WoWS Q&A – 5th July 2017

Compiled by Allied_Winter (EU), questions answered by Sub_Octavian on Reddit.

Q1/2: How many 12×16 inch battleships on T10 is enough to stop spewing them out?
(yes, I’ salty about yet another Montanoid) SOURCE

A: Hi. Let’s keep the salt deep in salt mines for now. As you know, RN BBs are currently in testing, including Conqueror. She can be released with only one gun config, or with both. She can be released with or without Radar. The point of testing is to determine such things and to minimize substantial changes after release. BTW I’m sure you understand that 457 mm is not going to create Yamato effect. AP overmatch is 31.9 mm, while high tier BBs have 32 mm plating. But of course 457 mm config may be interesting in other respects. We will see…:)

Q2/2: Is there any chance that you will adjust the overmatch formula so that the cutoff for releveant overmatch thresholds doesn’t fall between two very similar in game calibers? Doesn’t make a lot of sense that a 460mm gun would be so much more effective in game than 457mm while in real life there would be no such distinction.

A: Never say never, but for now, I’d say “no, no chance”. Many things in the game make little sense if we judge strictly from IRL perspective.

Q: Does the MM choose the map based on the matchup? E.g. many DDs in a match, let’s go for a map that suits DDs more. Or is it completely indepentent and a map is choosen (more or less randomly)? SOURCE

A: MM map rotation is independent.

Q: Torpedo with 1 km range and 0.1 km detection is much better for Khabarovsk. What do you think? SOURCE

A: Khabarovsk has some issues with over-performing – it’s not a secret. While working on her, we would like to nerf her additional powers, not the main feature. This is why we addressed rudder shift first, and now addressing the torps. The remaining torps would become last chance weapon – and we think it’s fine for this ship. Additionally, removing these torps from her would allow us to buff these exact torps on Ognevoi, who despreately needs buffing (and what’s important, needs torp-buffing, because yes, she’s Soviet torpedo boat).

Q: Has anything changed that could affect aiming? Immediately after the patch, my aiming seems to be quite off. I lose a lot of shots that i wouldn’t normally. I haven’t changed anything personally regarding settings or crosshair. SOURCE

A: Hello. No, but It won’t harm if we double check accuracy stats across the servers to be sure nothing is broken. Are you talking about 0.6.7 update?

Q1/2: Since the patch update 0.6.7 with the new lighting effects the AP shells and their tracers have become quite invisible/really hard to see on some maps making it extremely hard to dodge, angle etc was just wondering if and when this will be fixed ? I’m a cruiser main and tier x bb shells hurt SOURCE

A: Honestly, I haven’t heard much about the issue with tracers for now. But we’ll keep an eye on it. If this problem is real for a decent number of players, it’s worth working on. Thank you for the tip.

Q2/2: With the recent buff to battleship Montana and the release of rn bb are there any plans to buff/change Yamato ? Her original heal was fantastic but got nerfed she is the only battleship at tier x that cannot show side at all because of her high riding massive citadel I’m presuming which is incredibly easy to hit in bb and even in cruisers you are basically left with 6 guns for the most part of the game.

A: Yamato does not feel like a weak ship, honestly. Her caliber and nice accuracy are her main benefits and they probably keep her quite good stat-wise. We’d not touch her in her current sate. Sorry.

Q1/2: My question is about the AP bombs that arrived with Enterprise, I’ve played her a bit and I like her, although the AP bombs feel a little hit and miss, either delete or overpen damage. How do you and the dev team see the AP bombs in their current state? Will they need adjustment before making it to the other tier 8+ US CVs? SOURCE

A: Overall, we don’t think AP bombs are that random. They are comparable to AP shells, but there are nuances: especially, the importance of horizontal armor on different ships. I think players need to get used to it a bit, and probably there will be more prediction. As for planned changes of line CVs..we will see. Obviously bombs can be not only 500lb:)

Q2/2: Is there any reason you decided to throw these onto a premium ship that you cant outright delete rather than letting them wild on the regular tech tree? Atleast that way if they turn out to be an unfun poor idea for the game (like I think most seem to think they are) you can just remove them. With the Enterprise you cant do that.

A: Actually, adding-removing them on the whole tech line is much more toxic than adding them on one premium ship with some countering drawbacks.

