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

Leaked "AP Fix"

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,554 posts
6,385 battles

I'm sure many people would be excited to see this:

 

L1R6Zaf.png

 

But I have to ask - what's the point of that? Here, quickly drew up a comparison so it's easier to see (graph above shows current "fuze sensitivity" compared to gun caliber) (also yeah, that would be autobounce, but that's not the point - I just selected 356mm shell and 25mm armour)

 

9XxJR4n.png

 

So there are 2 options to follow this:

  • fuze sensitivity remains as it is
    • Penetration? What penetration? Your own fault you didn't shoot at the main belt, everything else obviously is an overpen, everyone knows that!
  • fuze sensitivity is adjusted downwards to allow penetrations still happen
    • DDs get pen'd again because basically nothing changed

 

So then... What's the point? How is this supposed to work?

 

And before you say something along the lines of "oh but set it to 22mm so it's above DD armour" - superstructure is 19mm (raising superstructure above DD armour would make it impenetrable to some ships HE - for example the Akizuki), also since multi-compartment pens are a (working as intended TM) thing and that fuze armour (from tests I've done) seems to be total armour passed through so

 

dBVl6Cs.png

 

 

I truly fail to see how that change would be the big "fix"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
123 posts
3,141 battles

So basically they are looking forward to make AP volleys less painful for DDs. Honestly, I'm glad they thought of doing something about it.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
6,921 posts
9,129 battles

Don't think we know enough to really discuss this.

 

Could be that it only applies for overmatching scenarios and as such would be a straight forward effect to migitate damage to DDs by battleship caliber AP.

For larger ships it shouldn't change too much since those have multiple layers of armour that can trigger the fuze (though it would still be an effective damage nerf for battleship caliber AP to non-citadel hit zones on cruisers).

Battleships on the recieving end shouldn't see much of a difference at all.

 

If that were all there is to the change, I'd say it's a welcome survivability improvement for non-BB classes and for fighting DDs in particular HE would finally be the superiour ammunition chance again, no more massive AP damage unless you hit a LOT of overpens which is how it should be.

 

Only problem I'm seeing would be the AP damage on superstructures and even then it's mostly a RN CL problem since against an angled ship, the superstructure is the only thing those can target and lowered fuze time means nothing if the fuze doesn't arm ... which also makes me pretty certain there's more depth to that ballistics change than what we can surmise from that single powerpoint page.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Sailing Hamster
3,191 posts
3,153 battles
26 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

[...]

 

dBVl6Cs.png

 

 

I truly fail to see how that change would be the big "fix"

 

Umm... Now unless I'm very much mistaken, that's not how the arming threshold works. 

 

If you have four spaced out 10mm plates, that is not going to arm a 33mm fuze upon hitting the 4th plate, but rather pass through all four of them w/o arming. if it were so, all those light cruisers with overmatchably thin layers of armour would get blown out of the water just the same by BB's.

Share this post


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

So there are 2 options to follow this:

  • fuze sensitivity remains as it is
    • Penetration? What penetration? Your own fault you didn't shoot at the main belt, everything else obviously is an overpen, everyone knows that!
  • fuze sensitivity is adjusted downwards to allow penetrations still happen
    • DDs get pen'd again because basically nothing changed

 

So then... What's the point? How is this supposed to work?

 

And before you say something along the lines of "oh but set it to 22mm so it's above DD armour" - superstructure is 19mm (raising superstructure above DD armour would make it impenetrable to some ships HE - for example the Akizuki), also since multi-compartment pens are a (working as intended TM) thing and that fuze armour (from tests I've done) seems to be total armour passed through so

I'm not sure what is the exact problem (the main one) that you see. Basicaly:

1. Do you believe high caliber AP should score regular pens on superstructure? If yes, then they probably should also score regular pens on DDs. Lack of armor is lack of armor, after all.

2. Assuming you DON'T think that superstructure should arm high caliber AP shells - that kinda removes your argument about why the AP fuse values couldn't just be adjusted to account for the fact that (outside of bounces) the shells effectively always hit flat surface.

