 

Well as far as I am aware Soviet Naval engineers couldnt create cemented armour thicker than 9.1". (thats all I based that on) 

[mtm78]

12 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

And then there are the different methods

 

28 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

There are no unified sources which have tested all armor represented in game ( using a single testing method ).

 

Strangely, I agree with your statement

 

As to the rest, afaik ( and this is from hearsay second hand told by my uncle Bob's dear grand niece who had a brother who knew .. well you get the picture ) ->

 

IJN -> huge difficulties getting sufficiently thick enough armor slabs.

USN ( early / pre war ) -> below baseline

GE -> let's call it 'baseline armor quality'?

USN ( late war ) -> above baseline

FR -> above baseline?? ( Shin told me, must be true! )

RN -> above baseline

 

VMF didn't really built any capital ships, and their armor producing capabilities were worse than IJN. 

 

But this is just what I think, I don't have enough credible sources to claim it's true. Infact, if someone has sources which say otherwise I would gladly read them :)

 

[ShinGetsu]

I think you can count the French into the "above average quality" too. At least that was the case for the steel used on tanks.

[Bellegar]

10 minutes ago, WestyII said:

Eh, we can agree to disagree.

Not taking into account armour quality, makes the armour thickness meaningless. Would be better using arbitrary values based on real life performance. Oh well, now we have one of the best armoured ships in the world, having subpar armour, which is weird. 

 

7 minutes ago, txtspeak said:

Just WGs staggering incompetence, nothing new here... *sigh*

Here I disagree. As Marvin said, it is very difficult to say anything sensible about effective armor thickness. Some ships/armors might have proper sources, but some do not, making it impossible to implement the feature. If you want to do that, you have to do it for all armors, and that's not possible. That's why raw thickness is the best as they can get. It isn't the perfect solution, but it's the best solution.

 

28 minutes ago, Hades_warrior said:

USN Colorado branch ~210k EXP

German Gneisenau branch ~210k EXP

JPN Nagato branch ~207k EXP

I'm gonna trust you on your maths here, I'm too lazy to do them myself

 

Take the 210k of the most expensive ship, slap some more on the price for being able to train captains, maybe some extra comsumables and other special stuff, and I think 250-300k would be fair. 330-350k maximum.

@Sub_Octavian, I'm sorry for my blunt words, but saying we would want it at 50k is a stupid argument. Yes of course we would like to get it as cheap as possible, but there is a thing called common sense. We all know 50k free xp for a T7 BB is stupid and nobody is asking for that.

Some people are arguing it should be regular T7 or money premium, but that's just another opinion. You clearly disagree and that's not too bad. People often disagree. But even those people are not asking for an unfairly low free xp price tag. If it has to be a free xp ship, and apparently you guys decided it should be, we can of course argue about the price. We can agree or disagree with the decision of Nelson being a free xp ship, but that's not the point on the new discussion.

 

As I said I think around 300k would be fair. That way it would be more expensive than regular T7 ships (as it should be), and right between the free xp equivalent of Scharnhorst's cost (assuming a cost of 10k doubloons for easy maths) with (350k) and without (250k) free xp conversion bonus.

 

I think WG should also take into account here the fact that Missouri is the only T9 premium, and Nelson/Rodney (I hope it will be Rodney) isn't. This could possibly mean that people that 'only' need a UK BB captain trainer would just not bother with Nelson if it's too expensive. Of course the class is special, and especially Rodney is quite famous, and of course some people will want to have it just for historical or collection's sake, but the masses will just not bother if her 'price' is exeptionally high in comparison to other T7 BBs, both premium and non premium.

 

 

This is all my opinion of course, but I think there's a strong case for a cost of around 300k. As I said I'm afraid nobody other than hardcore Nelson/Rodney/history fans will play the ship if the price will be too high compared to other T7 ships, especially premiums since they have the same or comparable captain training, camo and consumable bonuses. And that would be a shame for such an iconic ship

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

22 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

In short at this point it's speculative, although I would be willing to bet that US and British steel was indeed of higher quality, while German steel was on average not as good as what source documents might say. 