Q: Because it’s rather difficult to balance a Premium ship with Gimmicks and not make them either overperforming (Belfast, Saipan) or underperforming (Krasny Krym, Prinz Eugen), why wasn’t giving Premium Ships preferential matchmaking (+1/-2) a suitable gimmick? SOURCE

A: Preferential MM is something we wanted to quit and make it as unified as possible. In current state, we believe these rules should be even for everyone.

Q: Why did you guys just flat out removed Montana and Iowa’s above-waterline citadel? Why wasn’t cutting the height by half not an option for a huge change like this? SOURCE

A: Hello. Ship parts are determined by armor layers. We cannot change these volumes regardless of armor. That would be highly illogical.

Q: Why do Taiho and Hakuryu have 25 mm plating covering most of their hulls? It makes them immune to DD-calibre HE shells and all other high tier CVs only have 19 mm plating. Is this a conscious design decision or an oversight from back when HE mechanics were different? SOURCE

A: Hello! It is an oversight of legacy settings. We will look into it and take action. Thank you very much for your attention!

Q: Are there plans to sell the Albany alone on EU in the future? She is/was in offer this weekend in the NA Store and I had the misfortune to not play when she was given away & to get the other ships during GNB. So…will she be sold at one time in the future? SOURCE

A (by Tuccy): These small rare ships pop up from time to time – unfortunately cannot tell you when or how will she appear, but with time she should pop up again 🙂 For now, July will bring another rare piece – the Smith marathon!

Q1/3: My question is regarding Akizuki. Before stealthfire was removed she was my favourite “have fun and relax” ship. She was quite a nuisance and I agree with removal with stealthfire but now I find her bit lacking. You can’t anymore hose people with shells nonstop or you get spotted and I feel like that has reduced her effect on outcome of the battle and people don’t grind her to torp ships. Also she is clumsy for DD which makes you easier target for return fire. On top of that, Akizuki is rather slow so she cannot run from some cruisers and DDs. I feel like people play her lot less nowdays. If I recall correctly you guys (WG) said that you look into her if she needs buffing but I haven’t heard anything regarding that so are you people now happy how she is? Personally I would be happy to have her as tier 9 or 10 ship so I could mount reload mod to compensate for the loss her ability to hose people with her puny shells. SOURCE

A: Hello. Stat-wise, she was heavily over-performing among other T8 DDs, and now she’s simply one of the best. Actually, we’re fine with it.

Q2/3: I have played her maybe 3 times since the removal of stealth fire. RIP funkizuki.

A: Sorry for you, but fortunately, many others didn’t go this way.

Q3/3: Asking here rather than in a new thread because it’s basically a followup to Croc’s question. It’s been mentioned before that WG wants to eventually have the 2nd IJN DD line go up to T10. Is there any chance of this happening with Akizuki being moved up to T9? Asashio is probably the most notable IJN DD class not implemented yet and as an upgraded Shiratsuyu would be an obvious fit for T8, and the “Super Akizuki” design (basically a 37kt Akizuki with extra torps) could be T10.

A: Hi. We really want to continue this line up to T10, and it’s set in distant (not 2017) plans, but it’s too early to discuss possibilities of exact ships, even if I wanted to comment on unreleased stuff (which is specifically mentioned in OP).

Q1/3: Can we have more gun configuration (i.e. choice of 155mm or 203mm for Mogami) for existing silver and premium ship. I for one appreciated the choices of guns we can use on the recently released harekaze. The 1941 blyskawica config automatically comes to my mind.  SOURCE

A (by Tuccy): Problem with this is that in most cases, where such thing was done, it required a major reconstruction even if on paper ship was designed for it (Gneisenau) – Mogamis were about the only class that was really designed that way (And then there was the Hipper class proposed for the USSR that was supposed to have triple 15cm instead of twin 20cm guns). Heck, even just moving from open aft mounts to enclosed ones on US destroyers brought need of bigger changes (reducing torpedo armament etc.). Blyskawica also had to undergo more substantial rebuild while being upgraded to 4×2 4″ HA/LA. Harekaze has the luxury of existing in a slightly more relaxed world of anime

Q2/3: I am very sure any form of ‘major reconstruction’ will be very possible in a video game.

