RN Roma needs a better Rate of Fire

National Communities Comunità Italiana
,
1

@BlueBeta The RN Roma needs a better RoF. It literally has at least 10 seconds more than the other era 7 battleships added in the Leviathans update. In a game these numbers make a huge difference, given the fact that Roma, in addition to having this problem, will be implemented with excessive dispersion of the shells. Putting it into the game in this condition will not motivate players to grind the Italian naval tech tree (and fewer players will buy premium ships).

There are also real evidence that indicates a RoF of 2 rounds per minute. Many people presented this evidence in the bug report, but the moderator always closed the comment section without give good motivations.

EXPLANATION OF CONTEXT (loading system and argumentation of moderator 1):

The Littorio class battleships had 3 types of charges called: PRIMA CARICA, SECONDA CARICA and TERZA CARICA.

  • The PRIMA CARICA consisted of 6 bags of explosives and was used during battles against other ships

  • The SECONDA CARICA consisted of 4 bags of explosives and was used for coastal attack/training purposes

  • The TERZA CARICA consisted of 3 bags of explosives and was used for training purposes

(SECONDA and TERZA CARICA were mainly used during training to a less wear of the cannons)

In an official magazine of the Historical Department of the Italian Navy entitled “REF. THE BATTLE SHIPS OF THE LITTORIO CLASS 1937-1948”, author Erminio Bagnasco and Augusto de Toro edition date 2020 ISBN 8899642222 p. 305, are reported tests carried out between 1940-41 where it is seen that the Italian 381/50 guns could reach a RoF of 2 shots per minute with the “SECONDA CARICA” (4 bags of explosives). Since the Littorio-class battleships had an automatic reloading system that pushed up to 3 bags of explosives at a time, the time taken with both PRIMA CARICA and SECONDA CARICA was identical (PRIMA CARICA 3+3 or SECONDA CARICA 1+3 = SAME TIME LAP). This is a logical assumption, since I have not found tests done with PRIMA CARICA.

MODERATOR 1’s argument is that a RoF of 30 seconds cannot be given to the Roma in game because there is no written evidence that with the “PRIMA CARICA” that RoF was achieved ( I find this absurd).

BUG REPORT LINKS (They contain all the evidence in favor of this argument) :

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/wMfyRu2sr3bg

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/n0JuBZd89Asn

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eaL6xjKCpZSB

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/MoRuEzaAdDJP

P.S. I know in-game RoF is also used to balance ships, however 45 seconds with crew ace is excessive and I think a compromise could be found (although there is evidence of 2 shots per minute), maybe 35/36 seconds would be fair.

2

Hi, as one of the reporters I’ve already asked Blue about this topic and he actively helped us forwarding our argument to the devs.

As right now the stat that you see on Roma will be the final ones and the devs will monitor its statistics and implement possible corretions based on those.

As many ships will come with the same problem in the future (other Littorios, the sister ships of Nevada and Tennessee are some of those) we’re trying to come up with a possible suggestion regarding the main problem that plagues this particular paremeter: the testing methods.

As you know every navy tested their guns and their reload rates differently; some preferred sea trials while others tested them on land, some tested them in combat conditions while some on a fixed angle to speed the reload, some even tested them as a single gun without the turret to boast the best result.

We thought about setting a new standard for this to eliminate these differences that ended up affecting a major part of the naval warfare, a standard that can bring guns with the same calibre to an almost comparable reload rate.

We’re still in the early process, trying to came up with an idea that can gain a major consent as, right now, very few ships are affected by this problem and those that gained a really fast reload ( <29s) won’t likely accept to give up their advantage for only a few players ( or ships).

If you want and have time you can read the conversation and the suggestions we had up 'till now in this topic (start reading from june 19, before it we got in a bit of a rant and it’s not really pleasant, sorry):

It’s in italian, I hope google translator won’t make a mess of itlol

If you also have a suggestions in mind that can improve the current ideas that we came up in this topic feel free to propose them, We’ll take our time to process them and add them to the list.

Reload time is now a crucial part of the gameplay and when you have a ship that can reload twice as fast as you and have better dispersion it starts to get really sad to even bring your favorite ship in battle knowing that you’re up for a world of pain.

2 Likes
3

Ľitaliano lo capisco (dato che lo sono haha), ho scritto in inglese perchè pensavo fosse meglio. Ho cominciato da poco a partecipare attivamente alla comunity. Non so se ho fatto bene a fare questo post/se lo ho impostato bene, però volevo fare qualcosa per la situazione della Roma e siccome i moderatori del bug report non sembra fregargliene molto (anche con le prove) ho provato qui.

Per quanto riguarda il tempo di ricarica dei grandi calibri, secondo me, si dovrebbe partire da un tempo standard che andrà poi ad aumentare o a diminuire in base alle altre statistiche (penetrazione, dispersione, esplosivo, ecc), così da rendere ogni nave bilanciata e giocabile. Questo però senza discostarsi troppo dal tempo standard che potrebbe essere tipo 30 secondi.

1 Like
4

Non ti preoccupare, ogni post è ben accetto perché da sempre uno spunto di riflessione ( a meno che non sia un puro rant allora Blue arriva col martello pulitore ;) )

Quello più o meno è il succo a cui siamo arrivati nella discussione con gli altri.
Il difficile adesso è arrivare a creare un suggerimento che prenda questo e lo renda appetibile alla massa.

Negli americani ho già visto spiragli di apertura perchè diverse delle loro navi in futuro soffriranno di questo problema.
Contro abbiamo chiaramente i tedeschi e i russi visto che hanno le navi che beneficiano maggiormente dei test teorici fatti dalle loro marine.

Sarà un lavoro sicuramente lungo a cui abbiamo deciso di dare un update di tempo ( anche perchè proporlo adesso non avremmo sostegno) per dar modo anche ai ragazzi delle altre nazioni di sperimentare il problema che già noi vediamo con anche le altre marine che non saranno quella tedesca e russa. (che domineranno in questo update)

Stavolta cercheremo di essere più celeri e non finire con una Sharnhorst 2.0 dove la soluzione è arrivata dopo due anni di dominio incontrastato, però ci serve una proposta che possa toccare le corde di una buona maggioranza, se no facciamo la fine dei report (