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

Ichase's game rework proposal and comment on Iowa's citadel

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
1,196 posts
2,883 battles

Hi all, Ichase posted a rather descriptive video regarding the Iowa's citadel and the issues with the game's mechanics.
I'll sum it up, make sure to watch the video though !
Different ships are designed to operate at different ranges and their armour and guns are designed to operate at these range.
WOWS significantly compressed the engagement ranges whilst retaining the realistic armour penetrating values for each ships (ridiculous pen)
By doing this, ships like t8-10 USN BBs are vulnerable because whilst their armour was more than adequate in real life, RN BB might be vulnerable as well due to the compressed range issue
Only ship with armour protection like KM BBs and New Mexico will be able to show some b

Solution, scale the real life penetration and shell arc according to the game's value (So for example, Iowa's fall angle and pen at max range irl is Iowa's fall angle and pen values in-game)
This could eradicate the bow on gameplay, an issue that War Gaming already hates and allows for more dynamic combat (movements instead of bow on)
In this case, the German BBs will have an immunity zone at close range but are vulnerable to long range sniping (way overdue nerf)

IJN BBs , they can actually participate in brawls now instead of being the cowards that they are, they'll do great for medium range engagements, good/excellent shell arcs which allow them to punish broadside at close range. 

USN BBs. They are finally able to do what they were designed to do, long range sniping with their superior shell arc and is sufficiently protected

 

What are all of your opinion on this?

I think that Ichase's solution is good, ships like the NC, Iowa and Montana won't be as squishy as they are right now. New ship lines would be able to function at their optimal distant and we'll have a more dynamic game play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
173 posts
5,332 battles

So basically, it means that the belt and deck armor will be much more effective at protecting the ship at a certain distance. So this might also mean crossing the T might be a viable tactic at a certain distance if properly implemented? If it does, then I'm all for it.

However, how will this affect cruisers and destroyers? Battleships having this immunity zone at a certain distance to other battleships also means a much LARGER immunity zone against cruisers and destroyers. This might mean more HE spamming. And RN cruisers will totally suffer. So i'm just sitting on the fence with regards to this.

Edited by KirstieBeau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
802 posts

While the changes have the potential to be positive it's naive to think that game play changes would truly change the way a player plays their bote. That and and after iChase's RDF video, he has lost all credibility (if he had any to begin with).in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,107 posts
7,844 battles

IOWA shell took 90s at max range on real life

in game it compresed around third of that value, so at 24km range you will have shell travel time of 30s so it have somewaht belivable ballistic properties

 

people potato their shoot even on 10s prediction, at 30s you all gonna shoot water

 

unless people want to see funny balistic path of their shell, shooter with bonker ballistic wont works

 

at battle of Java sea, IJN Cruisers spend 1500 shells and only 8 shell hit target

thats 18km shootout

If the game also try to simulate compresed ballistic property, yeah, go figures how you all feel so bad about your aimming skills

Edited by humusz

Share this post


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

While the changes have the potential to be positive it's naive to think that game play changes would truly change the way a player plays their bote. That and and after iChase's RDF video, he has lost all credibility (if he had any to begin with).in my opinion. 

 

Ichase always had credibility, why should we judge him based on his one video, everyone makes mistakes in their career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
173 posts
5,332 battles

iChase said that WG should compress the penetration values in relation to the compression ratio in distance. That way, the armor of an Iowa-class battleship would work at least similarly to what the designers planned for it which is be immune to long-range artillery fire. In-game, whenever an Iowa showed a perfect broadside 14 kms out, it guarantees a citadel hit or two, completely defeating its belt or deck armor. In real life, at least according to iChase, the equivalent distance of 14 km which is about 30 km, the Iowa should technically be immune to both plunging fire and belt hits, whereas up close she would be less protected to direct hits than a dreadnought battleship since she has a weaker belt armor and a relatively high citadel location.

 

Now, if properly implemented, it may get rid of the bow-on meta which is technically, a very unreal tactic in a true naval warfare. In my opinion, this may give a somewhat realistic flavor to this arcade game as to how true naval warfare is performed, which is all about positioning, maneuvers and concealment. Of course, a potato player will remain potato no matter how WG change the mechanics of this game.

 

What I'm worried about is how this would affect the balance between the 4 classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
420 posts
20 battles

iChase said that WG should compress the penetration values in relation to the compression ratio in distance. That way, the armor of an Iowa-class battleship would work at least similarly to what the designers planned for it which is be immune to long-range artillery fire. In-game, whenever an Iowa showed a perfect broadside 14 kms out, it guarantees a citadel hit or two, completely defeating its belt or deck armor. In real life, at least according to iChase, the equivalent distance of 14 km which is about 30 km, the Iowa should technically be immune to both plunging fire and belt hits, whereas up close she would be less protected to direct hits than a dreadnought battleship since she has a weaker belt armor and a relatively high citadel location.

