When you could have an entire salvo miss based entirely on RnG. It’s extremely unfair. Especially as it doesn’t affect all guns equally. Something like a scharnhorst can land round after round without issue, something like a hood can have as much as a 80-90% miss rate even with perfect aim.
That’s the definition of unbalanced and bad gameplay
Only behind armour? Not most of hull? I’ve known that KGV made almost of its entire hull out of Ducol Steel but I do not know much about Nelson’s hull.
This problem is not only with the British 381mm. I personally suffer the same when playing with the Japanese 410mm. They also have a strong dispersion, but they should be accurate. I don’t understand why Gaijin did this. The smaller the caliber, the more accurate it is, and the higher the caliber, the more dispersion it has. I’m afraid to imagine how they will then make 460mm, make it so that not a single shot will hit from 4 km? When only at 32 km he hit 50 meters from the aircraft carrier with the first salvo …
Yes, all 15" and 16" guns in game share the worst accuracy parameters. It’s funny because some laser-accurate smaller calibre guns in game such as Scharnhorst’s 28cm were actually much worse than these 15" and 16" in real life.
I wish this situation could be corrected
And also fix the abnormal survivability of Scharnhorst)
No worries it will get fixed as soon as I am about to unlock it as usual
If Gaijin were going to nerf every single gun to have worse dispersion then sure, but Britain is uniquely affected here with all of its top tiers being the only guns 15" or bigger with reloads higher than 30 seconds. I could also see some sort of repair nerf for major components like engines or firepower modules.
Japan for example has Amagi and Mutsu, both of which had equal or more guns than hood with faster reloads stock than Hood spaded, Amagi also matches Hood in armour.
Bayern class has a 26 second reload.
Meanwhile the UK has 30-32 or in Rodneys case ~some time in the next century.
Also, these are the most accurate naval guns in history (the 15" which most British ships will use), so I don’t see why they should be the least accurate.
Yes this is true, it applies to all guns 15" and over as HK has mentioned, I just don’t have the Japanese ships to test the dispersion, nor do I have the values for what dispersion should have been like I was able to obtain for free from @Flame2512 , just that they are generally accurate, though that means relatively little without context, for example Britain viewed the 16" as a relatively inaccurate gun, but its still very accurate compared to a lot of guns out there particularly anything American IIRC.
Never is, and Amagi has much worse survivability than Hood cause of AoN scheme and above-waterline shell room directly links to magazine.
Then much worse AP and again, worse magazine position. Bayern is not something to compare to Hood in game.
Maybe we can persuade Gaijin with case of Project 26 class cruisers, as they were also having problem real life but get faster reload due to ‘designed reload speed’.
Amagi definitely has a worse armour scheme, but she does match in effective thickness. I would agree Amagi is less survivable, but with 10 16" guns and a 25 second reload with the same dispersion, it definitely equals out.
I’m talking strictly about the guns in relation to the Bayern class, even the QE class would be a much better ship than the Bayern’s.
I didn’t even realise they had reload issues. If the Kirov’s can have it I don’t see why we can’t. Dunkerque also gets 30 seconds when irl it was worse than Nelson class (yes I know Dunkerque sucks), but there is then the counter example of the US Standards.
I think the argument for a 35 second reload is not even particularly excessive as I believe Rodney did achieve 1.9rpm. 35 seconds would balance it out well I think (when armour fixes come in), also all the literature seems to give the impression the issues were caused by having to fire the guns in intervals and then reloading them simultaneously.
I will try for 35 seconds when I get a hold of a good reliable source or two.
That seems about where hit rates are supposed to be (or actually better, at least for WWI ships), so it seems it’s the other stuff that’s overperforming.
Based upon last nights tests and the data from the National Archives that RIley has. The 15" gun found on Hood and a lot of other British ships have close to triple their historically accurate shell dispersal.
If there’s any debate on the hit-rate its more based on the artificially close engagement ranges and FCS. The guns are indisputably having way too much dispersion spread.
Yep. If engagement ranges were consistantly 15-20km Im sure hit rates would be far lower. But I doubt Rodney or Prince of Wales missed a single round when they were broadsiding Bismark at point blank range
I meant more so overall hit rate from all factors.
Granted, hit rate should be higher in WT due to closer ranges, but it does seem they’re massively better than just closer range would account for.
We are given information that ordinarily you would not have, like an accurate range or lead. As well as being told the precise distance that your shells landed long or short. (You would likely have to take 2-3 salvos just to get an accurate range and “bracket” the enemy ship. In game you can usually land your first salvo on target)
You also have a far easier time seeing where your rounds are landing and can better aim for specific weakpoints. You dont have to deal with things like smoke or mist obscuring your view (was quite a major issue having gunsmoke blowing back towards the firing ship blocking the view) or things like sunset/sunrise affecting visibility.
FInally, you also rarely have to deal with sea states and is only really an issue in PT boats.
These things all combine to have an increased affect on accuracy and these are all expected advantages for RB and likely things that would be removed if there was an SB gamemode for naval.
But shell dispersal… is not something they change for balance, like reload rates in ground. It is set for historical accuracy and at the moment, Ships like Hood have 3x greater dispersal than they should. Every salvo from Hood is as much a roll of a dice than it is a matter of skill.
well any we dont have any cases of a full atlantic storm which would be funny sometimes to see even large boats get thrown around in
Isn’t dispersion basically the biggest balancing lever for naval guns currently? I’d thought that in theory they were more open to changing reload but that the constantly increasing dispersion by shell caliber was their attempt to counterbalance the larger damage each shell deals. Not to say that I necessarily agree with the practice, I think it would be better to expand differences in fire control speed and accuracy between ships. That almost every ship from about late WWI up to the end of WWII shares the same accuracy and update speed regardless of optic quality, ballistic computers, and radar or lack thereof is I think needlessly simplistic and ignores a very powerful lever that could serve to smooth power differences at top tier.
