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

On battleship's HE and population's outcry - a noob rambling

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
40 posts

With the introduction of RN BBs the player base has been introduced to battleships that are essentially floating flamethrowers, the like of which hasn't been seen since since the invention and lost of the greek fire by the byzantine empire.
Community contributors quickly reported on their abilities to set other ships aflame, and the forum's quickly filled with post of the ships' superiority compare to their counterparts.

A week later, the waves of posts have subsided, the win rate for the Conqueror sits at 54% on EU,52% on SEA , and 55% on NA[1].

But is this the cause of the superb HE shells?
We'll look at the chance of setting a ship on fire(at least 1 fire) per turret(Assuming all the HE shell hits):

  1. Großer Kurfürst with 420mm : (1-(1-0.41)3) = 0.795
  2. Großer Kurfürst with 406mm : (1-(1-0.38)3) = 0.762
  3. Montana with 406mm : (1-(1-0.36)3) = 0.738
  4. Yamato with 460mm : (1-(1-0.35)3) = 0.725
  5. Conqueror with 419mm : (1-(1-0.48)3) = 0.859
  6. Conqueror with 457mm : (1-(1-0.63)2) = 0.863

I've chosen to use a per turret value as we already know the chance per shell, and it is NOT possible to only fire 1 gun on each turret.

Noting that dispersion value of each ship would affect the effective chance of setting fire, we can say it's been "balanced" to be roughly similar.

Although, in the event that only 1 shell hits, the probability would favour the shell with higher fire chance.

Next, we'll look at the chance of setting fire per ship salvo making all the previous assumptions

  1. Großer Kurfürst with 420mm : (1-(1-0.41)12) = 0.9982
  2. Großer Kurfürst with 406mm : (1-(1-0.38)12) = 0.9968
  3. Montana with 406mm : (1-(1-0.36)12) = 0.9952
  4. Yamato with 460mm : (1-(1-0.35)9) = 0.9792
  5. Conqueror with 419mm : (1-(1-0.48)12) = 0.9996
  6. Conqueror with 457mm : (1-(1-0.63)8) = 0.9996

From the 2 data sets[2] we can see the RN BB managed a lead of roughly 10% in the chance to set fire per turret,

however, per salvo, the difference is almost negligible.

So, if the difference is only roughly 10%, why the sudden outcry?

I put forward my hypothesis that it is the emergent properties of a whole branch being encouraged to use HE and the influx of 

players jumping on to this branch in the relatively short span of time, and the confirmation bias of other battleship's captain.

From what I can tell, WG hasn't made any changed to the RN BBs in 6.11 as they wait for the statistics to "stabilise".

 

A major point not discussed is the penetration of HE shells and how they affect fire chance. 

[1]http://wows-numbers.com/ships/

[2]http://wowsft.com/

Edited by Reinhardt_von_Lohengram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
1 minute ago, icy_phoenix said:

10% sounds huge to me, I don't know about you.

I see what you mean, but looking at 70% and 80%, i think the jump alone is not big enough to reflect the community's reaction.
I haven't looked at HE penetration too. I don't know how that would affect the end results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
7,534 posts
7,978 battles

Well you are looking at HE statistics. Add their bad AP statistics with that, which is also a contributing factor. I think it is not just hype or confirmation bias.

As for end result, currently they have higher damage stats, but slightly lower winrate. If your contribution is repairable by enemy, then you see big numbers for you but doesn't help the team much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,386 posts
8,224 battles
11 minutes ago, Reinhardt_von_Lohengram said:

Their winrates are pretty good right now. I'm not sure if that's the same with every new ships, where their stats are just startling good for a couple of weeks.