A (by Tuccy): The issue is more that major reconstruction needs also major changes to the model 🙂 (For Gneisenau the preparation for actually mounting the 38cm guns involved a LOT of changes including lengthening the hull, for Blyskawica modifications for British guns also included changes to superstructure etc…) – so from game perspective it won’t be “just changing the guns”, you would in effect need to build the entire hull anew.And if we have to do this, for now it is better to invest in getting a new ship out of it rather than something thaqt is, when all is said and done, a gimmick to existing ship.

Q3/3: The Sharnhorst already exists ingame, no new hull needed. Lets be honest, the only reason Gneisenau has 380mm guns and not the option of 283mm guns is so more premium Scharnhorsts can be sold, we aren’t all naive enough to believe the “a lot of changes are needed” and “gun caliber progression”.

A (by Tuccy): You may not believe it, but stock configurations and radical gun changes ARE kinda unpopular. Same way, players generally prefer playability to history (hence, for example, removal of the stock hulls from some Japanese and American battleships). Gneisenau with 28cm guns would be in the same balancing situation like Mogami (first with 155mm too strong, then turning too painful for anyone but players with proper captain skills etc.). We know this may be not popular with the historically hardcore segment of our players, but it is generally more agreeable to the majority. Plus… The Gneisenau is in stock already in the hull upgraded for 38cm (longer bow, among others) – so the 28cm guns would not really fit. As such to get the historical configuration (which seems to be the crux of the Scharnhorst argument) we would have to add another (shorter) stock hull and since it would be stock, it would have to be significnatly weakened and uncomfortable… And back to Square One

Q: Recently WG EU released a list of upcoming British BBs in their July calendar post, which officially included the (KGV class?) ‘Monarch’. What is the intention behind this name? Are you allowed to say if this is a placeholder name? Is there a reason this was not called ‘Duke of York’ or ‘Prince of Wales’ instead? SOURCE

A (by Tuccy): While I’m not Sub_Octavian, let’s pop in. Bear in mind that whatever is currently out there (including names, tiers, armament) is subject to testing and changes – we included Monarch more because we knew the name will get datamined anyway 😉 While the real designs (well, sometimes with hypothetical inter-war facelifts, but still real) are not likely to change say main armament, obviously, even there there can be things that would change – and the projects / “paper ships” are even more susceptible to shenanigans… So I would recommend not to read too heavily into that, as the final truth may be significantly different than speculations floating around. Just wait till the line is presented in full

Q:Can you maybe explain how this kind of damage by battleship AP against destroyers does happen? I just want to understand how this happens and frankly, I am suspecting that there’s something going wrong with the calculations, I hope that you’ll be able to shed some light onto this. My hope being that if the calculations are correct, I understand why it happens, I can maybe avoid it. Somehow. SOURCE (with lots of examples)

A: Sorry, but I don’t quite understand your question from the very fist example. You’re saying “2 hits from a Yamato against a Z-52 = 9520 damage. Yamato AP has a maximum damage of 14800, so this doesn’t seem to add up really”. Well, DDs don’t have citadels, but they can take regular pens. It’s not very easy, but a shell can arm underwater for example and do its regular damage exploding inside the hull. So, for Yamato, maxiumum theoretical damage to DD per 1 AP shell is 14800/3 = 4933. Thats 9866 dmg for two very good (no overpen) hits maximum. You show 9520 – that’s fine, because damage can always be lower due to ship part HP depletion. There is no rule “BB shell cannot do regular damage to DD”. There are other rules, like “AP shell arming threshold is set to caliber/6 of effective armor” and “AP shell arms on contact with water, and thus, can dive and explode inside target without overpen”. Also, the topic of AP BB damage to DD was noticeable in the EU community, so I checked server stats (damage breakdown) for several months to see whether this type of damage has increased – to be on the safe side. Well, no discoveries so far. There are some known issues with ribbon system though – sometimes, e.g., an overpen can be shown as regular and vice versa. We’re working to solve them. We’re also gradually reviewing terminal ballistics to make sure there are no issues there, but it looks fine so far. Anyways, please let me know if this information solved your questions in general or you need further explanation.

Q: Could the devs please consider adding a “free flight” mode in port so we can have a good look at the beautiful port &ship design in details please! SOURCE

A: Not planned, because many possible glitches, and small objects having mediocre or low level of detail for the sake of performance. Current ship view cameras in port were designed with this issues in mind.

