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

Why some are and some arent

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
17 posts
6,553 battles

Ive noticed that historical information and tech details is used for some ships while others are nerfed to under perform. take for instance Bismarck - this ship in the game has been handicapped by the firing rate.  the game has it at just on 2 per minute while in actual fact it should be 3 per minute or one round every 18 seconds. 

while others have firing rate faster then they factually had IE  Kongo reload in actual ship was 40s     but in game 30s

even worse, Yamato IRL had firing rate of 1.5 yet game has it at 2. OMG 

 

Can this be fixed to allow Her (Bismarck) and her sister ship to be able to play on a level field as others in tear 8 to 10 have closer to the real firing rate. 

Edited by RogertheCabinboi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
321
[LBAS]
Beta Tester
890 posts
5,777 battles

Why don't restore Yamato's 42km+ firing range so that most Yamato/Musashi player can all go to the corner of a map and shoot each other, and pretend to be escorts for CVs :Smile_hiding:

Edited by spixys
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,289 posts
8,802 battles

Lets also have the Type 93 Long Lance torpedo with it's 40 km range. :Smile_izmena:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
340
[-ISO-]
Member
1,085 posts
6,843 battles
1 hour ago, RogertheCabinboi said:

Can this be fixed to allow Her (Bismarck) and her sister ship to be able to play on a level field as others in tear 8 to 10 have closer to the real firing rate. 

IMO Bismarck is fine. What's not fine is FDG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,209
Member
5,662 posts
9,469 battles
15 hours ago, Thyaliad said:

Probably balance reasons.

Balance reason is the ONLY reason.

This is a game and please consider it as a game... while I'd be so mad with certain historical inaccuracies, I'd be madder with OP or UP ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[TLS]
Member
232 posts
7,875 battles
3 hours ago, RogertheCabinboi said:

Ive noticed that historical information and tech details is used for some ships while others are nerfed to under perform. take for instance Bismarck - this ship in the game has been handicapped by the firing rate.  the game has it at just on 2 per minute while in actual fact it should be 3 per minute or one round every 18 seconds. 

while others have firing rate faster then they factually had IE  Kongo reload in actual ship was 40s     but in game 30s

even worse, Yamato IRL had firing rate of 1.5 yet game has it at 2. OMG 

 

Can this be fixed to allow Her (Bismarck) and her sister ship to be able to play on a level field as others in tear 8 to 10 have closer to the real firing rate. 

Another whining thread about the game "not realistic enough".

Go play War Thunder or something more fit to your history accurate buddy :cap_popcorn:

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
192
[ANZAC]
Member
522 posts
19,720 battles

And for the 54829th time, can we fix DDs so the reload relfects real life, having a 50 odd sec reload on the minekaze is just not realistic. And DDs should be limited to only 1 reload. And ship radar should be on ALL the time. And if this game was really realistic we'd have subs. Yeah. All that stuff will fix the game.

 

 

Because....sarcasm

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,611
[CLAY]
Member
3,214 posts
14,143 battles
2 hours ago, j0e90 said:

And for the 54829th time, can we fix DDs so the reload relfects real life, having a 50 odd sec reload on the minekaze is just not realistic. And DDs should be limited to only 1 reload. And ship radar should be on ALL the time. And if this game was really realistic we'd have subs. Yeah. All that stuff will fix the game.

 

 

Because....sarcasm

And instead of radar allowing us to see ships, should just be a screen with dots on it. And you can’t tell the difference between enemy and allies. And it can’t go through islands.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
321
[LBAS]
Beta Tester
890 posts
5,777 battles

- No holy healers should be on battleship especially Conqueror.

- And to increase so-called "realism", players should be able to rescue servicemen from enemy ships to increase your stats of your warships with 50% probability.

- the other 50% probability shall be decreasing stat because the rescued servicemen rebel against your warship

- rescuing servicemen from same nation will increase probability of gaining stats.

- Player can capture the captain from enemy warships so that the enemy player needs to negotiate with you for their captains after battle.

"Realism" can be very interesting.:Smile_trollface::Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,209
Member
5,662 posts
9,469 battles

WarGaming: "This is not a boring naval simulator"

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
2 posts
3,169 battles

If the ships in-game were true to their historical counterparts, battleships would be entirely phased out and CVs would reign supreme

Well, we're halfway there at least.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
226
[SLAVA]
Member
433 posts
7,746 battles
On 5/17/2019 at 4:54 PM, RogertheCabinboi said:

Ive noticed that historical information and tech details is used for some ships while others are nerfed to under perform. take for instance Bismarck - this ship in the game has been handicapped by the firing rate.  the game has it at just on 2 per minute while in actual fact it should be 3 per minute or one round every 18 seconds. 

while others have firing rate faster then they factually had IE  Kongo reload in actual ship was 40s     but in game 30s

 even worse, Yamato IRL had firing rate of 1.5 yet game has it at 2. OMG 

Default battleship reload time in-game is 30 seconds which was the design standard of many real world large caliber naval guns.

