Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[WeGreedy]

On 11/27/2017 at 3:59 PM, Kartoffelmos said:

As a cruiser/destroyer player, I cannot say that I am particularly amused.

Yep, this line seems pretty anti-cruiser focused to me.

Poor decision in my opinion.

 

23 hours ago, Darth_Glorious said:

431 mm AP shell : Damage: 14500; Air drag: 0.35; Shell weight: 1321 kg; Krupp: 2550; Muzzle velocity: 840m/s

Where did you get those numbers from?

[Darth_Glorious]

Just now, SeeteufeI said:

Where did you get those numbers from?

sea-group

[WeGreedy]

1 minute ago, Darth_Glorious said:

sea-group

Thanks, I must be blind...

[Kartoffelmos]

33 minutes ago, Darth_Glorious said:

Air drag: 0.35; Shell weight: 1321 kg

 

Interesting. If these values are accurate, France will have superior gun performance compared to Montana. The shells are heavier (as expected) and the superior shell velocity combined with similar air resistance (0,35 vs. 0,352) will make them quite reliable. They might even outperform the German 420 mm shells with regards to travel time since they have better velocity and more mass but worse air resistance (0,35 vs. 0,299).

[Azakeit]

Almost everything in the game is anti-cruiser anyway :-) saying this new BB is good at it is not a good argument for me

[Kartoffelmos]

1 minute ago, Azakeit said:

saying this new BB is good at it is not a good argument for me

 

Consequentially, it is also good at hitting citadels of other battleships, especially since it will (probably) have the same penetration (or better) than Montana (better Krupp value and better gun stats overall). As I wrote earlier, it trades DPM for consistency, which is hardly something to scoff at when it comes to battleships.

[Exocet6951]

8 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

 

Consequentially, it is also good at hitting citadels of other battleships, especially since it will (probably) have the same penetration (or better) than Montana (better Krupp value and better gun stats overall). As I wrote earlier, it trades DPM for consistency, which is hardly something to scoff at when it comes to battleships.

Doubly so when the guns hit as hard as those do.

[Azakeit]

1 hour ago, Kartoffelmos said:

 

Consequentially, it is also good at hitting citadels of other battleships, especially since it will (probably) have the same penetration (or better) than Montana (better Krupp value and better gun stats overall). As I wrote earlier, it trades DPM for consistency, which is hardly something to scoff at when it comes to battleships.

 

Nowadays hitting BB citadel is nigh impossible even with Yammy because they are submerged or protected by a turtleback. 

 

The meta is not focused on accurate guns, the Yamato still holds the crown here, but rather in tankiness and 12 guns broadside...

 

having 8 guns in A-X configuration will not bring unique tactics or gameplay and nothing interesting in the firepower. 

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

2 minutes ago, Azakeit said:

 

Nowadays hitting BB citadel is nigh impossible even with Yammy because they are submerged or protected by a turtleback.

if it happens thouhg, it can be hilarious:

 

[eliastion]

14 minutes ago, GrossadmiralThrawn said:

if it happens thouhg, it can be hilarious:

 

I don't see any citadel hit ribbons there. Also, Yamato is an exception - her citadel is actually relatively exposed.

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

2 minutes ago, eliastion said:

I don't see any citadel hit ribbons there. Also, Yamato is an exception - her citadel is actually relatively exposed.

because the replay from which this video is captured isn't from the person playing the Moskwa, look how the Yamato melts, but no damage or anything are attributed in the right corner. I think Farinua (hte Moskwa) went out with over 12 Citadels after that shoot out, most of them done during it.

 

also, Azakeit said that even the Yamato is nigh impossible to citadel, so I posted the video.

[eliastion]

8 minutes ago, GrossadmiralThrawn said:

because the replay from which this video is captured isn't from the person playing the Moskwa, look how the Yamato melts, but no damage or anything are attributed in the right corner. I think Farinua (hte Moskwa) went out with over 12 Citadels after that shoot out, most of them done during it.

Yeah, you're right, my mistake. I wasn't very attentively watching, there indeed must've been a bunch of citadels there. Thx for correcting me 

 

Still, the other part of what I said still stands in that Yamato is an exception from the "BBs are extremely hard to citadel" rule in that her citadel still sticks out of the water quite a bit.

[Azakeit]

That was not what i said, i said that BB cits are very rare even with Yamato guns (which are the best guns in the game). 

 

But yeah i did not specify that only the Yamato has an old-school citadel unlike the others... (and maybe the upcoming french bbs)

[LDPDC]

4 hours ago, Kartoffelmos said:

 

Consequentially, it is also good at hitting citadels of other battleships, especially since it will (probably) have the same penetration (or better) than Montana (better Krupp value and better gun stats overall). As I wrote earlier, it trades DPM for consistency, which is hardly something to scoff at when it comes to battleships.

