We do have one standardized way of calculating penetration, it seems quite unfair to artificially nerf Roma. Especially when it also has the worst accuracy of its peers (equal only to Richelieu):
Iowa
Bismarck
Sovetsky Soyuz
Vanguard
Yamato
Roma
Richelieu
Conte di Cavour
Francesco Caracciolo (gun from 1914)
maxDeltaAngle
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.32
0.22
0.34
0.34
0.32
0.34
maxDeltaAngleVertical
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.34
0.24
0.39
0.39
0.34
0.39
It’s confusing, why Roma, the peak of Italian warships, gets worse spread than the Conte di Cavour - which is before it in the tech tree and is already the least accurate gun in the current top-tier (with Kron, PK, and Scharn being the top-3 most-accurate guns as of Hornet’s Nest).
Detour discussing the accuracy of Sovetsky Soyuz vs Roma
(BTW: How Sovetsky Soyuz is getting the top accuracy when the one thing we know about this ship is that its guns were hilariously inaccurate? With Italians shells having spread issue, we at least know that it was a transient issue (it dependent heavily on how much the liner was used, with guns having an optimal point, where they were on pair, if not better, than the peers from the foreign navies) and the class scored some good shots on targets during a number of encounters (typically straddles, but that’s just bad luck rather than guns or shells being inaccurate) - before Gaijin always tended to pick best-case scenarios for a competing characteristics of various weapon systems, yet somehow it isn’t the case for the Italian Navy’s accuracy 🙄)
IMHO one of the two should be done: buff the accuracy in-line with Bismarck and alike, or buff the penetration in-line with the formula, without artificial nerf to PenetrationK.
Even with 900 mm @ 0° @ 0m Roma would still be well-balanced in BR 8.3, as its armor is nothing remotely comparable to heavier battleships, and its explosive filler is tiny.
The ship should be a peer to Bismarck, and instead it seems like its just artificially nerfed.
It honestly should be better than the Bismark (my opinion at least). The shear amount of range finders they put on the Littorio class of ship gave them magnificent range finding capabilities. Their gun layout was superior to the bismark as having the secondary 15" guns around the boilers was not a great idea if you liked the idea of moving, along with its turtle back design meaning less armour over the key areas.
It should be on par if not better than the bismark and yet gaijin have decided it should be 8.0 and therefore keep its capabilities nutered in order to keep it at that br.
If it got all the buffs it could get (30 second reload, concrete foam installed, better pen, better accuracy) it could comfortably sit at 8.3.
They decide they want to fill a br gap and then use a ship to form fit it to it, even if it means nerfing it to make ti fit better.
Especially egregious when the soyuz is being given its optimal stats. the armour alone is bad enough as they gave it that stupidly thick belt due to low quality armour and yet its being given the same stats as some of the best steel in the world during that time being the british and germans? where are they coming up with this logic. Each nation had their own way of treating the steel with differing effects (of course in game its not so easy to model this). Making armour more or less effective against large 15" guns or 6 inch guns is asking a little too much but simple % increases would show the technological differences in the steel production.
Suffice to say, the soviets were literal decades behind in armour technology with them still using the harvey hardening method when the germans would be using thier own specialised krup method which was seen to give a 5 - 20%increase in effectiveness over it (depending on who you ask) which shows just how much armour gaijin is giving the soyuz.
One more thing, that 5 - 20% increase (which is just a general stats rather than anything specific, itwas just seen to be that much more effective in the roles it was used) was for the method used. So for the germans, their krup method was that much more effective than other krup methods. And the krup method was already another 10 - 15% better than harvey. It goes to show how monumentally stupid it is gaijin giving the russian armour the same stats as other ships when they HAD to use that much just to give it similar stats to other nations.
Russia might have introduced KC from Germany before WWI.
