With 2025 being planned to fill out all the bluewater trees with famous and modern battleships, Gaijin must set a fair standard to all nations on what determines their reload. Currently it is all over the place, some ships have their reload rates based on low angle test firings as can be seen with German and Japanese ships, which provide them a huge advantage to levels being unfair. Others have their reload based on combat data and realistic range target practice such as the US Standards and as seen on the dev server, Rodney.
It is a rule that Gaijin doesn’t count elevation rates when determining a ships reload, but the data some ships are based on count the seconds lowering the gun to a load angle. As seen in this accepted bug report for the Standards here , when not elevating their guns for short range battle practice even Standards can match or even exceed 2 round per minute.
Other nations must be judged to the same level because playing any ship with a more than 40 second reload is both boring and frustrating. Either use data from close range practice for all ships or treat RoF as a balancing tool like in ground forces.
Agreed. If data exists showing a gun achieved a certain rate of fire it should get it in game. Reload for all ships should match best case historical data. There is no reason to selectively apply different standards for some ships when the overall most powerful and highest penetration gun in game has also had the best large caliber reload speed since it’s introduction the better part of a year ago.
Indeed, the other issue is that the new capitals will either have very tough citadels (Bismark) or deep magazines that requires distances that only EC can provide (Rodney). Meaning the latest ships will require going after the crew rather than magazine hunting.
However, this type of gameplay will make DPM king and any ship that even has a slower reload than 2 rounds per minute will be almost helpless.
Im reviving this thread after all the recent changes such as Rodneys ‘fixed’ RoF and of course Colorados bug report that was declined. Im going to focus on the US side of things but if any GB naval players want to make their own input of the issue your welcome to share.
Now, @Tallguy48-psn had made one more bug report on the Colorado in another attempt to boost standards RoF to competetive levels. It was, to no ones surpise, rejected. The reasons, of course, were asinine, data and proof that US BBs could reach 2rpm or faster completely ignored just so they can cherry pick it to confirm their decision.
Us USN players have been given two main excuses to bear US superdreadnought reload speeds. First, lacking ammo elevators for the Nevadas and Pennsylvania’s that the short range battle practice showed to not be a issue, then supposed ready racks that there removal was given as a reason for why modernized standards shoot slower. Only for it to reveal that those were not ready racks, but spare ammunition completely irrelevant to the loading process but even so Arizona never had them removed in the first place!
This is incredibly nonsensical, again, why is the USN BBs being judged so differently to everyone else? Because as things stand , I fully expect North Carolina to be slapped with a 1.5rpm thanks to Washingtons battle record in Guadalcanal. (Surprise, surpise, BBs dont make their optimum RoF in combat situations.)
Gaijin must set a standard for how RoF is judged for naval, because why should us players post bug reports if theres some invisible rule that only staff are aware of.
I’ve read some of those reports on SRBP and honestly, it was quite surprising how fast the guns were capable of firing. I have to admit, I was a bit skeptical at first but I realized after further research that a lot of the longer reload values were subject to non-ideal conditions and does not necessarily contradict values from SRBP.
My initial objection at first was to bring up the firing test that USS Idaho underwent in 1942 where she fired 156 salvos with her forward guns in order to test the ability to maintain a rate of fire over a prolonged period. Out of all the salvos fired, the fastest interval 49 seconds long. However, there was some interesting factors that wouldn’t make this a true test for rate of fire. First of all, these salvos were fired at a range between 17 and 25 km. At those ranges, you would be waiting close to 40 seconds at most to actually see the shells land before actually spotting them and make the necessary corrections. In addition to this, they were training officers in spotting techniques and had a relatively green crew handling the charges. Another interesting thing to note is that the reload times increased with the test up to 2 minutes mainly due to the crew having to transfer the projectiles and the charges from the farthest corner of the storage rooms. So due to all these factors, I do not consider the USS Idaho test to be a true benchmark of reload performance while SRBP were by all means a performance test.
I do agree that there needs to be a more consistent definition set for what constitutes as a “fair” reload value in game. For every reload figure that you come across, there are multiple factors that need to be taken into consideration. The stress test USS Idaho underwent demonstrated that even in an isolated non-combat environment, you can have a wide range of values due to crew, spotting and correction, range, ammunition depletion, etc… that would greatly increase the reload time as opposed to a test like SRBP that minimized these factors by having the crew blast away at pretty much point blank targets at the maximum rate of fire while remaining under safety measures.
