@Smin1080p_WT sorry to ping you here but this need to be addressed as the report has been changed and closed without giving me a chance to reply.
In the report about the RoF of the Littorios I clearly explained that che powder chamber, to be able to fire, MUST be always full to avoid major damages on the gun.
This mean that every shot these ships took under tryals is the same as a first charge shot, but with less propellant to reduce the wear of the guns.
There’s no difference in the loading mechanism of the gun as missing the propellant charges were replaced with inert ones.
It’s not a work of logic or fantasy, it’s pure data.
Have we tried yet to pass the report but written in russian?, perhaps the russian bug report manager might pass it(i think it has already happened before that all it took is giving the report in russian to make a report that wasnt accepted to be passed to the devs before)
Hi, we already managed to contact the devs thanks to a moderator that helped us on this matter.
Their answer is that they’ll implement missing parts of the ship (cement armor, reload rate etc…) based on how the ship will perform in game.
So…yeah, they’ll base their decision using “statistics” meaning that, if Roma will still do well in this nefed state due to how good its players are, they’ll never fix it.
Not sure if that helps, but according to statshark - Littorios have consistently the worst K:D ratio of all the Rank VII ships every month since they got released.
This is because the extremely long reload stops you from dealing the final hit on time before bots hit your target with a random HE shell stealing the kill.
There should be some kind of severe damage system like what we have with planes so that players can be rewarded for dealing major blows to a target ( the italian 381mm guns are extremely effective when they hit, often resulting in real damage or magazine detonations, but ,with capital ships, detonations usually don’t lead to immediate sinking and everybody can grief you, especially bots ).
Sorry for the late answer.
We already used all those books plus some private research on the OTO/Ansaldo archives to prove the perfomances of these cannons, but they keep rejecting everything because they still claim that they need more data to see if the Littorios are underperforming and the reload buff is necessary ( while we already have one ship clearly overperforming over everything at the top and there’s no sign of them balancing it ).
We don’t actually know what to use anymore to make a report.
We already proven that the powder chamber MUST be completely filled to avoid major damage during fire, so in all those 30s test shots that you can find, even if they were made with a 2nd charge shot, the tower performed the complete reload procedure, loading 6 bags ( 3 inerts if 2nd charge ) and the shell into the chamber.
On the Russian forum I was trying to suggest RoF reduction for balance reasons and was asked to post it in planned BR changes thread instead, so I believe if they don’t accept bug report, the only way would be to post balance suggestion (also mentioning bug report and explanation) in such thread, but we need some support to get attention to this issue.
PS imo RoF should be in general rebalanced for vessels, looking how same cannons have different reloading times depending on the nation (due to different values in paper sources) or just situation when some cannons have theoretical, but some practical RoF. I think there should be some balance coefficient to adjust reloading times of some cannons.
We should try to push some suggestions in the next Br changes then.
Righ now we’re always a bit all over the place as everyone try to fix something to save this mode ( like all those suggestions for those coastal ships with only one or two cannons at 3.7+ that keep facing late DDs ).
The fact that we’re so few compared to the massive amount of players for the other modes really makes you think that we should all focus on one or two suggestions at time so that we can get more support.
Yes, RoF standardization should become a must for bluewater ships, as right now, with the new repair mechanic in action ( even if you can disable it ), rapid fire guns have a major advantage over same caliber counterparts.
To further prove the point every gun in game have multiple reload times and chosing one of them based on “balance” is an error as it links the gun performance to a “human choice”, which is usually not a good idea.
For example, for the 381/50 cannons we have four reload rates:
Theoretical: 28s as stated in the contract Ansaldo signed with the Regia Marina while developing the gun.
Test based: 30s with 2nd charge shots during sea trials.
Practical: 45s to allow the crew inside the turret to operate without injuries.
Actual: Around 60s to allow tower and fire directors to properly verify where the shots landed and relay all additional orders to refine the next salvo.
This can also be said to every gun in game and it’s not really fair that only some of those guns can have their theoretical reload while others have to deal with the second longest one ( Littorios and American BBs for example).
Already tried and the answer was the usual “not a bug”, that’s why we can’t understand the reason behind how the reload rates are chosen and what parameters tell them if a ship will perform better or worse with that chosen RoF.
Unless is the usual " Better treatment for those ships that bring money " situation.
With more information collected I tried to report the incorrect vertical dispersion that’s affecting these guns.
The mix of horrible dispersion ( wrong by many standards ) and extremely long reload ( already proven wrong by official info ) these guns are the most inconsistent among all top tier BBs.
Let’s hope this won’t get labeled as “not a bug” as usual even with the official documents and firing tables from Ansaldo’s archive.