GK had over 55% the few days after release, held over 53% for more than half a year, and gradually declined to the current one. The ship was quite OP until people figured out how to deal with it, i.e. BB aiming at half the freeboard for maximized shell hits, CA/CL aim for superstructure. Minotaur also had very impressive stats when released but is now apparent that her WR is only the result of division work. Conqueror has ~52% WR which is what I would expect for a mediocre line when released. The avg dmg however is pretty impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,107 posts
7,840 battles
5 minutes ago, Reinhardt_von_Lohengram said:

No. The fire chance per broadside/salvo is listed up there

So assuming they have 10% better fire chance

those 30% Higher HE dmg alpha per shell 

 

end up making huge gap diffrence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
4 minutes ago, humusz said:

So assuming they have 10% better fire chance

those 30% Higher HE dmg alpha per shell 

 

end up making huge gap diffrence

A quick check on wowsft shows, USA and Japanese BBs gets 65k HE dmg per salvo, German 60k per salvo, conqueror is 65k(457mm) and 87k(419mm).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,107 posts
7,840 battles
5 minutes ago, Reinhardt_von_Lohengram said:

A quick check on wowsft shows, USA and Japanese BBs gets 65k HE dmg per salvo, German 60k per salvo, conqueror is 65k(457mm) and 87k(419mm).

 

 

compared to germans its 45% higher HE Alpha salvo

with 10% higher fire chance and comparable reload time, how is that is not a big diffrence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
5 minutes ago, humusz said:

compared to germans its 45% higher HE Alpha salvo

with 10% higher fire chance and comparable reload time, how is that is not a big diffrence

I made the case that there is little difference between 70% to 80% chance of setting another ship on fire. Note, that these percentage 
includes both the 457mm and 419mm guns, which offer wildly different salva alpha damage. As pointed out by 

The RN BBs have poorer AP's performance than their counterparts, and as such their effective damage per salvo would be affected.
So in comparing damage per salvo would it then be fair to compare it based on HE to HE or HE to AP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,107 posts
7,840 battles
46 minutes ago, Reinhardt_von_Lohengram said:

I made the case that there is little difference between 70% to 80% chance of setting another ship on fire. Note, that these percentage 
includes both the 457mm and 419mm guns, which offer wildly different salva alpha damage. As pointed out by 

The RN BBs have poorer AP's performance than their counterparts, and as such their effective damage per salvo would be affected.
So in comparing damage per salvo would it then be fair to compare it based on HE to HE or HE to AP?

 

???

 

what you talking about ?

whats AP do with this ?

 

If you talk about HE and Fire, then conqueror 419mm would be the choice.

even  HE and fire aside, 457mm dont offer overmatch. so their entire advantage is moot

 

quoted from your post -> German 60k per salvo, conqueror is 65k(457mm) and 87k(419mm).

60K compared to 87K. thats would amount to 45% higher HE alpha compared to Germans

 

 

whats AP has to do about this ? its make no sense

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
15 minutes ago, humusz said:

 

???

 

what you talking about ?

whats AP do with this ?

 

If you talk about HE and Fire, then conqueror 419mm would be the choice.

even  HE and fire aside, 457mm dont offer overmatch. so their entire advantage is moot

 

quoted from your post -> German 60k per salvo, conqueror is 65k(457mm) and 87k(419mm).

60K compared to 87K. thats would amount to 45% higher HE alpha compared to Germans

 

 

whats AP has to do about this ? its make no sense

As I've said before the discussion started with the percentage of fire set by each BBs, so I said the 10% difference between 70% and 80% is not much.
Then I went on to add that that percentage difference includes both the 457mm gun and 419mm gun, which gives different DPM. Assuming you're talking about

damage per salvo, I then ask whether it was a fair comparison between a BB that would uses HE more often than AP, to BBs that uses AP more.
In short, is it fair to compare damage per salvo between the 419mm HE damage per salvo to other BB's AP shell, if we are discuss their damage per salvo, since it

would be very rare to find the yamato, montana or GK, using HE as a main method of inflicting damage. It is interesting to see that with the 457mm that brings

the conqueror AP performance to being something good, the HE damage per salvo drops to be in line with other BB. So then, I surmise that the high HE salvo damage

of the 419mm is to make up for its poor AP's performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,107 posts
7,840 battles
56 minutes ago, Reinhardt_von_Lohengram said:

As I've said before the discussion started with the percentage of fire set by each BBs, so I said the 10% difference between 70% and 80% is not much.
Then I went on to add that that percentage difference includes both the 457mm gun and 419mm gun, which gives different DPM. Assuming you're talking about

damage per salvo, I then ask whether it was a fair comparison between a BB that would uses HE more often than AP, to BBs that uses AP more.
In short, is it fair to compare damage per salvo between the 419mm HE damage per salvo to other BB's AP shell, if we are discuss their damage per salvo, since it

would be very rare to find the yamato, montana or GK, using HE as a main method of inflicting damage. It is interesting to see that with the 457mm that brings

the conqueror AP performance to being something good, the HE damage per salvo drops to be in line with other BB. So then, I surmise that the high HE salvo damage

of the 419mm is to make up for its poor AP's performance.

well, there quite Lots of montana shoot HE 

 

and as HE shell become extremly reliable. it would be more reliant to use HE - even if AP can be good in that situation

you can ask any ZAO player, that having great HE dmg greatly reduce the need for ammo switching - unless the target is preaty much present himself in perfect situation

 

Zao is not the best T10 fire starting cruiser. but the Great HE dmg made for her notorious reputation as Flame thrower

it was the same for British BB, even with 0% fire starting advantage over other BB line

the overly reliable HE (30% higher avr HE dmg, 1/4 Penetration) would be the safe munition choice for any user to play the line

since it become prime choice, then its obvius that number of  fire started would be increased

 

they can fill traditional battleship role with good performance

they also can fulfill the role of Cruiser, only its can have higher impact than a cruiser would be (good HE Dpm, high presence, longer reach, Much higher staying power, great AA)

 

I almost get monarch but my impresion about the line were

they stonger than their peer by quite margin, easier to play, less punishing to mistake (good stealh enable to disengage easily), with Great HE and decent AP its easier to made impactfull play on the match than common AP reliant BB

from all line I played, this is easiest BB to do well in (2nd lowest skill floor) and skill celling  is great too. its very competitive line. though at T8, NC would still be the king 

is it OP ? its maybe borderline OP. 

I would like fire chance reduced, since I feel my KGV seems to start more fire than my Henry IV. that just..................

a bit disgusting

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
14 minutes ago, humusz said:

well, there quite Lots of montana shoot HE 

 

and as HE shell become extremly reliable. it would be more reliant to use HE - even if AP can be good in that situation

you can ask any ZAO player, that having great HE dmg greatly reduce the need for ammo switching - unless the target is preaty much present himself in perfect situation

 

Zao is not the best T10 fire starting cruiser. but the Great HE dmg made for her notorious reputation as Flame thrower

it was the same for British BB, even with 0% fire starting advantage over other BB line

the overly reliable HE (30% higher avr HE dmg, 1/4 Penetration) would be the safe munition choice for any user to play the line

since it become prime choice, then its obvius that number of  fire started would be increased

 

they can fill traditional battleship role with good performance

they also can fulfill the role of Cruiser, only its can have higher impact than a cruiser would be (good HE Dpm, high presence, longer reach, Much higher staying power, great AA)

 

I almost get monarch but my impresion about the line were

they stonger than their peer by quite margin, easier to play, less punishing to mistake (good stealh enable to disengage easily), with Great HE and decent AP its easier to made impactfull play on the match than common AP reliant BB

from all line I played, this is easiest BB to do well in (2nd lowest skill floor) and skill celling  is great too. its very competitive line. though at T8, NC would still be the king 

is it OP ? its maybe borderline OP. 

I would like fire chance reduced, since I feel my KGV seems to start more fire than my Henry IV. that just..................

a bit disgusting

That is a fair point. Well, another factor for WG to consider when they review the ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,167 posts
7,460 battles

UK BB AP performance seens very good at high tiers, at least on paper. Warning! Table incoming!