 

Except when it is consistency at being bad. 

 

I really do not get you argument:

- Compared to Yamato: less DPM (Full broadside: -10%, Bow: -35%), less accuracy, less consistent salvos (sigma 2.0 vs 2.1), less armor, less TDS no overmatch advantage, less HP, same detectability, better speed, possibly better AA (?). 

- Compared to 457mm Conqueror: just about same DPM (-3%), less accuracy, same salvo consistency (sigma 2.0), less armor, much worse detectability, worse turret layout, worse heal, worse or same citadel position, same HP, more TDS, better speed

- Compared to Montana: trades DPM, armor, TDS, HP, detectability. Btw: France is in a much worse relative position towards Montana than 457mm Conq is to 419mm Conq: 457mm Conq trades exactly DPM for consistency and only that, yet is almost never seen.

 

Conclusion: compares favorably to none of the above. In fact it is plain crushed by both Yamato & Conqueror, none of which are considered to be superior to the Montana.

+ 2 quad turrets on a 30s reload are boring, the more so when not on the bow.

+ AX turrets on T10 & Gascogne might mean that Richelieu is premium :s

[Mucker]

5 hours ago, Kartoffelmos said:

 

Interesting. If these values are accurate, France will have superior gun performance compared to Montana. 

 

Significantly so:

[Kartoffelmos]

1 hour ago, LDPDC said:

- Compared to Yamato: less DPM (Full broadside: -10%, Bow: -35%), less accuracy, less consistent salvos (sigma 2.0 vs 2.1), less armor, less TDS no overmatch advantage, less HP, same detectability, better speed, possibly better AA (?). 

 

Better speed, possibly better AA, submerged citadel if rumours are to be believed (hooray...), much better brawler due to the turret traverse and speed, better shell performance at shorter ranges (better velocity), better accuracy at close-range (IJN accuracy vs. those of other nations), better manoeuvrability and similar health pool (92,4k vs. 97,2k). Accuracy is supposed to be Yamato's thing so that isn't really any fault of the France. I would also like a source for the less armour claim. If you really want to compare these two ships DPM-wise, the turret angles must also be known, but then again, France has good enough turret rotation speed and rudder shift time to make her back turret at least viable in many situations.

 

1 hour ago, LDPDC said:

- Compared to 457mm Conqueror: just about same DPM DMP (-3%), less accuracy, same salvo consistency (sigma 2.0), less armor, much worse detectability, worse turret layout, worse heal, worse or same citadel position, same HP, more TDS, better speed

 

Conqueror has slightly better accuracy (10 m difference at max range) and same sigma, but has less hit points. France will also have better shell performance at closer ranges (same as vs. Yammi) but will lose out on longer ranges. However, unless France will have short fuse times, the ship will be better at scoring citadedels in general, especially versus battleships or other ships with "spaced" armour. As for concealment and heal, Conqueror isn't exactly balanced so I fail to see why France should be equally braindead in this regard.

 

1 hour ago, LDPDC said:

- Compared to Montana: trades DPM, armor, TDS, HP, detectability. Btw: France is in a much worse relative position towards Montana than 457mm Conq is to 419mm Conq: 457mm Conq trades exactly DPM for consistency and only that, yet is almost never seen.

 

See the above regarding ballistics, as well as my last post. If you need to lead less and can penetrate angled armour better (better penetration), wouldn't that make the guns more reliable? In any case, France has better speed and manoeuvrability (huge advantage here). The surface detection disadvantage is rather small as well (18 km vs. 17,82 km). Oh, and please give me the source for the armour scheme. I just hope it doesn't end up like Conqueror's "weak armour" in the way that it's not really weak at all, only more vulnerable to HE. As for Conqueror's consistency, people use the 419 mm guns solely because of the obscene fire chance. There really is no point in using the 457 mm over those and the short fuse time need to take some of the blame for it.

 

1 hour ago, LDPDC said:

Conclusion: compares favorably to none of the above. In fact it is plain crushed by both Yamato & Conqueror, none of which are considered to be superior to the Montana.

 

Without testing the guns, you cannot draw that conclusion yet. It all depends on how much the superior shell weight and velocity will affect the overall performance. Also, see the above for more pros and cons. Lastly, Montana is in many ways a worse Conqueror, but offers more accurate guns (so worse in randoms but better in clan wars). Having said that, the tier 10 battleships are well-balanced against each other (with Conqueror being somewhat of a moot point due to the HE spam and exstremely forgiving playstyle).