Q: here is some question. after the high tier US BB citadel alternate。now all high tier BB is hard to hit their citadel. but we know originally the KM BB is design to take dmg and expert in close range battle. but now their advantage is reduced. their firing angle is very bad ( compare to US BB) most time if u don’t want to take seriously dmg. u can only use two turret to fight back. and US and IJN BB get better much sigma and range. is there any plan to buff the KM BB firing angle、sigma or something? SOURCE

A: I don’t think that gameplay-wise lowering USN BBs citadel equals to KM BBs having turtle back armor and their citadel position. Yes, USN BBs got more viable inside their class, and that’s good. Absolutely no need to buff KM BBs now.

Q1/2: Honest question, not just salt; what was the design process behind Conqueror? This game’s main draw, to me, is the historical aspect (I know I’m not the only one in this), and so far it has mostly been good about keeping the core values of a ship (aesthetic design, main guns, core armour values, stuff like that) true to the real designs with a few (usually understandable) exceptions here and there. However Conqueror looks like a Lion hull with guns from the 1920s slapped on. With the 18″ guns I was willing to suspend my disbelief a bit and pretend it was K2/L2 as it was stated to be, but the 16.5″ you have decided to slap on both Lion and Conqueror for some reason were briefly messed around with for G3 and as far as I know never considered for L2/K2 or Lion, which essentially breaks one of the few links it had with a real design. So all that aside, what was the design process behind Conqueror? Is it a pure gameplay >>> history thing? Why create this mishmash of various elements from different designs scattered across two entire decades instead of picking an existing design? God knows the Royal Navy had T10 candidates in the archives; the much-touted N3/G3 designs spring to mind immediately, but as far as I’m aware the Lion project had some T10 material in it too. I realise you’re not the historian type dude, but you’re also the only way to get close to the historian type dude I assume you have working there. SOURCE

A: Uh. History question. Conqueror design story is full of strange things and our own presumptions. Let us lay 457 mm – 419 mm thing aside for now, because this is more about gameplay, and the final loadout is yet to be decided. RN construction department offered several projects to The Admiralty. One of these projects was L2. Planned armament was 8-457 mm and 16-152 mm guns. Planned armor was 381 mm belt and 203 mm deck. Speed was 25 kts, engine power – 70 000 hp, with 52 100 of tonnage. We found some blueprints in the archives that show main turret with Armstrong 457 mm guns. For the sake of secrecy, these turrets are called 15-inch, but we can see the same situation with Furious cruisers. While working with these blueprints, we determined true gun caliber. Eventually, that project was not implemented – it was too expensive and large – and they did fine with less redundant Nelson. Presumption 1: L2 was approved, the gun was created and tested, the turret was in development. However, the project was not completed, leaving unfinished turret and unfinished Lion. Presumption 2: RN knew real Bismarck specs, and thus, they knew they don’t have a battleship that is viable in 1v1 with Bismarck. Presumption 3: Lion creation was cancelled, and Conqueror development was started instead. Conqueror shares some similarities with Lion and Vanguard hulls, as RN abandoned their condition of the lowest turret firing directly bow-on with zero elevation. So, having the gun, L2 and Lion turrets prototypes, Lion hull architecture, we’re getting to Conqueror battleship, post-war upgrade with AA RP10 Mark I ROF and Bofors Mark-VI (6×40 mm) and calculated armor thickness, tonnage, engine power and speed. N3 and G3 projects both have turret layout that is not comfortable gameplay-wise, thus, we decided not to use them.

Q2/2: Have you ever considered a late Lion design for T10? (the one with supposed autoloading 16″ guns which would be able to achieve a rate of fire up to 3 rounds per minute)

A: Yes, we reviewed this design too.

5 thoughts on “WoWS Q&A – 5th July 2017

  1. Damn, I really wanted Blyskawica hull mods to happen after HSF Harekaze set the precedent.

  2. Damn, those mental gymnastics they went through to justify the Conqueror.

  3. to be sad we have already ship with hull change along with guns: “Nicholas” and both configurations have their own strengths and weaknesses (1 one is more pseudo Russian, while 2 is more standard US setup), so that isn’t problem.

  4. Well, you know, don’t be salty about carriers and torpedoes when you get the big gun battleships that most people want 😉

Comments are closed.