In what areas is Gneisenau (and Scharnhorst) armor better than Bismarck’?
Hey everyone, so I was test driving the Gneisenau in the dev server, and I was wondering why it had such a short reload (roughly 30 seconds I don’t quite remember), I was wondering this because I thought it would have had a much longer reload? I remember reading something about how it wouldn’t have had any powered reloading so it’s reload would be 60 - 70 seconds. Can someone explain to me? Has this already been changed? Or am I just being silly?
1 Like
Rileyy3437 is far better read than I about this topic, and they’ll probably correct me. But I believe she is using the exact same mounts as the Bismark at the moment, which does have the powered loading, which she shouldn’t have.
This may be changed as to be slower later to be consistent with her plans, which didn’t included a powered loading system, as Gaijin likes to use historical loading rates for naval, but doesn’t always for some reason (see Rodney), so who really knows.
1 Like
Thank you, I appreciate that, if they don’t change it then I think my pre-order was an amazing choice
It should have the slower reload. The mountings would have been too heavy for the ship if she had had power-assisted loading.
I would have reported it, but I’m looking for the materials I need to do that. I am also relatively busy at the moment so its a bit of a double whammy.
Gaijin could also just ignore it, or make an exception, who knows.
I also don’t see the point in nerfing her if she’s balanced. I’m all for historicism but not at the cost of gameplay. Its only when you have vessels like Amagi and Scharnhorst pre-nerf etc at 7.0 where they simply cannot be challenged that I believe you have to nerf something if gaijin refused to decompress.
2 Likes
What a crazy out of season April Fool’s joke.
Lol. Lmao even.
Thank you, its a wee bit silly they added it at a 30 second reload isnt it? I mean this information is more or less readily available no?
1 Like
You can read it on the go-to naval weapons site Germany 38 cm (14.96") SK C/34 - NavWeaps
Now it’s not like navyweps hasn’t been wrong before but it’s very rare and this is pretty common sense. In the turret diagrams I’ve seen so far there’s no power assistance of significant value. I’ll admit it’s quite hard to prove because i haven’t found an RoF document yet.
4 Likes
Reload rates always have been an balancing factor. A ship with 70 seconds reload would be unplayable und impossible to sell for this price.
They arent for Naval
Roma has this kind of reload
3 Likes
You can’t generalize, some are.
Roma is no 80 Euro premium.
So? Gneisensau gets special treatment because its premium?
Looking forward to my 8" guns for the Belfast because its now a higher BR than Prinz Eugen.
4 Likes
It is as it is. Eugen is a real money premium as well.
They wan’t to sell stuff, so suprise … it won’t likely get reload of over a minute. No one would buy this.
Edit: But also lets just say as it is: Ships like the Roma should have added long ago. Iowa, Soyuz, maybe Yamato…everything else is gonna eat dirt. Just check the test server and yt. Its barely worth to even bother with these ships. Neither armor nor firepower are sufficient for an enjoyable gamplay expierience vs. the three.
In naval almost all reload rates are seemingly decided randomly. But balance is evidently not one of those considerations. For example, Scharnhorsts reload has not moved from 17 seconds in its entire history of being added. Even when it was filthy broken.
Other examples include the Dunkerque and Strasbourg, which have their historical reloads.
Also gaijin have never exceeded the speed an autoloader is capable of loading, naval mounts are much closer to an autoloader or a semi-assisted-loader than they are to a manual reload. Even Gneisenau which lacks virtually any power assistance.
Really what we need is clarity and consistency on what they’re basing reloads on. Roma is not particularly competitive it seems at the moment and is stuck with 45 seconds.
Actually it seems Gaijin have entirely based reloads on stereotypes of the guns. E.G the British one is a consistent 2rpm. Nelsons is slow because it had issues early on, Bismarck’s is super fast (which it was, but only at 0 degrees elevation anything higher and its more average with other ships, we almost always shoot at more than 0 degrees), they gave Gneisenau the same as Bismarck because evidently they didn’t look into the turrets being different, Roma, Stras and Dunk all have poor reloads for reason of the stereotypes, and Richelieu luckily seems to have escaped the chopping block of her stereotypically poor reload because it was improved post-war.