 

Battleship AP

Penetration

15 km

Penetration

20 km

Broadside

RPM

Broadside

DPM

Frontal

RPM

Frontal

DPM

Dispersion

15 km

Yamato  583 503 18 266k 12 178k 179 (2.1Σ)
Conqueror <457> 572 497 16 238k 8 119k 195 (2.0Σ)
Conqueror <419> 554 490 24 312k 12 156k 195 (1.8Σ)
Grosse Kurfurst <420> 541 467 23 304k 11 152k 198 (1.8Σ)
Izumo  525 433 18 232k 12 155k 179 (1.8Σ)
Montana  521 444 24 324k 12 162k 187 (1.9Σ)
Grosse Kurfurst <406> 510 434 25 315k 12 158k 198 (1.8Σ)

 

Notes

  • RPM = Rounds Per Minute; DPM = Damage Per Minute
  • Dispersion statistic includes the Accuracy module (7% normally, 11% for Montana)
  • Short UK fuse time might actually be a disadvantage when fighting enemy Battleships - results not yet clear
  • Yamato's 32mm overmatch means she will suffer fewer ricochets than her rivals and score more damaging hits, on average

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video Contributor
2,264 posts
10,788 battles
Quote

[Fire Resistance Coefficient] x ( 1 - [Damage Control Modification 1] - [Fire Prevention] ) x ( [Projectile Base Fire Chance] + [Demolition Expert] + [Signals] - [Inertial Fuse for HE Shells]) = Fire Chance

 

Quote

As an example, we can compare the chance of a single Benson high explosive shell lighting a fire on an enemy Bismarck. The Bismarck is using Hull (B) and Damage Control Modification 1, but her commander does not have Fire Prevention. The Benson commander has Demolition Expert (but not Inertia Fuse for HE Shells) and is flying both the Victor Lima and India X-Ray signals. The fire chance would be:

(0.6337) x (1 - 0.05 - 0.00) x (0.05 + 0.02 + 0.005 + 0.005 - 0.00) = 4.82% fire chance


If the Bismarck commander acquires the Fire Prevention skill, the chance would then be:

(0.6337) x (1 - 0.05 - 0.10) x (0.05 + 0.02 + 0.005 + 0.005 - 0.00) = 4.31% fire chance


If the Benson commander didn't have Demolition Expert or the signals equipped, the chance would be:

(0.6337) x (1 - 0.05 - 0.10) x (0.05 + 0.00 + 0.00 - 0.00) = 2.69% fire chance

 

what about this...................

Conqueror with 457mm = chance to fire for T10 25%-28% per shell (IFHE to non IFHE+signal+DE)

Conqueror with 419mm = Chance to fire for T10 19%-22% per shell (IFHE to non IFHE+signal+DE)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
2 minutes ago, Unraveler said:

UK BB AP performance seens very good at high tiers, at least on paper. Warning! Table incoming!

 

Battleship AP

Penetration

15 km

Penetration

20 km

Broadside

RPM

Broadside

DPM

Frontal

RPM

Frontal

DPM

Dispersion

15 km

Yamato  583 503 18 266k 12 178k 179 (2.1Σ)
Conqueror <457> 572 497 16 238k 8 119k 195 (2.0Σ)
Conqueror <419> 554 490 24 312k 12 156k 195 (1.8Σ)
Grosse Kurfurst <420> 541 467 23 304k 11 152k 198 (1.8Σ)
Izumo  525 433 18 232k 12 155k 179 (1.8Σ)
Montana  521 444 24 324k 12 162k 187 (1.9Σ)
Grosse Kurfurst <406> 510 434 25 315k 12 158k 198 (1.8Σ)

 

Notes

  • RPM = Rounds Per Minute; DPM = Damage Per Minute
  • Dispersion statistic includes the Accuracy module (7% normally, 11% for Montana)
  • Short UK fuse time might actually be a disadvantage when fighting enemy Battleships - results not yet clear
  • Yamato's 32mm overmatch means she will suffer fewer ricochets than her rivals and score more damaging hits, on average

Those penetration values are greater than i expected. IIRC, there's a youtuber that made a video about how the fuse works, something along the line of shell velocity upon impact * fuse time, to see if it penetrates before exploding. Don't quote me on that, I don't have the video atm.