**cough** Hello German testing methods using specially crafted material being completely unrepresentative of large scale production **cough**

are we including the German testing method for Tank shell penetration that included simply grabbing the best shells of a produced bunch, and then still needing 5 out of 5 consecutive penetrations to get the penetration number assigned and if they failed back to square 1?... Oh yeah, COMPLETE penetrations with the bursting charge intact...

[Spellfire40]

23 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

 

 

In short at this point it's speculative, although I would be willing to bet that US and British steel was indeed of higher quality, while German steel was on average not as good as what source documents might say. 
**cough** Hello German testing methods using specially crafted material being completely unrepresentative of large scale production **cough**

 

I woudnt go that far armor dosent have that much to do with the techicall overenginring that plagued some of the complex german Equipment. Raw material does thogh. I think there were studies on armor of Panter Tanks comparing good Quality of its early models to the last Batches of late 1944 to early 1945.wich was much more brittle and offered less protection. Given they had the material Germany produced very good armor. 

[Herrscher_Elysia]

I think we need to use russian calculator.

 

Missouri = 750 00 Free Exp

ok?

And its Tier 9.

Got it?

 

So 750 000/9 = 83.33333 (to infinity) yes?

rounded it became 83, 83 per tier,

Nelson is Tier 7, so 83 x 7 = 581

 

There the real price tag, 581 000 Free Exp boys and girls. Goodluck guys.  

 

[1MajorKoenig]

9 minutes ago, Spellfire40 said:

I woudnt go that far armor dosent have that much to do with the techicall overenginring that plagued some of the complex german Equipment. Raw material does thogh. I think there were studies on armor of Panter Tanks comparing good Quality of its early mudels to the last Batches of late 1944 to early 1945.wich was much more brittle and offered less protection. Given they had the material Germany produced very good armor. 

 

Ppl seem to be very fussed about late WW2 material shortage resulting in declining armour quality on Panther tanks.

 

However no capital ships were produced in DE at this stage any more.

 

Truth is, armour quality is not a national characteristic but changes a lot over time. By 1910 the German armour was of excellent quality in comparison because a lot of ppl did really weird stuff / not having good knowledge. By the time WW2? No idea and you won't find a good answer. 

 

What you will find a lot is: WE ARE THE GREATEST AND MAKE SUPER HARD STEEL! 

 

So I have to agree with Sub_Octavian and mtm78. Armour quality is a can of worms (and more emotional driven than anything else). Just keep raw thickness and call it a day :-)

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

2 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

So I have to agree with Sub_Octavian and mtm78. Armour quality is a can of worms (and more emotional driven than anything else). Just keep raw thickness and call it a day :-)

especially if we include paper ships and htel ikes... for the soviets for example WG could simply give them a 4x modifier on strength and claim "by the time they would've built this ship they would've done so with the finest steel yet seen in naval construction!"

[Spellfire40]

6 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Ppl are very fussed about late WW2 material shortage resulting in declining armour quality on Panther tanks.

 

However no capital ships were produced in DE at this stage any more.

 

Truth is, armour quality is not a national characteristic but change a lot over time. By 1910 the German armour was of excellent quality in comparison because a lot of ppl did really weird stuff / not having good knowledge. By the time WW2? No idea and you won't find a good answer. 

 

What you will find a lot is: WE ARE THE GREATEST AND MAKE SUPER HARD STEEL! 

 

So I have to agree with Sub_Octavian and mtm78. Armour quality is a can of worms (and more emotional driven than anything else). Just keep raw thickness and call it a day :-)

Exactly plus the Navy did had very high priority on good materieals even up to the end they produced top grade presure hulls for Subs, Things that go beound simply armor like all or nothing is okish included in WoWS thogh the compresed range and scale messes up with some weak or good Points of teh scemes but lets not Forget its acade for that it does a respecable Job.

