I figured there should be a topic like that since every update navy feels a bit different. We used to have HE meta, we used to have underwater AP meta, every update brings variety of unlisted or vaguely mentioned tweaks to both the damage and crew disstribution, that are in following weeks getting more and more clear.
I feel like with more people and one place it will be easier to pinpoint what exactly changed.
For me it feels like Im seeing way less deaths due to immediate aftershot ammo detonation. Both on my side and on the other.
At the other hand there is much more crew deaths and increased amount of ammo explosions following short period fire - the latter seemed very rare until now.
Also crew distribution seems different. Some shots deal way more crew damage - while playing fuso I just got twice in a row +30% salvos on a scharnhorst.
For me it feels better than before but I need to play more battleships. What are your opinions and observations?
Not sure about right up to the moment situation, as not been playing very much higher tier Bluewater recently, but in the very recent past the situation felt farcical. Back in the day, BB repair costs might have been huge, but it was also quite rare to get sunk in a BB, even on a defeat. You know, battleships felt like battleships. More recently BBs felt more like CLs, in that you could easily go through 3 of them in a single 20-minute game.
“Oh look, your ship just blew up.”
“Ahh, unlucky player, all your crew go dead-dead.”
“Just_blow_up.”
Kinda like a 3-y-o came up with the DM. Childish and farcical.
there is surely a noticeable change to AP and ammorack behaviour since most recent patch. I could easily one shot ammorack battleships with 356mm AP but now I mostly see them exploding after prolonged fire or dying to crew loss. SAP is more useful to one tap ships, of course when it manages to pen, which is also positive change imo.
HE buff was nice too, I love that for example 203mm HE shells are finally doing decent damage against destroyers and frigates, fullfilling their role.
Honestly the patch where everything was exploding due to underwater penetration was over the top surely, tho fun while it lasted.
But I don’t agree 3 battleships in 20minute game is too much. This seems to be an average right now and I think it feels good, there is some balance: you get long battleship duels but you are not fighting the same guy for majority of the match.
Right now 3 battleships seems like average good score, I got 5 max two days ago, but against downtiered ships. It is certainly less than month ago but fights feel more engaging with much rarer instant ammoracks.
I don’t think ammo rack due AP penetration decreased at all - I’ve used hte Italian 12" guns a bit lately and they are getting lots of ammo racks… well perhaps not lots, but significant enough numbers so that aiming for other BB turrets is worth it.
If I had to come down with an opinion I’d say they are getting more ammo racks than “previously”.
Hm thats weird then. Well from what I see both 356 and 380mm AP deal way less ammoracks - still you get consistent damage but almost no one shots. But then 380mm SAP is god of destruction - not so much on range but close range when pens, it tears people like crazy, scharnhorst included.
I havent tried much of british 305mm and 343mm AP but I also seen a great decrease in one shots especially on “fragile ships” like alaska etc.
At the same time I also barely get ammoracked even with paperish renown and kongo.
So idk, meta feels much different but might not be just AP nerf/SAP buff as I previously thought if you say italian AP is doing great
This video is outdated, HE damage had been nerfed again in the latest major update.
There’s a significant reduction in the chance of a diving shell, which has led many to feel that there’s less ammo detonations. However, the increase in shatter count that happened in the previous major update makes it possible to detonate an enemy ship’s ammo by penetrating above the waterline (e.g. penetrating the barbette), so in this update it becomes less likely to detonate enemy ammo by the old method, but we get a new way of doing it, hence the mixed impression.
Thank you for the explanation, but I still don’t understand: how then american battleships with ammoracks above waterline are less prone to ammunition explosion too? I never seen alaskas and others tanking salvos yet right now they usually are.
Alaska’s magazine isn’t located above the waterline, it is marginally below waterline so back then when diving shell is more common she was excessively vulnerable. Only the Standard Battleships have their magazine located over the waterline and as far as I can tell their survivability doesn’t change significantly after the change to diving shells
do you have a link to the datamine with exact values of such changes?
Anyway thx for the info. I thought I saw standard battleships tanking more too, but I gotta check again then, since my imprsession was mainly based on Alaska.
No, but I have been monitoring user bug reports and feedback specifically about the HE change since the 2.35 update, and I myself have been doing frequent testing and providing internal feedback directly to the developers, so I am very aware of the changes in this regard.
For the naval damage mechanism, it’s disappointing that Gaijin model entire hull as flood-intriguing part while they made more realistic flood-intriguing model when they first introduce it.
When first introduced, Kommuna and Marat has much better and realistic flood-intriguing model. Only shell pen the hull near the waterline could intrigue flood. This still remains on these two, makes this ship extremely survivable. In the time when I first found out, my personal thought was that ‘Okay, maybe developers were short in time, so start from these two, they will consistently apply this flood-intrigue model to other ships’
Not even Soviet bias as other soviet ships has full-hull flood-intriguing model. Every new ships has full-hull flood-intriguing model. Gaijin clearly doesn’t know why real life navies makes ‘icebreaker’ or bow armor exist on many navies, even after AoN concept got light after navy treaties.
Even for now IJN Mutsu and standard battleships butchered by bunch of American 6/8 inch HE or British 13.5’’ HE. Let’s see how much people will feel ‘funny’ when their beloved WW2 fast battleships butchered by just brain-washed bunch of HE. Literally, if you want to throw HE to battleship to kill it, why not play WOWs instead of this? It’s much better.
What do you mean? Flooding only occurs if there is hole under the waterline. Even if you can damage the hull section above the waterline or even destroy it by hitting it there flooding doesn´t start unless there is hole low enough.
I agree with Shadow and I want to add that HE doesnt work against BBs since a long time. Especially low calliber HE. So no idea what are you talking about. But you are welcome to play any game you like, really :)
Oh yes I should say hull-destruction damage model. Still I hate it. You saids as ‘even after hull secton destroyed, flooding only caused by underwater shot’, but I hate that flooding caused by underwater shot after hull section destroyed caused unstoppable flooding. It just makes ships unmanueverable, make it extremely hard to capture point, sniping in the far backside. Actually even when shooting at far backside, I always makes Mutsu unfloatable with Marlborough’s HE.
Thus I claim both damage model lowered and make flooding stoppable. 1930s battleship, which people favors much more than old WW1 dreadnoughts, are usually following AoN concept, makes it much more vulnerable to HE even without such unrealistic damage model. Gaijin will kick out its own last chance of reviving naval with famous battleships if they keep this hull destroy model alive.