 

I probably missed a bunch of comparable properties, but this should be enough for now. With the current information, I see no reason to complain about France and if she needs a DPM buff, that should easily be discovered when the ship is being tested. I mean, it's like complaining about the Moskva's DPM when Moskva is all about armour penetration, shell velocity and accuracy.

 

TL;DR: People should stop complaining about an unreleased battleship if they cannot see the strengths of the ship. WG's track record of making battleships errr... "playable" should also ensure that she will be "balanced" before release .

[Affeks]

Comments on France:

Quad 17" turrets? Thats a big f*ck you to both naval architecture and history (ofc gameplay as well, more on that later).

It was already pretty clear that France was already starting to move away from quad turrets with both n1 and n2 design studies for Alsace using triple turrets.

As for the barbette for a quad 431mm turret would be huge and would result in a ship with terrible length to beam ratio resulting in a ship with terrible top speeds, which does not fit the bill for the agile flavor that the french has...

 

 

As for gameplay this just seems like bad design. The turrets will likely have terrible firing angles which does not fit a ship with sub par health and armor. 

 

I have no clue why WG didnt go with a 2A1 design for TX. It would make a 3x3 431mm layout much more realistic AND comfortable to players. Not to mention that we already have 3 TX BBs with the guns spread 50/50 between aft and fore mounted turrets. 

A 2A1 design for France would also mean that you could easily give the TX the choice between 3x3 431mm and 3x4 406mm guns. This would benefit the players that want to keep rocking quad turrets yet would only result in the loss of 25% of your total gun count as opposed to 33% for CQ when mounting the larger caliber guns.

 

There was so much potential for interesting and realistic designs for the TX, yet WG managed to use maybe the worst layout possible.

 

Really dissapointed. It still feels like WG doesnt play their own game or better yet they dont really read into naval design, architecture or history.

 

As of now it seems France is terrible from a historical, gameplay and game variety standpoint. It falls short on all grounds

[LDPDC]

49 minutes ago, Kartoffelmos said:

 

I probably missed a bunch of comparable properties, but this should be enough for now. With the current information, I see no reason to complain about France and if she needs a DPM buff, that should easily be discovered when the ship is being tested. I mean, it's like complaining about the Moskva's DPM when Moskva is all about armour penetration, shell velocity and accuracy.

 

TL;DR: People should stop complaining about an unreleased battleship if they cannot see the strengths of the ship. WG's track record of making battleships errr... "playable" should also ensure that she will be "balanced" before release .

 

With the current information, I do not see any reason to complain either and if you read carefuly, nowehere did I complain about the ship: I did question your assertion that with the current information penetrative power for DPM it is "nothing to scoff at", which is baseless and conveniently ignores key points by comparing with the least comparable BB of the tier. For that I provided comparison with the two closest BBs of the tier in terms of firepower and extended with the other advantages & disadvantages as a context. 

Your answer has been to pinpoint interesting tactical advantage (brawling vs Yamatos & the "huge mobility advantage" vs Conq): maybe you are right but I'm still pretty sure the firepower will be lacking and I'm ready to bet that during ST some strange buffs will happen as a consequence (I bet on the return of the stealth firing BB :p ).

 

About your questions/source requests:

- I did a mistake on France HP vs Conq HP => same HP should be better HP

- Armor comparison vs Yamato: mmmm with this one you are trolling right? How could a 32mm plating - 400mm broadside BB be more armored than Yami?

- Armor comparison vs Conq: same plating, less broadside armor, at best they will be on par if the citadel is low and maybe that the main battery will get a better protection

[Kartoffelmos]

36 minutes ago, LDPDC said:

I did question your assertion that with the current information penetrative power for DPM it is "nothing to scoff at", which is baseless and conveniently ignores key points by comparing with the least comparable BB of the tier.

 

Ah, then I understand. My comment was aimed at the remark that being a cruiser-killer was no real advantage and thus I elaborated on how France's high-velocity guns will yield other advantages. Gun calibre and DPM aside, the accuracy, Krupp value and shell weight made Montana a nice starting point to understand how the guns would behave (as I was interesting in that, initially). Though, it's not really that far-fetched either, as one can draw a parallell to the cruisers Cleveland and Budyonny: one has far worse DPM but they are quite competitive overall.

 

36 minutes ago, LDPDC said:

Your answer has been to pinpoint interesting tactical advantage (brawling vs Yamatos & the "huge mobility advantage" vs Conq): maybe you are right but I'm still pretty sure the firepower will be lacking and I'm ready to bet that during ST some strange buffs will happen as a consequence (I bet on the return of the stealth firing BB :p ).

 

I for one hope you are wrong regarding silly buffs, but WG gonna WG, I suppose...

