Will you add it here when the Thai Navy comes? Or create another topic?
Are the deck levels on Kongo and Haruna modelled because I don’t see anything in protection view that shows the levels are separated. I’ve also tried having some shells detonate inside in the protection viewer and the shrapnel travels quite far inside the ship as if its hollowed out instead of having compartments (was able to have a shell throw shrapnel from turret 1’s elevator all the way to the smoke stack and turn them yellow).
Nope, it’s HTS and according to Gaijin it’s not armor.
I do believe the Kongo had it’s decks modeled as armor up until Haruna was added tho.
Edit: It did have armored decks at one point Community Bug Reporting System
1 Like
I hope we get more Shiratsuyu-class destroyers to the game next update.
We only have the event IJN Yūdachi, which is even spelled wrong ingame (ingame its Yuudachi).
The picture of the Yamato and Musashi is so beautiful:
4 Likes
It’s quite sad, but I don’t think Gaijin has much motivation to add more Japanese destroyers in the near future. I think the reason why we got Hatsuharu is because of its unique turret configuration. Japanese destroyers tend to be gradual improvements of the one before; the only significantly different classes are the Shimakaze, Akizuki, and Matsu. Hopefully we might see a few of the latter
1 Like
Hello, I have a question about the spelling of some Japanese ship names. I should preface that I do not know Japanese (especially not Romanized Japanese) but nonetheless there is a lot of inconsistency in how the ships are named.
Taken from my comment on the post for Ōyodo, here
If written in romaji, removing the macron from the O, would it be written as Ouyodo or Ooyodo ? Or just drop the extra letter (u/o) entirely and leave it as Oyodo ?
In other words, how should it be written in game? Since ship naming in this sense is very inconsistent. For example, JDS Yūgure has the macron above u, present in game. IJN Yūdachi in game is written Yuudachi , missing the macron but with an extra u. On the other hand, IJN Kongō and IJN Hyūga are written as Kongo and Hyuga , respectively, lacking either a macron or an extra u/o; in that case it would be Kongou and Hyuuga (I think). There are other examples, but those are the first few I saw.
It feels like Gaijin is unintentionally making naming harder for everyone with this inconsistency. The macron (is that even what it is called?) is kind of the progenitor of the issues. Going by the Wikipedia page for Hepburn Romanization, specifically for long vowels, here, it seems like “ou” and “oo” are both valid interpretations of the character “ō”. But which one would be more applicable and able to be “standardized” between the naval vessels in the game? Would it be dependent on the ship? Would this even be something that should be considered to be changed?
And the same thing for the character ū, would “uu” be considered valid and something that can be standardized on ships in the game, such as Hyūga being changed to Hyuuga, and other similar instances?
Of course I would rather it be as the original name, but kana spelling sometimes means that spelling and just leaving out the macron can lead to misinterpretations of words, or they mean the wrong thing. Maybe writing ship names in general as wāpuro rōmaji instead of just omitting part of the name?
1 Like
they didn’t even read wikipedia, its actually so over mutsu fans
i’m like 3 weeks late to this lmao
I’m not 100% on the difference between “oo” and “ou” for “ō”, though both exist in the same system; I believe it has something to do with coming from different Japanese characters. Regardless of the nuances, the standard for cruiser Ōyodo is Ooyodo. Conversely, we have the battleship Kongō / Kongou.
(Edit: Yes, this is the waapuro system you mentioned, specifically romanizing “おう” as “ou” and “おお” as “oo”.)
But yes, more generally the macron is a problem. Technically the macron (ū) or double letter (uu) are equally valid, but while the macron may “look fancier”, in a practical sense it’s infinitely inferior as people don’t know how to write it or what it’s for… so they just don’t, which is always wrong. That’s how we get the sort of naming issues WT currently has, and it’s unfortunately common.
It’s become better in modern times, but as so much of what’s relevant to WT comes from decades-old historical accounts/books/etc, this problem definitely crops up more than it should here.
Here’s a full list of the current ships and their issues (leaving out air/ground stuff).
I was once told by a relevant mod (after I pointed out another naming issue in a dev server, which was then fixed!) that name issues like this are simply considered like bugs rather than being historical issues, thus they don’t require sources to be fixed… but as soon as I submitted it to the bug report site it was closed as “not a bug” and “needs sources”. This is why we have sooo many naming issues still in WT. :(
- “Syonan” (should be Shounan or Shōnan) - not only misses the long vowel, but also uses the horrendously antiquated and inappropriate “syo”
- Yūgure (or Yuugure) - correct, but inconsistent
- Yuudachi (or Yūdachi) - correct, but inconsistent
- “Yugumo” (should be Yuugumo or Yūgumo)
- “Yubari” (should be Yuubari or Yūbari)
- “Myoko” (should be Myoukou or Myōkō)
- “Kongo” (should be Kongou or Kongō)
- “Fuso” (should be Fusou or Fusō)
- “Hyuga” (should be Hyuuga or Hyūga)
3 Likes
Thank you for answering. That sort of thing has been confusing to me for a while.
Honestly the game should just standardize on the waapuro since it is a game. Since the macron versions can be subbed by non macron versions, I really think that that’s what they should do. It would make the names accurate, consistent, and also able to be easily typed out.
Honestly as much as it sucks I think this kind of thing depends on the mod who reviews it. Maybe I’ll submit some bug reports about the names and cite waapuro romaji or books or something lol. Hopefully they can get some consistency here.
1 Like
Am I the only one thinking trajectory of current IJN Mutsu weird? Based on its penetration at 10 km No.5 APC would flying around 550~560, not that slow compared to Japanese 14’’ Type 91 APC (who would like 570 in 10 km), but in game No.5 APC shell fly much higher and indirect compared to 14’’ Type 91 APC.
Probably something to do with the formula they use to calculate pen. The weight being a factor probably makes it calculate the pen being this high for that slow
speed I mention is based on those formula. Trajectory should be lowered under this penetration.
1 Like
The ballistics are wrong for all shell types.
Although it mostly results in shallower arcs with greater speed. But effect manifest on shell to shell basis so it might be that Mutsu is correct and Type 91 is wrong, IDK.
1 Like
Actually Mutsu is wrong and Type 91 is wrong too. They are too high. IRL 36 cm Type 91’s falling angle at 10 km is only 7.5 degree. It sees like 20~30 degree in game.
1 Like
And on other hand US shells are 20 - 30° shallower.
This is common issues and IMO quite serious one but from the mod info fixing it would require complete rewrite of the ballistic equations or something like that. And it isn’t high priority issue as it seems.
Mod reply:
Due to game engine limits, it is impossible to make terminal velocities, time of flight and angle of fall all accurate at the same time. Currently ballistics parameters are adjusted on the basis of making terminal velocities closely match real life performance as much as possible, since penetration is dependant on such factor. Developers CAN correct the time of flight and angle of fall to match real life records but then the terminal velocities will become too low, leading to underperforming penetration performance.
2 Likes
can you give full link? I want to know where such ridiculous reply come from.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/B55wd3onYKAS
I would say that this is actually issue with every single shell in game but with tanks it wasn’t as noticable or enough info present.
Huh, interesting, sounds like there’s room to improve the physics engine here. I wonder what specifically is the issue. A certain real world factor that’s not factored into the engine’s current setup, or similar?
I would guess it is more complicated then just some kind of factor that is missing, if that was the case I would expect the deviations to be in simmilar range so not what we see now that some shells fly shalower and other higher.
But I would just speculate, since I have no idea how and what WT uses for ballistic calculation.
I would like a photo of the 4th Isuzu class ship, Kitakami.