 

Now, if properly implemented, it may get rid of the bow-on meta which is technically, a very unreal tactic in a true naval warfare. In my opinion, this may give a somewhat realistic flavor to this arcade game as to how true naval warfare is performed, which is all about positioning, maneuvers and concealment. Of course, a potato player will remain potato no matter how WG change the mechanics of this game.

 

What I'm worried about is how this would affect the balance between the 4 classes.

 

There's another problem, how the game balance if BB at WoWs having such reality.

I mean, technically, it is no way DD or CA in reality could singled out a BB and win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,553 posts
7,993 battles

NA server and their cries about historical accuracy.

 

Although I think lowering Iowa citadel a bit is fine, Montana and NC doesn't need any buff in my opinion. Oh, and its iChase.....I thought he didn't find anything else to make a video, didn't even take it seriously. Montana and NC do their roles pretty well as they are right now. You don't want another epic brawler who can go toe to toe with a GK.

Edited by icy_phoenix

Share this post


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

NA server and their cries about historical accuracy.

 

Although I think lowering Iowa citadel a bit is fine, Montana and NC doesn't need any buff in my opinion. Oh, and its iChase.....I thought he didn't find anything else to make a video, didn't even take it seriously. Montana and NC do their roles pretty well as they are right now. You don't want another epic brawler who can go toe to toe with a GK.

It's a direct buff for any ship. All that it is is to let ships do well by letting them perform at their designed engagement range which solves a lot of balance issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
3,837 posts
2,602 battles

WOWS significantly compressed the engagement ranges whilst retaining the realistic armour penetrating values for each ships (ridiculous pen)

 

...

 

Solution, scale the real life penetration and shell arc according to the game's value (So for example, Iowa's fall angle and pen at max range irl is Iowa's fall angle and pen values in-game)

 

This is where many people get it wrong.

 

The shell ballistics and penetration are all close to RL. That means shells falling at 14 km have the same angle of fall, velocity and penetration potential as it would at 14 km in RL (or as close as it could be modeled).

 

What's compressed is time. Everything moves faster than they really do in RL.

Max range is limited, i.e. higher gun elevations are restricted. But ballistics for the allowed elevation ranges are still the same as they are in RL.

Ships are also scaled bigger. So while everyone is shooting at the same ranges as they would in RL (along with the associated ballistic properties), they're also shooting at ships that are a few hundred meters bigger than they are in RL.

 

Here's a doodle I made months ago explaining this:

YIGsf5A.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[SIBYL]
Member
50 posts
7,232 battles

 

There's another problem, how the game balance if BB at WoWs having such reality.

I mean, technically, it is no way DD or CA in reality could singled out a BB and win.

 

Yes, but compared to reality, DD and CA are also stripped of many of their important roles(compared to BBs), and some very notable ones are convoy escorts and anti-submarine warfare. Your Battleships won't get the materials they would need to be built without some anti-submarine screening for the trade convoys.

 

To ensure all the classes are viable given the situation presented with the game, they would all need to be capable of having a chance at killing each other, that would unfortunately include DD and CA having a chance at 1v1 a BB and win.

 

You can't talk about reality in games where so many real life parameters are either simplified or outright removed in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
802 posts

 

This is where many people get it wrong.

 

The shell ballistics and penetration are all close to RL. That means shells falling at 14 km have the same angle of fall, velocity and penetration potential as it would at 14 km in RL (or as close as it could be modeled).

 

What's compressed is time. Everything moves faster than they really do in RL.

Max range is limited, i.e. higher gun elevations are restricted. But ballistics for the allowed elevation ranges are still the same as they are in RL.

Ships are also scaled bigger. So while everyone is shooting at the same ranges as they would in RL (along with the associated ballistic properties), they're also shooting at ships that are a few hundred meters bigger than they are in RL.

 

 

 

Quality post and more justification as to why iChase is bad mmkay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
783 posts
4,821 battles

That and the historical basis for it is quite stretched theoretically.

His example at 27km range where the Iowa's belt and citadel deck armor "barely" defended against the example of Mark 8 shells is already moot since getting hits at that range historically is in all honesty, already a fluke. The Iowa also isn't a good example for this argument since it is one of the most thinly armored 1930+ BBs and can't defend itself from its own guns which even the USN admitted.