It will nevertheless be interesting to see just how fast the French shells truly are and if the ballistics, as well as the ship's speed and mobility, will be enough to justify the low DPM. Having said that, a more uneven turret distribution would be more unique, but I suppose this is WG's way of promoting manoeuvring over positioning. If the battleship were made "front-heavy", it would also be less vulnerable to return fire which might have resulted in a more boring ship overall (slow/sluggish, slow turrets, etc.). On the other hand, that could have been compensated with lower calibre guns, so I don't know why WG went with the safe option.

 

36 minutes ago, LDPDC said:

- Armor comparison vs Yamato: mmmm with this one you are trolling right?

 

I didn't argue that the armour was better, I just wondered if you had a source for a detailed armour scheme of the France. Without that, I cannot comment much on the armour since the belt armour value alone does not tell the whole story.

[Major_Damage225]

This may be a bit offtopic, BUT seeing and reading everything lately and Musashi's tiering, i can only say:

Put Hotel Yamma to T9 and add the A-150b (i think) with 12x460mm's as the new IJN TX, as Yamma clearly got powercrept and is thus UP 

[Verdius]

Anyway... So far the ships that seem most interesting to me gameplay wise are Lyon, Richelieu, and Alsace. The latter two are quite beautiful as well.
Not convinced on how Gascoigne or France would feel to play, but I guess I'll hold of judgement for now.

[Exocet6951]

5 hours ago, Verdius said:

Anyway... So far the ships that seem most interesting to me gameplay wise are Lyon, Richelieu, and Alsace. The latter two are quite beautiful as well.
Not convinced on how Gascoigne or France would feel to play, but I guess I'll hold of judgement for now.

 

It all depends on how the guns handle, and on the turret angles.
If both ships' guns handle well and don't have to show obscene angle, then we're good. If not, then pointless.

It's a wait and see for more details. No need to explode like on the French forums.

Christ those are a salty bunch.

[ShinGetsu]

Yeah the French forum went balistic.

It's even worse than the RN fanbois that wanted their floating teabags to be superior to everything else.

 

To be fair the disaster of the Henri IV preliminary stats burned deep into our memory, but France isn't in the same situation at all.

I think WG wants to make France a ship based on constant mobility, either by kiting or cruising at high speed from mid range, a bit like Montana, hence the turret position to prevent bow-on gameplay. However for that to work we need decent turret angle.

The guns DOES seems brutal. Sometimes I feel like Montana lack a bit of penetration power at range which can be quite frustrating when the whole enemy team is camping, but the same (or almost same) accuracy with 431mm, faster and heavier shells, and more damage per shells seems like it will be quite brutal.

 

Also I didn't notice until someone pointed it out, but 431mm actually overmatch 30mm of armor, and there are quite the number of deck armor with that thickness.

[WeGreedy]

16 minutes ago, ImperialAdmiral said:

New port - Hamburg

Source: WoWs Dev Blog

Spoiler

So we have Hamburg townhall and soon Hamburg port in the game.

[Battleship_Richelieu]

Quote

 

To be fair the disaster of the Henri IV preliminary stats burned deep into our memory, but France isn't in the same situation at all. // It's a wait and see for more details. No need to explode like on the French forums.

Christ those are a salty bunch.

 

 

The problem is that the Lyon, Richelieu and Alsace all set the hype pretty high, and then the France barged in as a party-killer. Then you have the fact that those people who rised concern about the turret setup (which is very unlikely to change since it would require a complete overhaul of the model) were instantly put in the same bag as those screaming that "everything is terrible". So yeah, the situation escalated quickly.

 

Anyway, right now the guns look pretty damn good, the real question is wether or not their performance will be sufficient to make the ship a viable option against other TX BB. While it makes absolutely no doubt to me that WG designed the entiere line to be dancers/ambushers, one must admit that the prospect of only being able to shoot 4 guns from the front/rear or losing 50% of your firepower to a frontal salvo in CQC can be intimidating for some people.

 

Also, superior mobility at the expense of armor, stealth and DPM inevitably relegates the ship to a support, back-line role (at least in the early game). If we take Henri IV as an exemple, we all know how team-reliant the ship is because of that and how polarizing such a "weakness" is: some absolutely don't care about it and love the ship, others find it to be a complete deal-breaker and hate it.

 

Personally, I believe the ship will also have a pretty good internal layout (Lyon & Richelieu both do) and fairly above-average AA (same). I'm not to worried about its soft-stats.

 

What's left to hope for are good firing angles and sufficiently good accuracy/ballistic to make each salvo count. But here is the thing: If the angles are bad, it won't change, because once again, a model overhaul would be required. To me, that is the main reason why some people are so worried: if the turret setup and gun angles are indeed detrimental, they are very unlikely to change.

 

While Henri IV was much more broken on release, most of its core problems could easily be fixed with simple value changes, the situation is a bit different for this one.