 

We have very little info and we don't know how advanced the work really is, but to me it seems like the general direction is to make AP more predictable in the sense that hitting unarmed targets would more consistently overpen while also mitigating the obvious but still somewhat strange situation where lightly armored cruisers sometimes seemed to be the safest from getting blapped when exposing their full broadside - because then they get overpens while angling a bit gets them penned and citadelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,554 posts
6,385 battles
7 minutes ago, piritskenyer said:

Umm... Now unless I'm very much mistaken, that's not how the arming threshold works. 

 

How I tested it was

  • known shell, known armour fuse value
  • known targets armour, well below the AP fuze threshold
  • shot as close to perpendicular as I can get

If each layer of armour is treated separately - I'd get overpens

If each layer of armour is counted in addition to previous passed I'd get penetrations

 

And it was pretty much 100% penetration rate :cap_like:

 

6 minutes ago, eliastion said:

1. Do you believe high caliber AP should score regular pens on superstructure? If yes, then they probably should also score regular pens on DDs. Lack of armor is lack of armor, after all.

2. Assuming you DON'T think that superstructure should arm high caliber AP shells - that kinda removes your argument about why the AP fuse values couldn't be lowered to account for the fact that (outside of bounces) the shells effectively always hit flat surface.

If the angle (so as it is currently - total armour passed through) says your fuze armed - you should get a pen. That's how I see it

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

If the angle (so as it is currently - total armour passed through) says your fuze armed - you should get a pen. That's how I see it

So you don't argue against the solution - you just disagree that there's a problem in the first place and don't want WG to do anything about it?

I mean, I don't judge you I totally do, high caliber AP is way too effective against lightly armored targets, but that makes your opening post pretty misleading...

 

People wanted lightly armored targets (most prominently DDs) to get overpenned rather than eat full penetrations due to being hit at a shallow angle - that's the very point of this change. If you don't want that then, well, obviously you're not going to be satisfied with the solution - but it's not the solution's fault but rather the obvious consequence of the fact that you disagree with the very underlying idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,440 posts
7,788 battles

"Let's say 22mm fuse"

That's DD AP fuse threshold. It's not what this fix is targeting.

 

Let's take Akizuki as an example. She has 19mm hull and 13mm bulkheads. So unless the shell manages to pass through the entire ship lengthwise to penetrate two internal bulkheads, even CA AP won't fuse from 19+13=32mm of armor. Never mind BB AP.

So this change would absolutely fix the issue with full pen damage on DDs from BB AP.

What the change might also do though is make the least armored cruisers (RN CLs) get overpenned more since they have similar lengthwise armor values as DDs. The Edinburgh for example has 16mm bow/stern armor and 19mm fore and aft bulkheads, adding up to only 35mm. But that doesn't mean you'll only get overpens, since the ships are dotted with things like barbette armor and thicker bulkheads in different places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,268 posts
6,860 battles

What if we modify overmatch rule with "shell does not arm fuse on overmatched plate"? That would be the simplest solution to BB AP vs DD with bonus points for cruisers survivability. BB vs BB superstructure pens would be gone tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,554 posts
6,385 battles
1 hour ago, eliastion said:

you just disagree that there's a problem in the first place and don't want WG to do anything about it?

Single shell doing dmg multiple times is stupid, and that's the problem. Which should be fixed - an overpen that does 6k or that 1 in 10 pen that dealt 4k to you? You score overpens most of the time anyway. So yeah, I'd say that won't fix anything anyway

 

1 hour ago, eliastion said:

but that makes your opening post pretty misleading...

Opening post is quite straight forward - if they are introducing something this way, it looks that either AP will become beyond useless never scoring a pen unless you go through someones main belt or the fuze sensitivity will be adjusted most likely making the change irrelevant ion the 1st place. Of course, as others have said - not enough info on this just yet.

