Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
avenger121

Yueyang and Gearing draft

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[EGM-B]
Beta Tester
1,154 posts
7,516 battles

I am pretty sure I am not the only nor first one that has been noticing the huge difference between the Gearing and Yueyang when it comes to the draft. Granted, the Yueyang is technically not a Gearing class destroyer but a Allen M. Sumner class destroyer.

 

The thing is the differencet between both is rather small, namely "The main difference was that the Gearings were 14 feet (4.3 m) longer in the midship section, allowing for increased fuel tankage for greater range, an important consideration in Pacific War operations."

 

I know that I am in the minority with not playing ships that I dont like aesthetically, but the difference it not only on a aesthetical level but also affects gameplay, the Yueyang offers far less area to hit. I dont know if the Gearing sits too high or the Yueyang to low, but I think it could be and should be changed.

 

shot-18_04.05_18_38.50-0450.jpg.752124dedf2f1f9f5bbfbbe2aff0a3f6.jpg

 

Space port, max zoomed out, optimally I would show the side and not the rear, but those force field things obscure the sight then and there is no other port with such a clear sight. Still I think everyone can see the huge difference and has most likely even noticed it ingame.

 

Just some quick numbers from the wiki:

Gearing normal draft ~ 4,4m
Gearing full load draft ~ 5,64m

Allen M. Sumner normal draft ~ 4,8m
Allen M. Sumner full load draft ~ 5,72-5,8m

 

For those that feel the ingame difference depict the 40cm normal load difference, just use the turret as scale, the difference in draft is nearly half a turret it seems to me. Turret size reference:

640px-5-inch_38-caliber_cropped.jpg

 

 

TLDR: WG f´d up the draft on either the Yueyang or the Gearing model, bothers me enough that I think they should fix it just like they did in the past with other ships and their draft.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
[BLITZ]
Players
2,049 posts
8,964 battles

Same goes for Bismarck an Tirpitz. People brought this up quite a long time ago, but WG never reacted to it. And Tirpitz is a premium...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,594 battles

Yeah, that's inconceivable. I mean, it's the Gearing that's crewed by Americans, right? :Smile_trollface:

 

...yeah, yeah, I know, I'll see myself out.

  • Funny 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles
4 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Yeah, that's inconceivable. I mean, it's the Gearing that's crewed by Americans, right? :Smile_trollface:

 

...yeah, yeah, I know, I'll see myself out.

That's just mean:cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC_DK]
Players
471 posts
2,248 battles

Yueyang and Gearing do not have the same hulls in the real world either. Gearing hull is larger than the Allen M Sumner class

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EGM-B]
Beta Tester
1,154 posts
7,516 battles
8 minutes ago, Yogibjoern said:

Yueyang and Gearing do not have the same hulls in the real world either. Gearing hull is larger than the Allen M Sumner class

Have you actually read my whole post or did you just saw the thread title and then felt to come in and point out like a smartáss that the Yueyang is not a Gearing?

 

If you would have read the post you would have seen that I pointed that out as well and even compared the draft between the Gearing and Allen M. Sumner class.

 

Thanks for the useless smartáss post, ignoring mine and all the other posts before you.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC_DK]
Players
471 posts
2,248 battles

You have your explanation in the different size of the hulls its that simple 4,3 meters of length a midship is a lot of buoyancy added. Even if you fill that space with fuel it still is a huge difference


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Players
2,835 posts
4,166 battles

You're using the WWII numbers for AMS class, but how much weight did they gain with post-war equipment in foreign service?

 

Edit: the difference is half a turret which is what, 1m to 1.5m? That's the difference between normal load gearing and full load AMS. So Yy is using full load as makes sense with post-war weight gain while G is using light load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EGM-B]
Beta Tester
1,154 posts
7,516 battles
7 minutes ago, Yogibjoern said:

You have your explanation in the different size of the hulls its that simple 4,3 meters of length a midship is a lot of buoyancy added. Even if you fill that space with fuel it still is a huge difference

 

You still havent read the post, havent you?

Ok, I will quote myself against just for you, just please dont ignore it like the first post.

 

Gearing normal draft ~ 4,4m
Gearing full load draft ~ 5,64m

Allen M. Sumner normal draft ~ 4,8m
Allen M. Sumner full load draft ~ 5,72-5,8m

 

Which means that on full load, the difference becomes even smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EGM-B]
Beta Tester
1,154 posts
7,516 battles
7 minutes ago, VC381 said:

You're using the WWII numbers for AMS class, but how much weight did they gain with post-war equipment in foreign service?

I am not a huge ship expert, but according to what I can find on Wikipedia and other sources those numbers for the draft are WW2 configuration before the huge post WW2 modifications to the Gearing class happend.