 

6 minutes ago, Onlinegamer said:

 

 

what about this...................

Conqueror with 457mm = chance to fire for T10 25%-28% per shell (IFHE to non IFHE+signal+DE)

Conqueror with 419mm = Chance to fire for T10 19%-22% per shell (IFHE to non IFHE+signal+DE)

Any idea where I can get the fire resistance data? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
37 minutes ago, Onlinegamer said:

 

 

what about this...................

Conqueror with 457mm = chance to fire for T10 25%-28% per shell (IFHE to non IFHE+signal+DE)

Conqueror with 419mm = Chance to fire for T10 19%-22% per shell (IFHE to non IFHE+signal+DE)

It's probably better to look at the ships with no modification. The combinations of skills, upgrades and signals would change from captain to captain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
783 posts
4,810 battles
4 hours ago, humusz said:

So assuming they have 10% better fire chance

those 30% Higher HE dmg alpha per shell

Pretty much this on the context of RN BB HE (quote in relation to GK HE shells)

I mean, people have argued already that the fire chance stuff is more complicated than initially shown here in the thread.
Regardless, this pretty much lends to the fact that RN BB HE shells on the Conqueror, (and goes without saying the 419mm), makes for an extremely consistent AND lethal(un-angleable) damage source. To be quite honest, with the comparison to the GK HE shell alpha per salvo, having ~30% more potential alpha while having better accuracy than the GK, not to mention better fire chance, lends to see how there's something wrong with RN BB HE. That and it's also the second least citadel-able T10BB with an obscene heal consumable to boot would also help in the argument that maybe the Conqueror is overpowered. And yes, I haven't even began with the other soft stats that are heavily in its favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,167 posts
7,460 battles

It's still too early to make accurate judgements, but from my experience so far I reckon both Conqueror and Lion would be quite fine without their respective 419mm gun options. That would leave Lion with the 9 x 406s and Conqueror with the 8 x 457s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
58 minutes ago, SZYZWY said:

Pretty much this on the context of RN BB HE (quote in relation to GK HE shells)

I mean, people have argued already that the fire chance stuff is more complicated than initially shown here in the thread.
Regardless, this pretty much lends to the fact that RN BB HE shells on the Conqueror, (and goes without saying the 419mm), makes for an extremely consistent AND lethal(un-angleable) damage source. To be quite honest, with the comparison to the GK HE shell alpha per salvo, having ~30% more potential alpha while having better accuracy than the GK, not to mention better fire chance, lends to see how there's something wrong with RN BB HE. That and it's also the second least citadel-able T10BB with an obscene heal consumable to boot would also help in the argument that maybe the Conqueror is overpowered. And yes, I haven't even began with the other soft stats that are heavily in its favor.

If I may protest, my calculation of the chance of fire was logically sound, leaving out the combinations of skills, upgrades, or flags. Even with the formula given by WG, taking away all those variables, it is only lacking the ship's fire resistance.Forgive me for wishing for a spherical cow. In any case, I agree, the conqueror's a damn fine ship to sail. It is fun with its manoeuvrability, and quick turrets. I admit, I've used the 457mm more than the 419mm just because  the idea of slinging 1.8t HE is amusing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
40 posts
48 minutes ago, Unraveler said:

It's still too early to make accurate judgements, but from my experience so far I reckon both Conqueror and Lion would be quite fine without their respective 419mm gun options. That would leave Lion with the 9 x 406s and Conqueror with the 8 x 457s.

I'd say we should know if WG thinks the ships are fine after 2 patches. They should have enough data then. Maybe 3 at most. Personally, I find the 8 x 457mm acceptable. 

Share this post


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

×