WoWS Q&A – 15th July 2016

Translated by Carnotzet.

Last Q&A’s were terrible in regards to new information disclosed and this one is no exception.

1. In a ranked fight, I saw two Myoko‘s annihilate all the enemy squadrons. I thought that ship had bad AA since it’s equipped with single 25mm guns. Are there additional factors that are taken into account when calculating a ship’s AA power ?

A. In addition to the number of AA mounts, there are other factors that come into play, for instance the type of ammunition used. In this case, we have decided to give IJN ships a slight edge. When setting the AA power of a particular ship, first and foremost we need to achieve the balance goals we’ve set for it, but we also need to try not to break away from the historical realities and maintain some consistency. I can understand if players might be somewhat lost with all of this. However, it is much more interesting to look at game characteristics, which are much more concrete, such as range and DPS, which in turn give the effectiveness of a ship’s AA.

2. Why have you decided to equip Gneisenau with 380mm guns instead of her historical 283mm ? Why don’t you give players the option to chose between the two ?

Do you really think that six guns of not even the biggest caliber will cut it at tier 7 ? Do you realize the monsters it will have to fight against ? If she’s released in her current state, she will be unplayable.

A. Here are the main reasons.

-Guns with different caliber on a single ship is bad.

-Breaking caliber progression within a single ship line is bad.


We have no desire to release unplayable ships.

Sub_Octavian posted a fairly lengthy post that will surely keep all of us busy for some time. It’s about the previously discussed topic of Gneisenau, 380 vs 283 mm.

Sub_Octavian (translated) 14 July

 “For all of those who are not aware of this conundrum, here is a brief summary: players are questioning the developers’ decision to equip the premium ship Schranhorst with her historical 283mm guns whereas the standard Gneisenau is planned to be equipped with 380mm guns.

More than once, we have explained that historicity cannot be entirely supported in the game for several reasons. We try to conform to historical realities or at least take them into consideration but the gameplay will always come first. In some rare cases, we have decided not to implement certain changes because of their glaring inconsistency with reality, but it happened extremely rarely. On the other hand, we try to model our ships as close to their historical counterpart as possible. Standard ships represent their class whereas premium ships represent one concrete ship in a given period.

Do some ships have errors or lack precision ? Of course. We are progressively identifying and fixing them. In our Supertesters team, we have one expert whose work for the year ahead is to fix all these little things.

Have we already deliberately forsaken historicity for gameplay ? 100% yes. As an example, we can take the AA configuration of Atago or Arizona (to make them more balanced, the first one had her AA made worse, the second one, better) or the coats of arms displayed on German ships (during combat, they were not displayed, but they are rather pleasing to the eye). There are a lot more of these examples.

The calibers on German BB’s follow the same deliberate choice.

Here are the reasons behind our decision:

1. We currently think that it is best to avoid caliber size going back and forth when advancing in a line. Regarding Scharnhorst, it’s not a problem since it is a premium ship and stands apart from the main line. Regarding Gneisenau, the problem is as follows:

283-305-305-380-380-380-406-406. This is the current caliber progression.

If we had equipped Gneisenau with her historical guns, it would be 283-305-305-380-283-380-406-406.

When gun caliber changes drastically, players have to change the tactics they use considerably. In general, when the main gun caliber changes, it is a risky and stressful moment. Just remember for example the jumps that occur when hopping on Pensacola or Furutaka. Both ships are more difficult to learn because players have to change the way they approach these ships’ gameplay.

Let’s not forget about the enemy ships Gneisenau will face. They are equipped with 410 and 406 mm guns. In this case, a decrease in caliber can be even more off-putting.

2. One ship having more than one gun caliber size option is, sadly, a bad idea. According to our research, Mogami, which is often cited as an example, having the gameplay option between being a heavy cruiser and a HE spam monster is negatively affecting the “audience” of the ship. Now, players are talking more about the satisfaction this ships brings, how it affects their desire to get better and master the game (etc.) than the ship’s combat effectiveness.

3. We are not against sometimes releasing sisterships or developing premium ships that play like their standard counterparts. However, in this case, taking into account the arguments that were previously given, we had the opportunity to release a premium BB with an unusual gameplay (Scharnhorst + 283 mm) as well as fit a standard ship into the BB line (Gneisenau + 380 mm), which will be a logical step in regards to the lower and higher tier ships.

We believe that both ships will be interesting to play as well as being different and needing different styles and tactics. We also believe that with our current plans each of these remarkable ships will find its place.