 

Looking at the Yueyang model and not seeing any difference as the class was built I assume WG went with the Yueyang as she was given away in normal US configuaration.

 

But as I said, I am not an expert, do you have better and more reliable numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Players
2,835 posts
4,166 battles

See my edit. I'm pretty sure now it's just an inconsistency in which draft WG chose for each class. 4.4m normal for Gearing and 5.8m full load for Yueyang, which is quite a big difference.

 

I don't have better sources but ships inevitably get heavier throughout their careers, which might explain the waterline being painted in a different place in Chinese service. Even the Gearings are unlikely to have achieved that normal load draft except maybe fresh out of building dock (they sure don't look that high in wartime pictures). It's not unusual for WG to have ships sitting too high and Gearing is one of the oldest 3D models in the game. Basically our Gearing is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
766 posts
4,327 battles

So should they lower the model into the water more?

Should WG lower all models into the water more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,594 battles
3 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

So should they lower the model into the water more?

Should WG lower all models into the water more?

In the end the differences can easily be explained by one ship sailing "empty" and the other - with full load. Leaving lots of wiggle space for the devs. The question is here:

1. How much of an impact this really has

and

2. Is balancing change in order

 

"Sinking" Gearing deeper or getting YY to float higher in the water is a decision to be made based on these two points. There's nothing inherently wrong with two very similar ships having different draft handwaved as the effects of different load - it would be, in fact, one of the most realistic balancing factors. Now, the question is: how do the ships perform and how much of a difference does the draft make in practice.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,709 posts
13,166 battles

While the difference in draft is questionable, I don't believe Gearing needs a buff beyond the AP pen issue that plague all DDs. She's a very strong T10 DD if played well.

Though I wouldn't particularly mind if it was changed, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
2,787 posts
11,545 battles
4 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

While the difference in draft is questionable, I don't believe Gearing needs a buff beyond the AP pen issue that plague all DDs. She's a very strong T10 DD if played well.

Though I wouldn't particularly mind if it was changed, either.

I kind of agree, but just looking at them, I think the YY seems like a similar but straight up better ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,709 posts
13,166 battles
10 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

I kind of agree, but just looking at them, I think the YY seems like a similar but straight up better ship.

 

I believe the inability of the YY to hit DDs with her torps to be a more than a sufficient trade for her advantages. I've taken advantage of that on several occasions in my Gearing with great success.

On the other hand lowering the draft of the Gearing is hardly such an enormous buff that it cannot be considered. The impact it'd have on balance is more than likely going to be negligible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OSC]
Players
1,991 posts
11,056 battles
6 hours ago, avenger121 said:

I am pretty sure I am not the only nor first one that has been noticing the huge difference between the Gearing and Yueyang when it comes to the draft. Granted, the Yueyang is technically not a Gearing class destroyer but a Allen M. Sumner class destroyer.

 

The thing is the differencet between both is rather small, namely "The main difference was that the Gearings were 14 feet (4.3 m) longer in the midship section, allowing for increased fuel tankage for greater range, an important consideration in Pacific War operations."

 

I know that I am in the minority with not playing ships that I dont like aesthetically, but the difference it not only on a aesthetical level but also affects gameplay, the Yueyang offers far less area to hit. I dont know if the Gearing sits too high or the Yueyang to low, but I think it could be and should be changed.

 

shot-18_04.05_18_38.50-0450.jpg.752124dedf2f1f9f5bbfbbe2aff0a3f6.jpg

 

Space port, max zoomed out, optimally I would show the side and not the rear, but those force field things obscure the sight then and there is no other port with such a clear sight. Still I think everyone can see the huge difference and has most likely even noticed it ingame.

 

Just some quick numbers from the wiki:

Gearing normal draft ~ 4,4m
Gearing full load draft ~ 5,64m

Allen M. Sumner normal draft ~ 4,8m
Allen M. Sumner full load draft ~ 5,72-5,8m

 

For those that feel the ingame difference depict the 40cm normal load difference, just use the turret as scale, the difference in draft is nearly half a turret it seems to me. Turret size reference:

640px-5-inch_38-caliber_cropped.jpg

 

 

TLDR: WG f´d up the draft on either the Yueyang or the Gearing model, bothers me enough that I think they should fix it just like they did in the past with other ships and their draft.

well yeah....it is not same class

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
766 posts
4,327 battles

I think the game would get pretty interesting if there were options to “sink” your ship lower into the water at an expense of mobility and flooding/fire resistance, for a tradeoff of a lower profile and slightly better concealment.

 

And how some armaments could “overload” your ship causing it reduced accuracy and lesser handling due to being “top-heavy”, such as with a DD or cruiser. But if you are torp build and really need those extra AA batteries it could be a worthy trade.

 

So many possibilities.

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.

×