Theoretically, the MK8MOD6 armor-piercing projectile used by IOWA can penetrate the 420mm/7° partial armor of Sovetsky Soyuz at a distance of 15km and a heading Angle of 37 degrees. Or penetrate 406mm/4° at a 40-degree heading Angle. The paper MK8MOD6 armor-piercing bullet created by GAIJIN can only penetrate the armor at the same Angle at distances of 5.5 kilometers and 6 kilometers respectively.
highly doubt, as it would have been considered a state secret. Especially for the british and germans. Krup hardening wasnt some secret technology, its harvey but it uses pressurised carbon steam in order to get deeper penetration of the carbon into the steel resulting in deeper hardening. It was the different ratios of rare elements that gave the germans and british the edge in metallurgy, adding elements such as chromium or nickle and other exotic elements. krup was introduced in the 1800, its just that britain and germany continued investing in armour technology. Or more accurately they invested more than other nations as its not like everyone else stopped. The Americans went down their own methodology as they focused more on pure hardness with plates reaching up to something like 90% hardness which was great for their cruisers.
The russians would have known how to make basic krup steel but wouldnt have had the machinery to make it. Its a massive investment which only nations heavily focused on navy would have the budget for. Sure, the soviet union could have eventually introduced better steel hardening methods but at the time the soyuz would not have seen any of these advancements.
The 410mm armour (correct me if im wrong, i cant remember if it was 410mm or maybe a little different) would have a ke value in game of around 0.8 at the lower end. I would hazzard a guess that it should be effective thickness of around 350mm
I do love the look of the iowa, but the thing that wins me is that they developed a nuke round for it… So i think its safe to say the iowa can 1 vs 1 anything on land and sea lol.
Regarding the spread, I would also note one interesting paragraph, from the book The Littorio Class: Italy’s Last and Largest Battleships 1937-1948 by Augusto De Torro and Ermingo Bagnasco, page 76:
Excluding particular well-known cases of several British and French ships (which will be addressed in Chapter 6) in which the dispersal patterns were completely abnormal, the patterns registered for the Littorio class 381/50 guns at distances less than 20,000 metres are assessed as falling within the general performance parameters of the large gun calibres of the major navies, with values lower than those of the 320/44 (rebored 305/26 guns) of the modernised Italian battleships of the Giulio Cesare and Duilio classes of the era.
It’s just wrong armor got corrected so we can’t complain, and not much a big difference. At least AP penetration got what it deserved, so what we should focus is getting SAP penetration and reload time corrected.
For the reload rate they’re pretty adamant rejecting every possible source that states or implies that those guns had a faster reload than 45s.
For every new SAP they confirmed that a 0.55 multiplier will be applied ( we can see that on Roma and Vanguard).
The only one who has a 1.0 multiplier for its SAP is Soyuz and we already made them notice. (no answer for now)
Let’s just hope that’s not a “everyone is equal but someone is more equal than others” situation.
If it was 0.87 it should go almost at 500mm pen at 2000m.
Right now it’s calculated as a full AP shell (don’t know if they changed it compared to a previous datamine).
We’ll have to see whether it is SAP or SAPCBC on data files.
PenetrationK 0.87 applied on APCBC is more closer to ingame penetration than those picure you uploaded.
I don’t think there’s much more to it than what we already know. Also all naval AP and SAP shells are treated as capped afaik, so you should always tick the APCBC box. So 0.87 is the value used as of now for Soyuz.
I’m not exactly sure how we can go about reporting this one and Roma’s shells.
When people were reporting the incorrect penetrationK of the Palla shell, there were some historical documents attached, one of which was about a comparison between official penetration values and their DeMarre formula. But I think their formula is a bit different from the one WT uses.
There is also a document about the penetration data of the SAPCBC shell, but it’s starts at 19km.
I don’t have the entirety of those documents, bit I was going to suggest trying to match the SAPCBC penetration from them to the one in-game. However we can only get penetration values of up to 15km in game so I’m a bit at a loss.
There’s a collection of tables and curves for ballistics that I believe is used by the devs, but I’m not sure whether it includes Roma’s SAP shell. So I don’t know if we’ll be able to extract data from it.
Hi gszabi, can I ask you wht’s the actual Penetrationk multiplier on the Soyuz, Vanguard and Roma’s SAP shell and if all of them are coded as SAPCBC or the Soyuz one is coded as pure SAP?
Just to see if there are inconsistencies in their logic as the Soyuz SAPCBC seems to be way too powerful righ now for what they told us.
