WoWS: Sub_Octavian Talking About The Alabama Armor Model

Source: NA Forums

Iowa/Missouri and Montana citadel

As I answered on reddit, we are considering the community-proposed changes to Iowa and Montana citadel. The statement that we would be happy to cooperate and make them more comfortable in BB-BB combat is still relevant, but at the same time we should be careful not to buff them outside the class, where their effeciency is absolutely normal. This is why we are working on new citadel placement prototype for them, and will make the final decision only after we have some solid evidence that it will not break balance. So, I guess it is “work in progress” for now.

Alabama citadel

Alabama, on the other hand, is a new ship and was tested in relevant meta, with all knowledge and known community concerns in mind. And we see that combination of her qualities, specs and layout makes her solid good ship. Lowering her citadel has no balance reasons and is qurrently out of question. It is obvious it is a mutual interest for devs and players to release a fine, well-balanced ship. Alabama will make such ship, and she does not need opague last minute changes.

Alabama armor tapering

So the plate that is discussed indeed has tapering, we know that. Problem is, we don’t have any solid proof of thickness distribution, like we have for some other ships. So we cannot model this plate with high accuracy. What we could do it to make it up like this:

Such “slicing” would reflect the tapering with at least some degree of historical accuracy. However, our tests indicated that it would not make any impact on ship survivability. While any additional details for armor model increase server load. Of course slicing that single plate won’t make any server lags by itself, but every complication of sever model contributes. So we try to avoid unnecessary details that do not affect player experience for the sake of optimization.

This is why we decided to leave average thickness for this plate – we don’t have 100% data, and it does not influence ship performance.

And this honestly makes statements “already massively in error”, “what the hell have you done WG”, “armor model essentially “skips” over a huge chunk of the primary belt armor” and “be open to citpens through her belt from 8″ cruiser guns as far away as 14km” way too dramatic (at the very least). No, good folks, this is not true. That plate is not historically accurate, and this is pretty much it.

On this one one, when you have the information, what do you guys think? Do you think it is important to reflect tapering at least for some degree like in my example (274/168/60)? Please share your thoughts, and we will see what we can do. We are as always open to discussion and thankful for your input.


7 thoughts on “WoWS: Sub_Octavian Talking About The Alabama Armor Model

  1. according to revives Alabama citadel height is actually thing that makes it quite challenging to play as you need to be bit closer due to worse accuracy, and to actually use its 50% torpedo bulge.


    1. Or maybe we could, you know, buff it’s sigma to on par with NC, making it a decent mid-long range BB. Maybe give it slightly better accuracy than NC cuz NC has better Citadel protection, but that might be a bit too close to crossing balance border.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. technically its also an option, if it would get bit better accuracy than NC along with small rudder turning time buff it would be quite good 2 line BB.

        there is also option to swap NC and Alabama torpedo protection as NC needs it bit more due to worse turning radius and begging more front line BB, along with small side note that IRL NC torpedo protection was considered superior to both Alabama and Iowa


  2. — has a lot of good analysis and information/ship comparison of BB’s which actually were built and the South Dakota class (Alabama) is included.

    I agree that the guns were as good as the ones on the N. Carolina class as they were both the 16″/45 caliber Mark 6 guns, and was wondering why the Sigma values differed so much.

    The Citadel is too high. The South Dakota class was built like a mini-me Iowa class, more compact and in many ways had superior protection to the Iowa and NC classes, because it was smaller and more compact. It allowed the vital areas to be better protected.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “We don’t have any solid proof of thickness distribution, like we have for some other ships” Uhh, Wargaming, USS Alabama is preserved…? You could just go visit the ship or ask the people maintaining the ship about it, and if that’s not enough, there’s blueprints of them still around, not to mention her sister ship USS Massachusetts. Seems rather lazy on WG part to give up on an accurate model. Granted, if the armor tapering won’t change the effective armor, I suppose that’s fine, but giving Alabama the high citadels and less accurate guns seems just out of the blue. It’s just a worse NC, and I was really interested in getting one, but eh, what’s the point if you got Iowa and NC? :P


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