I agree, and I against with u in this noon. In the match, seems like most of the shell just hit the superstructures and cause no damage.
But I think Gaijin withdraw the ballistic update cause that happened, all shells flying more slowly at the end of the ballistic trajectory. So now all the shell’s trajectory are the same as in 2023or2022. For example, 5inch mk.38 in previous update can flying the same trajectory with main cannon when aiming long-range target, but since this update, they flying too slow and just like a fking catapult.
Besides, like they already saying, they nerfed most majority of larger shell’s penetration values.
By the way, I don’t know is that right or fause. I feels like some shells are missing, when tracking on it, the hit animation show they hit on target, but they are less than the system prompts.
And when I playing in Rodney last night, I think it was hard to sink but always cause no damage for WWII battleships. When I shoot cruisers or WW1 battleships, the cannon can cause excellent damage.
P.S. I always choice active players not the bot to shoot.
I would appreciate if they could do something to make secondary guns line up more with the primary guns’ impact point as a quality of life thing. I’m having to throw in 0.3km of extra vertical lead and aim well off the ship to get the secondaries to hit anything now, pretty much regardless of what guns. Needing to relearn primary ballistics was expected but this on top is a bit annoying. Also good magazine hits with the 14”/50, if I can ask what distance are you aiming to hit those because I have not been having nearly that much success with my normal 0.1-0.2km under
Oh, l always shooting at 10-12km, I prefer long-range battle, so this problem annoying me.
I mean the distance off what the rangefinder gives. Since the update it seems like whenever I shoot for the given distance or even 0.1km under it my shells seem to mostly hit the superstructure without doing much damage.
I agree, when using 5inch, it need to throw more, so much so that I turned off the function of main and secondary cannon’s shooting in one button.
I’d been considering doing the same, though I’m hoping they end up changing something to make it more similar to pre patch.
Feels the same here. Since this update, the green circle always quiver when I m in accurate shooting. So, maybe that is the reason why we always hit the superstructures.
I noticed after I switched to Rodney that it would hold range better if I held the bottom ticks farther below the ship. If I kept them to close to the ship it would be very jittery no matter what I did with the scroll wheel
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.