 

1 hour ago, Nechrom said:

"Let's say 22mm fuse"

That's DD AP fuse threshold. It's not what this fix is targeting.

Just as the lowest example because afaik only Khaba has more than 21mm armour - 22mm wouldn't arm on any other DD.

 

Currently 22mm fuze is for 130 to 133 mm caliber AP, but that, of course, is just partially relevant because the hit angle matters.

 

1 hour ago, Nechrom said:

Let's take Akizuki as an example. She has 19mm hull and 13mm bulkheads. So unless the shell manages to pass through the entire ship lengthwise to penetrate two internal bulkheads, even CA AP won't fuse from 19+13=32mm of armor. Never mind BB AP.

So this change would absolutely fix the issue with full pen damage on DDs from BB AP.

What the change might also do though is make the least armored cruisers (RN CLs) get overpenned more since they have similar lengthwise armor values as DDs. The Edinburgh for example has 16mm bow/stern armor and 19mm fore and aft bulkheads, adding up to only 35mm. But that doesn't mean you'll only get overpens, since the ships are dotted with things like barbette armor and thicker bulkheads in different places.

And same goes for BB superstructures. 19mm - forget about a pen, like, ever. Currently to have AP fuze threshold you have to have 115mm or smaller gun. That's... Akizuki? Can't think of another one, at least not above tier 4

 

And then lets look at Yamatos 460s - you need 76mm of armour to arm the fuze. As I said above - it's either an overpen or a bounce, nothing in the middle, unless, of course, you went through the main belt.

 

Do you think people would keep firing AP if basically everything every time would be an overpen? Or would you see HE spam of previously unseen levels?

 

1 hour ago, zFireWyvern said:

I wonder why it didn't work :Smile_trollface:

But I guess that seals the deal

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

Opening post is quite straight forward - if they are introducing something this way, it looks that either AP will become beyond useless never scoring a pen unless you go through someones main belt or the fuze sensitivity will be adjusted most likely making the change irrelevant ion the 1st place.

OR, you know, it might be adjusted so that things without noticeable armor (DDs, BB superstructure, things like these) get consistently overpenetrated while things that do have some proper plating end up consistently arming the fuses even at 90 degrees angle...

Shocking idea, I know. Who would've thought that a DD or a BB superstructure might NOT be the perfect target for high caliber armor-piercing shells, regardless of the angle!

 

16 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

And same goes for BB superstructures. 19mm - forget about a pen, like, ever.

Good riddance, then! BB superstructure shouldn't be generating full penetrations when hit by high caliber guns.

 

18 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Currently to have AP fuze threshold you have to have 115mm or smaller gun. That's... Akizuki? Can't think of another one, at least not above tier 4

Well, currently, yes. Do you seriously believe that current values would stay as they are with such a sweeping change to the very basics of how tings are calculated?...

 

21 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

And then lets look at Yamatos 460s - you need 76mm of armour to arm the fuze. As I said above - it's either an overpen or a bounce, nothing in the middle, unless, of course, you went through the main belt.

Well, Yamato guns certainly sound like something designed to pierce through main belt... And, as already mentioned - obviously the sensitivity of the fuses would be adjusted along with a ballistic change like this. Although for Yamato the values would most likely need to be set separately (since these huge guns are supposed to be an asset and with more consistent behavior AP and armor the decreased fuse sensitivity would be a very significant drawback).

 

24 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Do you think people would keep firing AP if basically everything every time would be an overpen? Or would you see HE spam of previously unseen levels?

Or maybe, just maybe, the somewhat competent people would end up firing AP at broadside targets with enough armor to arm the fuse while switching to HE for targets without armor. Just like, you know, they basically should. Just a thought :Smile-_tongue:

And potatoes do potato things no matter what - in fact, the moreconsistent feedback (no lucky penetrations when firing AP on lightly armored targets and no overpens because a cruiser showed TOO perfect of a broadside) might even actually help them learn to pick ammo.

