WoWS: Why Iowa’s Citadel Shows What’s Wrong with Warships

https://youtu.be/UTE9YdUstV0

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “WoWS: Why Iowa’s Citadel Shows What’s Wrong with Warships

    1. That is WHY BB have shitty dispersion! GL trying to get 8 or 9 or 12 shells to even land 2 or 3 hits from 18k and beyond.

      Like

      1. Hmm…
        With roughly 250m of dispersion at 20km, knowing that most cruisers past tier 6 measure at least 200m long, and BBs are even longer…
        Landing 2-3 hits per salvo at 20km isn’t exactly difficult.

        It’s piss easy even.

        Like

          1. You don’t need magic homing shells when you have a 8-12 shells per salvo, and a dispersion smaller than the size of a ship at 20km

            You will hit if you aimed properly.
            Even if it’s just a superstructure overpen or a ricochet on deck armor, you WILL hit.

            People complaining about accuracy are just spoilt little shits.

            Like

    2. You actually missed half the point; the problem is that battleships have historically accurate penetration and armor values, but fight at unrealistically close ranges. This creates a situation where ships like the USN North Carolinas, Iowas, and Montanas, which have armor which is specialized to protect against shots made at 25-30km, are forced both by small maps and constrained firing ranges to fight at distances where their armor is far more vulnerable to enemy fire.

      iChase isn’t suggesting that ships engage at larger distances, but that shell penetration and trajectories be scaled done the same way that firing distance is scaled down. (Most BBs fire roughly 2/3-3/4 their actual effective firing ranges.) This has the effect of re-introducing a battleship’s “zone of immunity” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_immunity) which becomes a significant part of battleship gameplay- knowing your immunity zone against various enemy guns becomes as important as angling and positioning in keeping yourself alive. This gives BB driver additional tools that allows them to play more actively without having to rely on “Bow in tanking” and other passive play play types.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Not at all : us Bbs will be immune to the 406 at long ranges, but Yamato and possibly German 420 will be able to penetrate. Germany Bbs will be good for short range, but their armor will be historical accurate = shitty : no immunity range. Japs will be soft, long range snipers with lots of heavy guns, but only Yamato and Nagato will have armor, and Yammy with be borderline OP with guns able to penetrate anything (like now) and armor which gives him immunity to anything above 15 km range.

          Like

        2. Not exactly- Germans stay roughly as strong as they are at close ranges, but that effectiveness drops off much faster as the range increases, making them much more specialized close-range brawlers. (The Turtleback armor is very strong up close, but the slopped armored decks give steeper trajectory shells from longer distances a flatter surface to penetrate.) I’m not as familiar with the Yamato’s armor scheme, but it will have its own ZoI, besides which the Yamato is not exactly doing badly right now. The main benefactors for this change would be USN and IJN battleships as well as any future BB lines that aren’t close-range brawlers like the Germans.

          Liked by 1 person

  1. What Ichase is suggesting doesn’t make sense, why essentially nerf the gun penetration values at range so that ships become more tanky at range, when the Iowa and Montana’s problem is at close range? Iowa is already good at long range. Not only that, while ships like the NC don’t have German style armor, they’re quite capable at close range due to their low citadel placement and heavy guns.

    His suggestion would only reinforce the narrative of US battleships needing to be at longer ranges to perform and being utterly helpless at close ranges.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Not just penetration, but angle of fall- he wants to scale penetration and the arcs of shells to the “new” shorter maximum range battleships have. This means that shells will have have less penetration at their extreme range, but fall at a steeper trajectory; essentially shells will be more likely to deflect off belt armor but more likely to make deck penetrations. Additionally, by scaling the shell ballistics and penetrations to the shorter ranges of the game you make “Zone of Immunity” a legitimate mechanic that battleships can use- if a Kurfurst ambushes an overly aggressive Montana at 9-10km, the Montana is going to be just as vulnerable to his guns and the Kurfurst will be just just as strong against the Montana’s guns, likely taking only 1.3 non-citadel hits but relatively little serious damage. On the other hand, since the Kurfurst’s ZoI is relatively close to itself, if that same Montana manages to catch the Kurfurst in the open at 16-18km the Kurfurst is far more vulnerable while the Montana’s armor becomes stronger due to being in its own “Zone of Immunity”.