 

And say, even if the change does go through. Ships like the Montana which has approximately way more belt armor than Iowa is gonna have a waaaay better immunity zone than the Iowa (and the North Carolina), making another great powerspike. Other heavily armored ships like the Yamato, and the overall thick side armor of the German BBs will literally create a dubious allotment of immunity zones, and that's against BB shells. Since overall, like it or not, scaling the penetration values to longer distances does decrease the penetration values we have now. It may be "dynamic" from a BB vs BB perspective to put it optimistically, but it basically screws over Cruisers and DDs and will only limit them to using HE using the simple 1/6 pen mechanic some more because AP will lose part of its effectiveness again. All of which in terms of penetration scaling.

In terms of the angle of fall, what amade brought up is quite relevant in that, if you scale distances like his(iChase's) suggestion of having the values of fall from 27km -> 15km, you'll have really wonky arcs to say the least and aiming will be more difficult. And it'd require MORE time compression if the arcs and travel time are to be maintained from what we have now I understand, and I'm not sure how that'd work without making a lot of things feel disconcerting.

Edited by SZYZWY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MEGA]
Member
4,564 posts
17,558 battles

no, just no, there is NO need to buff the NC and montana is plain down better then yamato and more or less equal to GK, no need to buff them even more

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
420 posts
20 battles

Yes, but compared to reality, DD and CA are also stripped of many of their important roles(compared to BBs), and some very notable ones are convoy escorts and anti-submarine warfare. Your Battleships won't get the materials they would need to be built without some anti-submarine screening for the trade convoys.

 

To ensure all the classes are viable given the situation presented with the game, they would all need to be capable of having a chance at killing each other, that would unfortunately include DD and CA having a chance at 1v1 a BB and win.

 

You can't talk about reality in games where so many real life parameters are either simplified or outright removed in the game.

 

Exactly my point, why you argue with me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
295 posts
6,613 battles

waterline citadel for iowa and montana is enough for me, no need to change game shell ballistic, velocity, gun range etc, that would make the game completely broken and unballanced, because battleship is not the only ship class in this game 

Share this post


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

iChase doesn't really think this through. If you want to scale penetration, angle of fall, etc you'll make the any cruiser and destroyer AP next to useless at 10km+ range. 

 

Changing this will completely break the game. Muzzle velocity will also be changed all around. All of those ship with orbital shell trajectory will have even more floaty arcs.

 

NA people should stop making excuses to buff USN BBs, they receive nothing but buffs lately. When will these [edited] satisfied? Their excuse and suggestion is getting more and more stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
295 posts
6,613 battles

Wut? Like NC's ? That would make them OP.

Maybe I should rephrase my statement, I don't really care wheter or not WG buff iowa and montana (and I think they would, by reading sub_octavian answer in reddit), but if they want to buff them waterline citadel is enough for me, no need to change entire game mechanic of the shells, because that would potentially make the game broken and unplayable for other classes 

Share this post


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

Maybe I should rephrase my statement, I don't really care wheter or not WG buff iowa and montana (and I think they would, by reading sub_octavian answer in reddit), but if they want to buff them waterline citadel is enough for me, no need to change entire game mechanic of the shells, because that would potentially make the game broken and unplayable for other classes 

Again, NC citadel placement on Montana and Iowa will make them OP. The citadel will be lowered, probably like Yamato/Izumo. But no way it's ok to lower them to NC like waterline citadel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LLBC]
Member
747 posts
6,863 battles

Again, NC citadel placement on Montana and Iowa will make them OP. The citadel will be lowered, probably like Yamato/Izumo. But no way it's ok to lower them to NC like waterline citadel.

 

Depends on "how" they lower it. IIRC, the splinter deck of Iowa and Montana is only 13 mm thick. Even 200 mm CA guns can overmatch it (provided that they penetrate the 300-400 mm belts in the first place). If they were to be lowered like that, I suspect that the citadel deck will be only of that thickness. Don't know if that would still sounds OP to you though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
295 posts
6,613 battles

Again, NC citadel placement on Montana and Iowa will make them OP. The citadel will be lowered, probably like Yamato/Izumo. But no way it's ok to lower them to NC like waterline citadel.

But I'm not the one to decide if iowa and montana needs buff, it's up to WG, and whatever their decicion will be, i'm fine with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,386 posts
8,233 battles

Again, NC citadel placement on Montana and Iowa will make them OP. The citadel will be lowered, probably like Yamato/Izumo. But no way it's ok to lower them to NC like waterline citadel.

Yamato's citadel setting is exactly the same as Iowa/Montana

Everything between thr main belt and below the main armor deck is citadel.

Izumo is a different layout with slope armored deck. I would compare it with German BBs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×