2 Likes
Reload angles are not included in WT, not with tanks, not with ships. Gajin also stated several times reload rates are subject to balance. For ground and naval alike. They never stated anything which could be interpreted that naval might be treated differently. No one really knows why some ships get historical reloads and some not.
Also keep in mind that irl some Admirals ordered reload rates deliberately pushed up for their commands. Like David Beatty’s BC force in WW1. His whole force was trained to rapid fire as key tactics. Several security precautions had been violated to fire very quickly. Like storage of surplus powder charges inside the turret. Leave all blast doors open to speed up getting stuff up from magazines. So what reload values would you take as historical? Pumped up stats like this?
1 Like
I am aware they are not included, but for example with Bismarck’s gun, 2.6rpm is only possible at 0 degrees elevation. I don’t have the figure for 0 degrees elevation, but at 2.2 degrees this yields a range of 5000 metres. At 4.9 degrees this yields an elevation of 10,000 metres about standard for engagement ranges in-game. Surely its better to use the figure of ~2.2rpm for this then particularly as the gun only elevated to 30 degrees.
For Bismarck this is less egregious as its obviously, not very good. I’d actually call that a positive gameplay decision. As for me Gameplay>historicism, but I like to see some historicism implemented, (Hence why I suggested reducing Roma’s reload to ~35 seconds and sticking Gneisenau’s there too).
Yes, but they have never deliberately exceeded an autoloaders max RoF. I have already asked Smin if this would be reportable. I’m not disagreeing its not subject to balance, but they’ve never exceeded an autoloaders max RoF. Even for balance.
Indeed, that’s why they should take a consistent baseline and then apply nerfs only where essential. But you have some of the most underpowered ships in game stuck with horrendously long reloads for no apparent reason as its certainly not balance. So we know this is not true of underpowered ships. Lets try the other option; overpowered ships. If you take the best ships reload, it is the maximum possible RoF attainable. For example, again Scharnhorst, but also the same applies to Amagi, down in cruisers this is also seen with the Admiral Hipper, and Des Moines, as well as in destroyers with the Franx Knox, Moffet and the D class.
I find the balance argument to be completely invalid, I can’t think of a single ship they’ve nerfed the reload on for balance, but I can think of a number that they’ve nerfed due to stereotypes.
2 Likes
If reloads are subject to balance, then why does Gaijin insist the most obscure technical documents for players to find to adjust them? The Standards for years have been subpar in naval battles because of their unhistorical shell room weakness. Yet, when players asked for their RoF to be buffed we had to sort through Gaijins claims of technical limitations, which had US players for years finding documentation proving their reasoning wrong. Then theh get told that RoF is determined by ‘balance’, but only after every argument is obliterated.
Look at Roma, what makes her so special to have a atrocious 60 second reload? Her guns are missing a significant amount of pen, her filler is pathetic and her protectiom scheme is only adequate but no match for the top tiers. Where is the ‘balance’ here?
2 Likes
US player have little reason to complain, their high end DDs and light cruisers have fire rates which are totally toxic. Without any limitations, almost autocannon speed. While actual autocannons quickly overheat and are done, US ships sustain this super fire rate as long as ammo lasts.
Do you know how stupid your argument sounds? “US players has good destroyers and light cruisers, therefore dont deserve good battleships.”
What? Gonna conveniently forget about Admiral Hipper, the best heavy cruiser in the game because of how bullshit her protection scheme is? Whose rough peers are kicked in 6.0 and above while she stays in her cushy 5.7 BR?
In my opinion, thats solid ground to nerf Scharnhorsts reload to 60 seconds. Makes complete sense according to your logic.
Dont use other tiers to justify Gaijins bad decisions.
1 Like
Yeah. If reloads were used for baalncing . Scharnhorst should have had a 3 minute reload with how OP she was and every German Destroyer and Cruiser should have sunk upon the match starting because “they dont need good destroyers and cruisers because they have the best battlecruiser”
:P
2 Likes