When both ships will be made available to everyone, we will see if we were right. Currently, we have however no reason to change our plans or question them.

Thank you for your attention !”


27 thoughts on “WoWS Q&A – 15th July 2016

  1. so one reason is that Gneisenau would have a hard time on her tier iwth the 283,
    aehm the Scharnhorst is on the same.
    Can someone explain me the twisted logic here.
    Plus this whole discussion is absurd, why does WB not give the players the choice which guns they want to install? thus the argument re Furutaka and getting used to a diffeerent playstyle does not fit either
    Sorry WG but your logic twisted


    1. They have a choice. Eithee they get the more competetive more modern gubs for free on the Gneisenau or they can buy they historical old 283mm on the Scharnhorst.
      The question guy also is an idiot for saying the guns dont matter. The caliber matters more. Small caliber will have problems penetrating bb armor. Scharnhorst will be a cruiser killer will the tech tree Gneusenau will be a battleship that focus on other battleships with better guns.

      People have to stoo comparing the amount of barrels and start using their brain. A ship has more than just barrels.
      That exactly is the reason why WG gave us the german tier 19 with triple turrets because so many idiots complain constantly about 4 dual turrets would be unplayable like this guy did. >.>


  2. Oh come on, just give the option for both guns, players adjust to play style easily within a battle or two. Did they forget that players came from WOT where for example most tanks had multiple top guns to choose from. KV1 is effective with the 57mm, the 85mm and the 152mm

    Liked by 1 person

    1. While tank guns changed often in a life cicle, the guns of battleships didnt change as often. Most ships had the same guns from maiden voyage to the day they left the service.
      You get both ootions. Better guns for free in tech tree and smaller guns for money.


      1. Just have the bigger guns grindable in the for the ship, it doesn’t make sense to not have the stock guns on her at first. Isnt there a low tier Russian cruiser that upgraded to smaller guns also?


        1. Indeed. The Russo-Soviet cruiser line alone breaks WG’s excuse for omitting smaller guns on Gneisenau. The guns’ calibres fluctuate mildly at low tiers, then with Kirov take a massive jump up from 130mm to 7″, and drop down again to 6″ until tier 9. If WG really did view this calibre issue in the way they claim to, this line would be a lot different too.

          I think they know the smaller guns will be more apealling on the most RNG-dependent class, and want the milk payments for the premium ship which has them. This is comparable to Saipan having a desirable 2-2-0 loadout which no other high tier US CV has.


  3. Does this mean you will Now increase the range of Warspite’s guns to match her historical gun battle range. world longest accurate hits by Battle ship.


    1. World Longest By Battleship belongs to Scharnhorst.
      She hit a British carrier:: Scharnhorst scored a hit at a range of 24,100 m (26,400 yd). The shell struck the carrier’s upper hangar and started a large fire. Less than ten minutes later, a shell from Gneisenau struck the bridge and killed Glorious’s captain.


  4. Nobody would buy the Scharnhorst if Gneisnau had 283s, simple as that. WG always needs moar moneyz.

    Also, seems that they went with 406s for top tiers :( I wanted napalm-filled dank blazeit 420s


    1. The 155s on Mogami aren’t really an option anymore, since the murderdeathkillnerfing they endured. The ship is barely managable with a turret traverse worse than most BBs.


      1. Completely untrue with the right captain skills and modifications you can get it down to 38.1 seconds with the slight penalty of 0.5 second longer reload. That is completely manageable if you are used to the slow turret turn rate of Japanese cruisers. The 155s hands down have a much higher damage potential then a 203mm armed cruiser like atago or even another mogami, i regularly reckt them in 1 vs 1 fights simply because of the monstrous rate of fire.


  5. I’m not surprised honestly. If you compare it to WoT, the Tiger I in wot has the slightly unhistorical long 88 gun as the final gun. T32 has the T29’s 105mm, etc. Not surprising that Gneisenau has the unhistorical setup for the sake of balance/gameplay.

    They still have alot of things to fix though. :( (*cough* Carriers *cough*)


    1. Gneisenau has historical setup. The 380 were planned and prepared to be installed. Sadly the ship got damaged and ressouces rare, that’s why they were never installed.
      It’s not a paper project, it’s historical accurate.