 

 

 

Obviously, the whole discussion seems to be more of an academic one, seeing how WG apparently gave up on this idea before even leaking it to CCTS :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGNAV]
Players
741 posts
13,827 battles
On 4/11/2018 at 9:04 PM, wilkatis_LV said:

I truly fail to see how that change would be the big "fix"

simple...every AP shell that hits DD will deal penetrationDMG no more overpens lmao

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Players
2,835 posts
4,154 battles
On 11/04/2018 at 7:25 PM, Aotearas said:

Battleships on the recieving end shouldn't see much of a difference at all.

 

Or it will make all-or-nothing armour schemes actually work like they're supposed to i.e. bounces on angled belt, overpens only everywhere else. At the moment ships like NC have to angle to not take citadels but this makes them take more damage to upper sections because overpens turn into full pens same as they do on DDs. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

And yes making BB shells overpen only on BB superstructure would be correct. My only concern is it will make bow tanking even more stupid than it already is because BBs will actually not be able to properly damage each-other at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRKEN]
Beta Tester
3,552 posts
8,863 battles
4 minutes ago, VC381 said:

And yes making BB shells overpen only on BB superstructure would be correct. My only concern is it will make bow tanking even more stupid than it already is because BBs will actually not be able to properly damage each-other at all.

That would be very heavy buff for RN BBs unless their themonuclear HE got nerfed to normal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Players
2,835 posts
4,154 battles
21 minutes ago, EsaTuunanen said:

That would be very heavy buff for RN BBs unless their themonuclear HE got nerfed to normal level.

Or if they removed bow tanking... but that won't happen sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
324 posts
4,515 battles
11.04.2018 o 22:32, Panocek napisał:

What if we modify overmatch rule with "shell does not arm fuse on overmatched plate"? That would be the simplest solution to BB AP vs DD with bonus points for cruisers survivability. BB vs BB superstructure pens would be gone tho.

This would be a gigantic nerf to Yamato, which relies on overmatching (most notably BB nose armor) for damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Players
2,835 posts
4,154 battles
1 hour ago, Infiriel said:

This would be a gigantic nerf to Yamato, which relies on overmatching (most notably BB nose armor) for damage.

 

The opposite would happen, it would be a huge buff. The shell would still overmatch the nose but instead of triggering the fuse for a normal penetration the shell would be guaranteed to sail through into the Citadel forward bulkhead, which Yamato can also usually penetrate and which is guaranteed to set the fuse too. So it won't turn Yamato bow hits on BBs from regular full pens to overpens, it will turn most of them into citadels...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HR]
Beta Tester
782 posts
7,735 battles

So you mean to tell me now if I smack a gearing in my Montana with all 12 shells...I am going to do 2k damage instead of 10k? Then he will charge me...interesting and lame “fix”..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,268 posts
6,860 battles
6 hours ago, P2Win said:

So you mean to tell me now if I smack a gearing in my Montana with all 12 shells...I am going to do 2k damage instead of 10k? Then he will charge me...interesting and lame “fix”..

If you were to smack Gearing with twelve Freedom shells you would do 16200dmg to start with. And thats assuming none of the shells detonate within ship

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,563 posts
9,106 battles
6 hours ago, P2Win said:

So you mean to tell me now if I smack a gearing in my Montana with all 12 shells...I am going to do 2k damage instead of 10k? Then he will charge me...interesting and lame “fix”..

 

15-22-1-a-7-rapid-mathematics-c-3-quick-

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HR]
Beta Tester
782 posts
7,735 battles
13 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

15-22-1-a-7-rapid-mathematics-c-3-quick-

 example of quick maff

 

Xyf4nU.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
1,872 posts
22 hours ago, P2Win said:

So you mean to tell me now if I smack a gearing in my Montana with all 12 shells...I am going to do 2k damage instead of 10k? Then he will charge me...interesting and lame “fix”..

 

:Smile_amazed:

 

:Smile_facepalm:

 

I guess poor BB players will have to familiarise themselves with HE concept... Oh, wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×