Your facts are blatantly incorrect and I will point out the issues one by one. A lot of people look at historical values from a flat perspective and fail to properly interpret them.

Navweaps is one basic online source states the following on Bismarck. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php

"Krupp official documents cite the ROF as being 26 seconds at a four degree elevation, not notably faster than that of other nations' large-caliber weapons. Note that at this elevation the range would be considerably less than 10,000 meters. It is possible that well trained gun crews would reduce this time to the 20 seconds necessary to meet a ROF of 3 times per minute. A May 1941 report by the German Artillerieversuchskommando - AVSK (Artillery Testing Command for Ships) stated that the turret ammunition hoists on Bismarck were capable of delivering between 23 and 25 rounds per minute (for all four turrets), the equivalent of 3 rounds per minute per gun. However, this same report stated that design faults in the hoists led to two significant breakdowns during the evaluation, both of which caused long interruptions in the ammunition supply. Finally, it should be noted that Bismarck fired a total of 91 rounds during her thirteen minutes of firing at the Denmark Strait battle, which is actually less than one round per gun per minute."

Bismarck's turrets were incredibly heavy for 15" turrets, almost 200 tons more than the British 15"/42 Mk. I turrets. Her hoists and arrangement are possibly quite overbuilt but are capable of delivering design rate of fire. However, in any prolonged engagement the rate of fire for a capital ship would be much lower than design spec. Why?

  • Well, first of all, when a real ship was ranging its targets it had to traditionally observe where the ranging salvoes fell. This would take more than 30 and even up to 90 seconds as the shells flew to their targets and during that interval the guns would not fire, then adjust accordingly. Firing at maximum rate of fire with no perception of where your shells would actually go would be pointless.
  • The guns can fire at design rate of fire when at optimal loading angle in many cases. However, this loading angle is useless for combat and in practice a gun would have to load, elevate, fire, depress back to the loading angle and repeat, adding a few extra seconds to the cycle.
  • Additionally in the handling rooms of a ship, propellant and shells are being moved manually. When the engagement drags out, rate of fire drops off markedly as the crew tires and measuring in minutes per round becomes more logical than rounds per minute.
     

You do not have to deal with these factors ingame as rangefinding and crew exhaustion are nonfactors. Keeping these factors in mind and considering the Krupp documents (26 seconds being accurate to Bismarck's ingame reload) Bismark ingame has a historically accurate design reload but overall, like all BBs ingame, fires even faster than in reality.

As for Yamato? Her guns are designed for 2RPM and fire slower in practice. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.php

"At the loading angle of +3 degrees, a firing cycle of about 30 seconds could be achieved. However, this would equate to a range of no more than 6,560 yards (6,000 m). The additional elevation and depression times required to reach an elevation of 41 degrees increased the firing cycle by about 11 seconds. As can be seen in the Range Table below, most ship-to-ship actions would rarely exceed an elevation of 20 degrees, so an intermediate time of 35 seconds would seem to be reasonable for most battle-range engagements."

It's a similar case, though all high tier BBs ingame can benefit from a reload upgrade module that trades turret traverse for rate of fire.

Last of all, Wikipedia Japan (I get Wikipedia is not exactly an authoritative source but the article on this vessel is very well cited and comprehensive) states the following on the performance of the 36cm/45 41st Year Type used on Kongo, Fuso and Ise. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/扶桑型戦艦

爆風の影響に関しては山城竣工後の1918年(大正7年)8月6日に行われた戦闘射撃訓練の際に山城が距離18,800m〜18,100m[17]の距離からの射撃で遠近散布界平均285m[18]、斉射間隔28秒。計69発の使用弾数中第一有効弾7、第二有効弾5、第三有効弾11と優秀な成績を記録しており

Roughly translated, during firing trials of the Fuso-class on August 6 1918, the shells were cycled under optimal conditions in 28 seconds, exceeding design claims. This is actually accurate to Fuso's ingame reload. However, keeping in mind this figure would never be achieved in combat practice 30 seconds, the design rate of fire (
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_14-45_t41.php), is given to Kongo and Myogi ingame, and that is quite reasonable.

As others have said, this is not a simulator. There are many guns ingame with slightly adjusted rates of fire for balancing purposes, but I believe these 3 examples actually show how Wargaming has tried to give little nods to the ship's real counterparts even when doing so. And that is respectable enough.

Additionally, I hope you learn a bit more history than the basics from my little writeup.

Edited by InterconKW
  • Cool 3

Share this post


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

×