Recently I’ve noticed that the range finder for most of the time gives me false range. Sometimes even when I set the range to the same value as my targets range that is closing in, results in my shells falling short.
3 Likes
I’ve been noticing the same. I’ve also had an issue where the guns don’t necessarily seem to shoot for the range it tells me I’ve aimed at. I’ve had salvos fall as short as 0.3km inside 6km range on Rodney despite the last salvo having landed, the pip being near to the enemy’s waterline, and with calm seas. It varies ship to ship but many guns now have a tendency to overshoot and after the ballistics change most secondary batteries feel useless and rarely hit when firing with the main battery, though there are some exceptions like Mutsu’s. I think the ballistic change may not be playing the best with the rangefinding logic, which for me at least is making the game less enjoyable even though I can play around it.
4 Likes
I find that I have to relock onto the target a few times before it corrects to the actual range. This always seemed to be a minor issue in previous patches but for some reason I find it much worse in this patch. I’m starting to wonder if this is more intentional rather than a bug, as my theory is that they nerfed rangefinder “accuracy” to compensate for a major shell dispersion buff.
4 Likes
I wouldn’t mind a major deepening of rangefinding mechanics, but if it is intentional I hope it isn’t left this way. It could provide another balancing lever but as it stands having almost every ship from late WWI to the end of WWII get the exact same ranging ability was already a bit handwavey for my taste.
3 Likes
It wasn’t like that until very recently. All ships had different times to get an initial firing solution and an updated one. Then they made everything 2 seconds for…reasons.
2 Likes
In RB there’s still a difference, it’s just overly compressed. Rangefinders give 85% accuracy and take a long time, any fire director gives 100% accuracy after a moderate time, while a fairly small selection of post war ships with radar get 100% accuracy very quickly with almost instant updates. My issue with the current system is that there’s basically zero difference between an fcs from 1917 vs one from 1945, while irl there was a quantum leap in capability just between for example 1940 and 1943
2 Likes
There were even times where I had set the range further away from the target that was closing in and yet my Shells still fell short. It’s been so tedious.
4 Likes
Massive variance ship to ship which is annoying too. Tennessee’s main guns seem to overshoot while the secondaries undershoot. Rodney’s main guns undershoot while the secondaries overshoot. Mutsu’s all seem to hit perfectly making it seem to me by far the best ship of the update, best dpm by far and your rangefinder isn’t working against you.
3 Likes
There are actually a lot of problems with that. First of all, these WWI shells are wrong in the game. Secondly, such a high muzzle velocity can cause serious shell damage problems. For example, during World War II, British 15-inch armor-piercing shells failed at speeds above 2300fps. These WWI shells were fired at 2,953 FPS, and these shells were most likely ineffective within 10KM.
First, Kronshtadt and Kommuna’s ‘lightweight’ HE shell is not an WW1 shell, but of an 1928.
Also, those shells are widely used in soviet 12’’ railway gun(same gun on Kommuna, just on railway carriage) throught 1930s to 40s. AFAIK using AP with supercharge(like Kronshtadt does in game) was also tested on same way.
So not such ‘failure’ problem you claim in real life I suppose.
I didn’t find what you’re talking about, I only found a 1922 test. For patt. 1911, its performance was closer to that of the 1919 British test, which was probably better.
They nerfed penetration of shells in long range
Not saying about penetration but damage. And also, it is more of ‘normalized’ than ‘nerfed’ as it was buffed by messing shell velocity in June 2024.
1 Like
What about the damage?
This
1 Like
Noticed this too. I’ve observed many more overpenetrations doing no damage to a target despite penetration near a module.
Not to mention much lower pen on long range.
The loss of unsinkability was a good idea, but they weakened it to the point that basically nothing have changed damage model wise.
Now I have a theory, maybe gaijin just cancel the armor’s health, or they replaced it bt unrepairable hull. Since this update, when in long-range battle, seems like if enemy just have some angle on it armor, they they can immunity most of AP shells, especially in 13km or more further.
Due to Ballistic changes, shells now travel in a higher arc and impact the enemy’s armor at an even greater angle then it used to before. So the actual penetration at range is lower than what is shown in the statcard.
1 Like
Okay, thank u for explaining the reason, now I think long-range battle between BB are impossible now. Everyone shooting to each other and cause ZERO damage , what a fvcking game! :(
Just lost a Yorck battlecruiser to a Krasny Krim NPC cruiser. 130mm HE. It inflicted a short fire and I exploded with 40% crew left.
Thank you Gajin. While I chew on enemy BB sized ships with 38cm BB guns forever. Sooo slooow. The gametime / blinkdown rate is just no compatible to this game mode. You barely make more than 2 kills and tickets are out for one side.
Also some shells are too powerful, they rack up kills with one salve each and explode every enemy capital ships with ease. While some shells just don’t produce kills. How can it be so uneven?