Citadels are the dumbest game mechanic ever

[Torpedobeatz]

Randomly chunking people for 2/3 of their health isn't fun nor engaging. Citadels make Cruisers less tanky than Destroyers, which makes zero sense. 

[Namolis]

I like it that ships have various values depending on where you hit them.  Hitting and damaging the engine room should feel more damaging than hitting the bow. I'm sure you could always suggest other values than 1/0.33/0.1 if you want to... or suggest other values for max damage on shells, but I don't think going the WoT route of "aim for the least armored (and hence least important) part of the ship" would be a good thing.

[Reaper171]

Citadels would be best on ships with guns of a certain calibre.

[Commander_Cornflakes]

Cruisers without citadels would be absolutely OP.

[P2Win]

Show less broadside then. You know how many time cruisers don't wait for me to shoot before they turn...It's like...hey let me show this guy my broadside and pray he doesn't shoot me. BLIP, deleted.

[piet11111]

Maybe if you consider a citadel hit as a head shot does that help ?

[ParEx]

28 minutes ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

Cruisers without citadels would be absolutely OP.

Yep.

The result of missing Citas can be seen at Khaba in some extent. Enough armor to prevent HE from penetrating, not enough armor to make lots of AP detonate.

Imagine some other ships with that *feature*: Atlanta, RN CAs...lol

 

Btw: Destroyers had Citas waaaaaaaaaaaaay back in Beta. Didnt work very well.

[ColonelPete]

Citadels are not the problem, BBs are.

[Vanhal]

Actually OP is partially right, but not because of class balance, but citadels themselves. What they are, are fundamentally RNG-y critical hits that are the base of damage and survivability calculations. Kinda bad way to build a fundamental mechanic on. It makes changes problematic and risky, ensuing further troubles with balancing.

I would say remove citadels, rework the critical module hits instead and rebalance damage mechanics from the scratch. Won't happen ofc because that is a absolute Augeas stable at this point, but it will only become worse in the future.

[Torped1ne]

Citadels are good all ship but dd shuould worry about getting hit there instead now most of the bbs can sail without worry about that and this by my point of view is really bad for gameplay

[1MajorKoenig]

5 hours ago, Torpedobeatz said:

Randomly chunking people for 2/3 of their health isn't fun nor engaging. Citadels make Cruisers less tanky than Destroyers, which makes zero sense. 

 

I have to agree - at least partially. Citadels on cruisers make them excessively vulnerable.

 

Citadels are ok for BB vs BB AP duels imo but I don't think cruiser should be the one shot class. 

More so that hitting the citadel is absolutely random (given your aim is right). 

 

Yes shitty game mechanics and not through through at all.

[Kenliero]

Citadels are good. With citadelhits your aim actually matters to some extend. Everyone who says it's random, just camp too far away... yes, it is totally random from 20km...

[SavageRat]

90% of Cruisers that I see get citadelled to death are either, stationary peaking out from an island, or sailing at a constant speed on a constant heading while shells are landing all around them.

 

And funny enough it's those players who rage in chat.

Ships zig zagged in rl for a reason...

[Hawg]

5 hours ago, Torpedobeatz said:

Citadels make Cruisers less tanky than Destroyers, which makes zero sense. 

 

I do agree that it just seems wrong that it is so much easier to delete a cruiser than a DD.

 

In addition to the stealth advantage, DD's are just harder to hit.   CA's seem just as squishy, without the same stealth and manuverability advantages.

[Exocet6951]

As with every deep seeded issue, it's not a problem about the mechanic, bit about the number of ships that can exploit them.

Having a handful of ships that can deal that much damage to you is not an issue. You're a cruiser, you signed up to die takes risks.

The issue comes when you suddenly have to deal with a number of ships that can do that equal to or greater than the amount of cruisers.

As a parallel, the game is geared towards making the game longer, with better heals than before, udnerwater citadels on BBs, increasing AA to make CVs less potent...

Yet cruisers as are fragile as ever. While it's not a problem in itself, it does become an issue when everything that can damage you lives longer, making every enemy that much of a risk.

 

 

TL;DR: Citadels aren't an issue, 1 citpen doing 1/3rd you hp in damage isn't an issue, but having more BBs than cruisers in battle turns it into a problem.

[Trevallen]

21 minutes ago, SavageRat said:

Ships zig zagged in rl for a reason...

 

And that reason was: torpedos. Fired from submarines. Not gunfire.

[iFax]

I think the citadels should be scaled depending on the ships roll. BBs and CVs are capital ships so should have the largest impact. Heavy cruisers perhaps could be reduced by 33% in effect and light cruisers by 66%.

 

You could do this by reducing the physical size of the citadel or by reducing the effects value.

 

Just my 2 cents...

[aboomination]

6 hours ago, Torpedobeatz said:

Randomly chunking people for 2/3 of their health isn't fun nor engaging. Citadels make Cruisers less tanky than Destroyers, which makes zero sense. 

Randomly? I don't think it's that random at all...and it's a good mechanic. It provides a bit more "complexity" and a learning curve.

[aboomination]

39 minutes ago, DrunkenFish said:

 

And that reason was: torpedos. Fired from submarines. Not gunfire.

But in this game artillery is more accurate than those torps were. SO [edited]ADAPT (lol)

 

Quote

 Citadels make Cruisers less tanky than Destroyers, which makes zero sense. 

You don't play DD often, do you? I prefer being shot at by a BB when driving a cruiser, not a DD.

[captain_lef]

7 hours ago, Torpedobeatz said:

 Citadels make Cruisers less tanky than Destroyers, which makes zero sense. 

i dont think cruisers were supposed to tank. they are support ships in this game, shoot planes and DDs and annoy BBs. 

[aboomination]

@captain_lef That's clearly not the point. The point was that supposedly cruisers are even less tanky than DD vs BB caliber guns (which I don't see). 

[WeGreedy]

3 hours ago, ParEx said:

Yep.

The result of missing Citas can be seen at Khaba in some extent. Enough armor to prevent HE from penetrating, not enough armor to make lots of AP detonate.

Imagine some other ships with that *feature*: Atlanta, RN CAs...lol

 

Btw: Destroyers had Citas waaaaaaaaaaaaay back in Beta. Didnt work very well.

Even Z-52 and Gearing eat normal penetrations from AP pretty often, bow/stern on AND broadside.

That is like a citadel percentage wise.

 

edit

Wanted to point out that destroyers are not tankier than cruisers, in my opinion.

Just do not be overconfident™.

[Rick_Hunter]

Why not solve the problem the BB-way?

And submerge all the cruiser citadels 

[Aschwell]

I have no problem with cruisers and BB´s having citadels. Though getting deleted from the front when trying to angle isn´t the most fun in the world. Sure show broadside in a cruiser get punished.

 

The real issue here is the Catering to BBabies. German BBs very hard to citadel even if they take massive damage. US ones got significantly buffed even though they didnt need it so much. Nowadays its a lottery between a citadel or only overpens it seems.

RN ones, yeah let´s lower the citadel to submarine levels yes blyat why not. IJN got more turtleback. So WG has a clear strategy here. CATER the BB´s as usual. Let´s not talk about the hydro they got among other things.

[WeGreedy]

Upcoming next:

Russian battleships featuring turtleback, submerged citadel, 457.6mm main guns, 32.2mm bow armor.