    2. Tiger having the long 88mm gun isn’t unhistorical, it’s simply based on a proposal to mount it
      if you want to talk about unhistorical set-ups in WoT than look at the Tiger II 10,5cm gun, it has been known that it was a idea by the engineers but was rejected

      some even say it was rejected before studies could begin on such modification (measuring and re-drawing the blueprints on how to mount it on the turret, while keeping the same level of protection) and others even claim that the 10,5cm simply wouldn’t fit in the Tiger II Henschel turret

      in fact you only need to take a look at the breech of the 10,5cm gun on the Dicker Max and realize how massive it is, it probably could fit inside the turret but I don’t think they would be able to achieve anykind of gun depression, elevation or simply room for the loader to operate the gun

      regarding the T32, it’s also historical since it’s written on a report posted by The_Chieftain, it was about the direct comparision between the T32 and T29 and the result was in favor of the T32 (partly due to using most of the components that were already in production for the M26)

      in the same report it is stated that if the need to field a heavier tank arises the T32 is the best choice and that after a slight modification it could mount the same gun used on the T29

      since it’s something written on a document from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds it should be taken as official meaning the 105mm gun was also considered for the T32


  6. I have 1 simple question, was the addition of the 380mm based on somekind of proposal made during the development of the ship? if so it wouldn’t be too wrong
    I don’t know about it but if you look at the whole H-Class proposals, there are several designs that ususally only differ in the calliber of it’s guns (and because of that designs with bigger guns also have bigger dimensions to be able to accomodate said guns) so I wouldn’t put it as interelly impossible for those 380mm guns to have been at least mentioned during the ship development

    just look at the Iowa (I do realise it’s not german) and how the initial request was to design a ship that would fit the Panama Canal and could mount 18inch (457mm) or 16inch (406mm) guns, this was the initial request since later during design phase the proposed options were mostly of 9 or 12 406mm guns (the A, B and C designs that are the mostly known)
    then there’s the Lexington Battlecruiser that was proposed with either 14 or 16 inch guns

    this often happens and if they can honestly say that there was a mention of the 380mm guns during the Gneisenau development it could become acceptable
    don’t know if it’s the case for the 380mm guns but it could happen that while designing a new ship a new experimental or under-development gun was proposed for that same ship ship


    1. 380 were ready to be installed on Gneisenau during WW2. But ressources got rarer, all the allied bombing really slowed production down. And she was damaged because of even more bombing (where did they all came from???) Do the planned upgrade never happened because she couldnt be repaired. Why waste guns on a sitting ship that cannot leave?


      1. The upgrade was scheduled after the bombing that did the most damage. She was in such a bad state that it was decided that they should go for the full upgrade. She was repaired and ready for the upgrade but all work was canceled to focus resources on more “important” things.


    2. The 380s were actually planned to be the original guns but due to the designers realizing that designing a new turret to fit the 380s (which the Germans had a lot of experience with) would take too long they decided to use a modified version of the turret found on the Deutschland panzerschiffe until the 380 turrets were ready. The 380 turrets were later used on the Bismarck class and weren’t put on the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst due to the reasons stated by the other guys.


  7. To be honest, it’s not completely unhistorical. She was designed to carry 15″ guns but as a future upgrade. The upgrade was also underway but the whole war wasn’t going well at the time and it was canceled and the ship was sacrificed.

    What’s “unhistorical” is that they won’t be offering the 11″ armament. My guess is that it’s so effective that they are keeping it as a Scharnhorst “exclusive”, that’s the only reason i can think of. The ultimate cruiser killer, nough said.

    But generally we shouldn’t really try to find any NORMAL logic in WGs decisions, it is Wargaming and we know very well how they think.


  8. Guys, we should be happy about 380mm guns in that ship. Gneisenau 380 will need to face “monsters” on their Tier.

    And Scharnhorst will need to face what ? The same like Gneisenau, having armanent with accuracy similar to Mikasa :P

    I can feel peoples screeming about cash back..


    1. They buffed the accuracy of the mikasa, I hit a hell of a lot more then I used to. I am usually getting 1 round from every salvo to hit.


    2. We’ll see about that. Bigger isn’t always better. Larger caliber but a low number of them combined with a horrible RNG….i have serious doubts about this.

      If the accuracy and range is good then it will be barely OK. If the accuracy is crap then i’d rather have the smaller ones with for at least better RoF and better capabilities against cruisers.

      Either way this ship isn’t going to be any good against BBs. It’s a cruiser hunter at best. And that’s why i think they made the original armament a Scharnhorst exclusive, I think it will perform it’s role better and will sell a lot.

      The Gneisenau will the typical “pay to skip” BB that every tree always has.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s