Of course, Gaijin is so allergic to fixes that they wouldn’t just fix the shell. No explanation, just an excuse
In response, the developers stated that the shell would remain SAP due to the combination of its parameters.
This is crazy, IMHO. There is no combination of parameters where it would make sense, once you start looking at the other shells in the game and how they are designated, with their respective fillers, caps, etc.
And it’s not a balancing issue either - the ship with the AP shell still wouldn’t be anywhere near the top-performers in the game. Kronshtadt could still ROTFLSTOMP it in terms DPS and penetration and gun spread. In terms of damage potential it’d be roughly an equivalent of USS Alaska, only with worse spread, nothing to write home about. 🤷♂️
Give it AP, give it BR 7.0, and let the players have their fun.
If the survivability at 7.0 is a problem - give us ammo racks spread into 2 levels - all the other French battleships have ammo racks split into more than one chunk, so it’s clearly not a technical issue, and Dunkerque’s survivability would HUGELY benefit from being able to remove ammo from the upper floor.
8 Likes
Thanks again for your work. Shame that it has come to this.
And I completely agree with you. If there’s one thing positive to be taken out of the suggestions and research made over the years for this forum (and the old one), it’s the knowledge to be gain from all this.
Although… I personally bought books just for the sake of suggestions, especially for the French coastal tree or for the SNCASE SE 100, but never would have I imagined you’d have to go so far as to consult military archives to prove things as specific as that… After all, we all do this for free.
I don’t live in Paris anymore but I have relatives who do. If I ever visit them, I’ll try to swing by the SHD and take some photos of the Dunkerque tests mentioned above in this thread. Can’t give you an ETA, but we may find something eventually.
8 Likes
Extremely dissapointed in Gaijin and their handling of this situation. Extremely detailed and well-put together player reports are just brushed off with a “meh, we’ll do whatever we want”.
1 Like
There only one answer now : enjoy the 540mm and try to git gud
Well in my case, i will finish the research of the dunkerque and stop playing french navy, since they also want to nerf the 305 and 340mm
Going back to other navy nation.
In response, the developers stated that the shell would remain SAP due to the combination of its parameters.
I attempted to address this conclusion with one final bug report that can be accessed here:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/MdpxGSyOUMZ3
Attached is a comparison table I put together using weight values in game and AP cap weight percentages from Nathan Okun’s document on “BRITISH WWI-ERA APC SHELL AP CAP & WINDSCREEN WEIGHTS”.
The table data shows that the 330 mm OPf Mle 1935 shell exceeds British WW1 era APC shells in terms of AP cap weight percentage (using a worst case estimate of the AP cap) by a difference of 0.85 - 4.35% and shell filler percentage by a difference of 0.43-0.53%.
The characteristics of the OPf Mle 1935 shell compare favourably to other APC rounds that are used by EIGHT other ships currently in game, which is no surprise as it is a far more modern shell by design.
Unfortunately, the developers responded the same way to this information.
The bug reporting manager also stated that “NavWeaps is a 3rd party website, and can’t be used as a source” (even though this is an independent article authored by whom I would consider as an expert opinion that happens to be hosted on the site), but I believe that was more of a closing remark rather than the reasoning behind the developer’s decision, so I won’t bother to dispute that.
Aside from that, I think it would be fair for me to finally conclude my research on this topic. All I can say is that I hope the developers will change their mind on the current implementation of the ship.
16 Likes
Thank you for your hard work and efforts. Unfortunately gaijin’s bad faith struck again, they’re ridiculously pigheaded and will not make change they don’t want to make even when proved wrong.
They’ve done it with the Mistrals and Stingers by using the Iglas capabilities as reference and ignoring the differences in design, they’ve done it with the M735 APFDS shell which was nerfed on incorrect evidence, the Roland 1 being stuck with wrong elevation values and god knows how many others.
It sucks but there’s nothing that we can do about it, as there’s none so deaf as those that will not hear.
Although it’s absolutely hilarious how tone-deaf it is that they asked us to vote for them in the “labor of love” category on Steam. The fact that this rant is more than a about a year and a half old and still applies is pretty telling of how disconnected they are:
I also find it funny that they completely reject Navweaps when they very likely use it themselves. Rules for thee, not for me.
3 Likes
Hope you enjoyed your neutered Dunkerque these past few weeks boys, because it will most likely soon be even more useless than it already is.
Well let’s hope you guys get a better ship by the end of next year but we might be at Yamato by then based on what bvvd said
I never even bothered to get her because of how bad she is :(
I enjoyed my first week thoroughly because I was detonating Scharnhorsts left, right and center with her.
Turns out, it was actually due to the barbette armor bug which got recently fixed so the disappointment really started to set in afterwards.
4 Likes
Funny you mentioned Spookston. He recently went on a rant about the RDF/LT and, lo and behold, despite numerous attempts at correcting stuff, Gaijin decided they knew better than to trust documents from the US army.
Really makes you wonder if there’s any point sweating blood and tears to acquire first hand infos, if that only means them getting dismissed for obscure reasons.
2 Likes
Did you guys noticed any changes on Dunkerque after the update, or it’s still the same?
No changes
Original French 330mm OPf RC sketch provided by John Jordan on NavWeaps.
The thickness of cap is labelled as 0.2-0.3cal. at the center, slightly lower than later 380mm OPf RC, but thicker than many WWI era APC.
17 Likes
Great find. They have to take this as a source, right? I’m not holding my breath, but if this doesn’t change their minds, I don’t think anything will.
They had better, that is functionally word of god in terms of shell parameters. I don’t think you could get a more authoritative source unless you built a time machine.
1 Like
Wait, is that a different one from what we saw in this forum already? I don’t remember this sketch
1 Like
The ones we saw previously were German drawn sketches.
Looks like 540mm pen at 1000m /s