Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
silenthunter19944

Why is Iowa and Montana armour modelled incorrectly ?

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
1,196 posts
2,883 battles

War Gaming, I want an answer why North Carolina, Iowa and Montana are missing so much of their armour.

I will list the issues that I found. Here is a list that Ur Peace Keeper compiled, but the de-capping plates are still missing

 

North Carolina Class BB's:

- Missing .19mm of STS Backing Plate used on the Primary Belt.

- Missing 3mm of Class A armor on the lower belt in addition to the 19mm of STS Backing Plate

- Potentially Missing A LOT of citadel deck armor.  Currently the armor profiler doesn't show the main armor deck at all so unknown if it exists in game or not... the citadel roof is at 19mm, and the top weather deck at 37mm.  The deck should consist of the following:  Center section of ship - 36mm STS backing plate supporting 91mm of Class B, Ends of Armored Citadel (near turrets) - 36mm of STS backing plate supporting 104mm of Clss B.  Top weather/decapping deck is modeled correctly.

- Conning Tower Roof is missing 5mm of Armor

 

Iowa Class BB's:

- Missing 22mm of STS Backing Plate to the Primary Belt

- Missing 3mm of Class A on the primary armor belt

- Front Bulkhead missing 3mm for Iowa Spec 11.3" front bulkhead... a lot if using Missouri/Wisconsin front bulkhead of 14.5"

- Front Bulkhead is tapered in thickness.  I find no data supporting a tapered front bulkhead

- Missing 13.4mm of STS in front of the armor belt in the "torpedo bulge" area (currently listed as 25mm with the correct 38mm above it)

- Lower citadel plate is missing 44mm of Class B armor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  This is the area on the lowest part of the citadel box behind the most water and torpedo bulge... unknown how this effects durability.

- Turret Face armor is missing 64mm STS Backing Plate

- Turret sides, top and rear are missing 19mm of STS Backing Plates

- Incorrect citadel placement. Citadel is oversized and sits too high 

 

Montana Class BB's:

- Missing 25mm of STS Backing plate on primary belt

- Front and rear bulkheads again taper in thickness (no sources confirming this)

- Turret Face Armor missing 114.3mm of Armor.  I'm assuming a mix of STS backing plate and Class B.

- Turret roof missing 3mm of armor

- Turret sides and roof missing unknown quantity of STS backing plate (most likely 19-25mm of STS)

- Weather deck missing 47mm of decking over citadel box

- Primary Armor Deck missing 1.25" STS backing plate

- Primary Armor Deck Plate (the Class B) is 3mm too thick

- Incorrect citadel placement. Citadel is oversized and sits too high 

- Weather Decking is thinner over armored citadel box than at bow and stern?  Can't find any sources saying this is what was suggested for final design.  It's also currently less than the Iowa before her... a highly doubtful prospect given the increase in armor on the Montana over the Iowa to have a large immunity zone against the Mark 8 Super Heavy AP-Capped shell.

 

As you can see, this make the Iowa and Montana very squishy in-game which is heavily affecting both ships, also affect the NC to a certain extent.  And this isn't the only thing that War Gaming have modelled wrong on the NC,Iowa and Montana either. They are missing their legendary fire control system that was of high standard even by the 80's and 90's. Their mk8 shells should be penetrating a lot more, almost as well as the Yamato's shells. But those things can be discussed another day.
So, can a developer explains to me what the hell is going on with USN BBs armour model ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,564 posts
17,570 battles

So, can a developer explains to me what the hell is going on with USN BBs armour model ? 

then send this to bug report section or ask a dev on EN or NA, or go ask sub octavian when he's around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
563 posts
4,686 battles

Why Scharnhorst doesn't has the record breaking real life accuracy? Same issue with the Bismarck, where's the accuracy that sunk the hood in 8 minutes? Why none of them is in game?

 

BALANCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,196 posts
2,883 battles

then send this to bug report section or ask a dev on EN or NA, or go ask sub octavian when he's around

 

I have. No answer from Sub_octavian. No answer from dev, no answer from bug report. 

Also, when it comes to dev responding to questions. WG asia dev should also have the responsibilities to answering questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,196 posts
2,883 battles

Why Scharnhorst doesn't has the record breaking real life accuracy? Same issue with the Bismarck, where's the accuracy that sunk the hood in 8 minutes? Why none of them is in game?

 

BALANCE.

 

Where is Bismarck AA that failed to shoot down biplanes ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SGC]
Super Tester
1,459 posts
6,817 battles

Look, if you are going to copy and paste from the NA Forum, specifically this thread made in Sep 7 2016: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/94572-a-detailed-look-at-usn-bb-armor-profiles-in-game/

 

You can also copy and paste replies from it as well. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/94949-how-wargaming-may-have-modeled-the-montanas-armor-wrong/

 

And also here: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/58tb67/the_armor_models_for_north_carolina_iowa_and/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,578 posts
8,005 battles

 

I have. No answer from Sub_octavian. No answer from dev, no answer from bug report. 

Also, when it comes to dev responding to questions. WG asia dev should also have the responsibilities to answering questions

 

Cause you are the 2943854375th guy submitting that report. Wew... that's a long support queue my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

 War Gaming, I want an answer why North Carolina, Iowa and Montana are missing so much of their armour.

 

 

I have. No answer from Sub_octavian. No answer from dev, no answer from bug report. 
Also, when it comes to dev responding to questions. WG asia dev should also have the responsibilities to answering questions

 

 

I mean, it's already been answered.

 

Sorry for taking so long. Was quite busy with 0.5.13-14 stuff.


The citadel spacing on Iowa and Montana is not a mistake - it is intentional, and most of the ships are modeled the same way - not only the function, but the protection (armor) is taken into account when determining the citadel volume. North Carolina is more like exception (as well as Nagato).

Ship stats are initially based on IRL stats, but then may be tweaked for balancing purposes, let's not forget we're talking about a game. This was the easy part of the answer.

 

Then, we double checked Iowa, Montana (and Warspite, just in case) performance in detail. Well, I would be happy to say "this ships could use a buff, and this is a good reason to change citadel spacing", but I can't. They do NOT need a buff - and so, cutting the citadel is not an option currently.

 

I guess you won't be happy with the answer, and I am truly sorry for that - but your suggestion to "fix" this cannot be accepted.

 

 

I have to note, before people jump in yelling about bias - that several other armour issues/inconsistencies from USN cruisers (amongst other ships) were detailed to the devs, and were fixed after dev analysis as well.

Edited by Syanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[RTANZ]
Member
186 posts
2,015 battles

Nerfing in direct contradiction to historical accuracy will understandably disturb people who love their ships - that's perfectly reasonable.

 

Personally i think the best way to balance is to add but never detract from historical.

 

but historically, wherever a ship was modified over time, you could be free to use whichever setup that was used at any one point in time. For example, if the ship the OP is talking about did at any time have the armor setup as it is in the game, but was later changed, it is still historically accurate - (not that i am saying that ever happened for his ship, just an example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,498 posts

I think the reason is that we need those ships at tier 9 & 10,  not tier 15

 

Otherwise, everyone in the other ships may as well throw paper balls at them.

 

Perhaps this question belongs in the same page as " why are we using ancient ships of pre 1914, fighting in the same battles as the above mentioned ships.

 

Besides, all that extra armour on the ships would make the sea levels rise.           :smart_fish:

 

Ordrazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×