[1MajorKoenig]

Just now, GrossadmiralThrawn said:

especially if we include paper ships and htel ikes... for the soviets for example WG could simply give them a 4x modifier on strength and claim "by the time they would've built this ship they would've done so with the finest steel yet seen in naval construction!"

 

"This is an excellent proposal comrade. We can still do that!"

 

*turns to his assistant*

 

"give him a rise"

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

"This is an excellent proposal comrade. We can still do that!"

 

*turns to his assistant*

 

"give him a rise"

I'll take my payment in 75.000 Dubloons, thank you

[Fat_Maniac]

30 minutes ago, IJN_Kitakami said:

I think we need to use russian calculator.

 

Missouri = 750 00 Free Exp

ok?

And its Tier 9.

Got it?

 

So 750 000/9 = 83.33333 (to infinity) yes?

rounded it became 83, 83 per tier,

Nelson is Tier 7, so 83 x 7 = 581

 

There the real price tag, 581 000 Free Exp boys and girls. Goodluck guys.  

 

Did the same calc as you I reckon somewhere between 500k and 600k

[Donar79]

 

50 minutes ago, Fat_Maniac said:

I actually thought 500k - 600k based on Missouri being T9 at 700k a t7 would simply be 7/9ths of that or 583.33333333K

 

However the progression in WoBs isnt a flat line ...its a curved line

 

43 minutes ago, Bellegar said:

 

@Sub_Octavian....

 

 

This is all my opinion of course, but I think there's a strong case for a cost of around 300k. As I said I'm afraid nobody other than hardcore Nelson/Rodney/history fans will play the ship if the price will be too high compared to other T7 ships, especially premiums since they have the same or comparable captain training, camo and consumable bonuses. And that would be a shame for such an iconic ship

Exactly what i thought ...250k sure i take it...300k sure seems reasonable ... 350k -400k meh maybe i go along with the Warspite no need for an expensive ship looking like Goofys head

 

@ no T-Virus, no Radar: Best decision since a long time.

[Exocet6951]

33 minutes ago, GrossadmiralThrawn said:

are we including the German testing method for Tank shell penetration that included simply grabbing the best shells of a produced bunch, and then still needing 5 out of 5 consecutive penetrations to get the penetration number assigned and if they failed back to square 1?... Oh yeah, COMPLETE penetrations with the bursting charge intact...

 

If you want to open that can of worms, German ammunition testing was far, far laxer than what you just explained.

They didn't just take the best shells of a production run, they made a special "testing" batch which was basically always of higher grade.

And their requirement for what a penetration is was laxer as well. A successful penetration for them was, if I remember correctly, 50% of the mass of the shell going through flat armor.

 

 

I don't get why German equipment still gets the "bestest ever, with the strictest standards!" treatment, it's just not factually correct.

I'm almost certain that whatever technical document you might find of German ballistics testing of German armor will be exagerated simply because chances are the armor they tested was a special, more cared-for batch, something simply not representative of large scale production.

[Spellfire40]

14 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

If you want to open that can of worms, German ammunition testing was far, far laxer than what you just explained.

They didn't just take the best shells of a production run, they made a special "testing" batch which was basically always of higher grade.

And their requirement for what a penetration is was laxer as well. A successful penetration for them was, if I remember correctly, 50% of the mass of the shell going through flat armor.

 

 

I don't get why German equipment still gets the "bestest ever, with the strictest standards!" treatment, it's just not factually correct.

I'm almost certain that whatever technical document you might find of German ballistics testing of German armor will be exagerated simply because chances are the armor they tested was a special, more cared-for batch, something simply not representative of large scale production.

Well i cant coment on testing new material from a factory run but my grandfather was a Feuerwerker who did test catured equipmentand and helped to refit it to be used with german amunition. Whie we only talked about Basic stuff from what i remembered they did test on captured tanks and broken down German equipment