      It actually adds a whole new level of gameplay to BB duels, with different classes of ships with different zones of immunity all trying to close distance or open distance to maintain their ZoI while forcing enemy ships outside of theirs.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s not the problem with USN Battleships, they already have no issues playing at long ranges. Isn’t what USN BB players want to be able to play at closer ranges and not get citadelled the moment you angle even a bit? The Zone of Immunity won’t do anything to help USN BBs tank more shells, Yamato will still just go straight through, and 406mms aren’t a threat to Iowas or Montanas at range currently, unless you’re exposing your sides, in which case, you should get punished for. Germans are pretty strong and easy to play, but they’re by no means impossible to citadel or hard to do over 10K+ damage if they don’t bow on.

        This game doesn’t need a whole new untested mechanic regardless of whether or not it’s realistic, if it was, we’d all be playing War Thunder, and that game’s balance, or lack there of, should be a good example of why changing mechanics for the sake of realism isn’t always a good idea. The whole concept of a citadel is pretty unrealistic to begin with, it’s just an area with important items such as the engine, powder rooms, etc.

        Is what the game need right now is to reward the campy USN BB playstyle or change the fragility of the USN BBs to encourage them to play more aggressively? Do we really need more floaty shells in the game, as if the playerbase doesn’t complain about them enough? I don’t know about you, but my favorite moments in the game is when you knife fight at close ranges, when shit gets done instead of the high tier meta of sniping 20km away behind an island from stealth. TL;DR Fun > Realism, we don’t need a whole new mechanic to fix 2 ships when you could just change the citadel box. And no, ships without german style turtle back are fine for the most part.

        Like

        1. “unless you’re exposing your sides, in which case, you should get punished for” – THIS.
          You should be actually rewarded for out maneuvering you enemy and broadside salvo him.
          Instead we have 2 BBs with head on course and the only key allowed are ‘w’ and ‘s’.

          “Fun > Realism” – yes. but now we have little fun with BBs emulating tanks and showing only frontal armor too scary to get close as someone can easy flank them.

          “german style turtle back ” – this was shitty armor scheme but in WoWs it works because of flaws in mechanic…

          “my favorite moments in the game is when you knife fight at close ranges” – mine too.
          Lets make it happen more often and valid part of game, not as it is today – result of some mistakes. Make the BBs more maneuverable – sitting duck BB should be easy target, while BBs sides should be toughest part to actual hurt him.

          Like

  2. I been on the Iowa battleship in NJ the nicknamed Black Dragon it has no citadel there where he’s talking about its just wows being balance things >> so this guy is an idiot..

    Like

    1. He’s right. He’s not talking about a nerf but scaling or extrapolating the pen values to coincide with the reduced ranges.

      Also if you look at the blueprints, there are interior bulkheads which on US ships at least will act as additional levels of armor an spaced armor which as far as I know WG has not done.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Would you prefer to take some hits in your citadel and possibly survive, at least long enough to return some damage…..or take one hit from 30km that will penetrate your deck,hit your magazine and make you an angry spectator?

    Make no mistake, that’s what’s going to happen very often if we start slugging it out at such ranges. Are you sure you want that? Obviously this youtuber, just like every youtuber, fails to get the big picture.

    If there’s a problem with the game, it’s not the combat ranges but the armor system. Armor doesn’t work, we all know that. Some times it’s there,some times it’s not. Imagine what’s going to happen if the armor system remains the same, and having to rely on deck armor…..no thanks.

    Ships that can now fire from +20km are scoring detonations (provided the captain is aiming accurately). I’ve suffered a couple and i’ve scored 3 myself. Imagine what’s going to happen if we start fighting at 25 and 30km. It’s going to be a lot worse than it is now.

    Like

    1. But who said anything about 30+ km range? IChase just said that if Wg scaled down range of engagement, then it should also scale down the penetration. Or we still have a game where crossing the T means exactly opposite to reality…

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s