I believe this has happened before, though granted before the accepted report. Some poor guy bought an ace on Mississippi over it but all they changed was the x-ray rof in hangar. It would be nice to see it get changed of course but I suspect the br change to Arizona and the 14”/50 getting a marginally better dispersion stat than other 14” guns means they have no intention of fixing the rate of fire.
Not sure if you two are aware @scorpian@Tallguy48-psn, but there’s a bug report that recently went through that referred to the documented performance of USS West Virginia’s gunnery during Surigao Strait.
The document shows that even at a starting range of around 20 km, the reload cycles were as low as 35-38 seconds between salvos 1-2 and 5-6.
I’ve skimmed the Surigao Strait reports of the other battleships, namely Maryland and California, but I didn’t immediately see a gunnery report like on West Virginia. It might still be worth digging a bit. Hopefully it gets accepted, there shouldn’t be the whole issue of ready shells stored in the turrets pre-modernization, which I think was the last thing we’ve heard from them with the SRBP reports (?)
I believe that the idea of ready shells affecting the standard reload cycle was already debunked by another accepted report as quoted below.
The findings by Tallguy48 in the bug report was an annual 1935-36 report that states:
“In the past year the rate of fire has exceeded previous records, with no diminution in the percentage of hits. Commencing with Short Range Battle Practice the results have exceeded all past performances.”
So although we do not have SRBP reports that go into the late 30’s (none that I know of at least), this annual report states that SRBP performance improved from the 20’s going into the 30’s, rather than decreasing from “ready rack” modifications as some would have imagined.
However, it seems the current issue at hand is that the standard firing cycle was limited to 40 seconds according to certain documentation as claimed by the bug report manager. I’m curious to see this document as well as the context of it because I haven’t been able to find documentation on firing cycles of any standard battleship.
Good job digging that up, I think that report should be very hard to deny. Hopefully they actually implement it, after the recent fire changes the standards feel like glass cannons minus the cannon and could really use some help. Also thank you @Admiral_Bofors for letting me know about this, I haven’t been looking at the bug report much recently.
Ah right, I had gotten that report on Colorado mixed up with one of his earlier reports for the 14" guns Community Bug Reporting System which is still marked as accepted at the moment. Thanks for the update!
Also I did go back and look at USS California’s report at Surigao and found this, but unfortunately the time format only mentions the hours and minutes, not seconds, so it’s not of much use.
Turns out that according to the latest response in @Dese_Tsuterikka’s bug report, that “reload time is a balance value that may be changed at developers’ discretion”.
I can’t help but wonder if this is all really for balance, in what scenario would a standard realistically “overperform” compared to other ships at the same BR? I keep hearing consistent complaints of slow reload, blown shell rooms, and massive crew losses from explosions.
I’m not one to bring up stats, but currently Statshark shows that for the past 3 months, the US has one of the lowest winrates in naval realistic at 7.0 (admittedly arcade is more of a mixed bag).
Obviously, player statistics doesn’t tell the whole story but I’m pretty sure current game mechanics work a lot more against standards than they do for many other ships such as lengthened reload time from repair and complete ammunition removal from shell room detonations.
Yeah, at this point im gonna have to call @HK_Reporter .
This is the second time that a moderator declined a RoF buff for standards because of so called ‘balance’ reasons. Now, the last time this happened with @Tallguy48-psn bug report, you explained that mods dont have the full picture on how the naval devs do things, explaining that the balancing explanation was more of a assumption rather than hard reasoning.
This is the second time that a RoF buff for a standard was rejected for ‘balancing’ reasons. As Admiral stated, how naval works is utterly hostile to US battleship design philosophy and that much more meta ships, such as Amagi, is allowed their most optimal RoF.
Whats going on here? Do the naval devs not know their own damn game? Or is this just another story of tech mods taking balancing decisions in their own hands.
What gave you the illusion that they played and understood the naval battle mode? If you look at their records you will see that they even play China more than they play naval battle.
