Why Iowa’s Citadel Shows What’s Wrong with Warships

28,848 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1,549 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading...

The ’s current citadel is actually historically correct, but it’s vulnerability in game actually shows us one of the things that is very wrong with World of Warships.

20 Comments:

  1. The whole citadel concept is just a balance game mechanics. I’m commenting before watching the video.

  2. The citadel wouldn’t be an issue if the US steel quality compared to the other factions were taken into account. Or if her 5″ guns would fire as far or at the rate they did IRL.

    As for Wargaming basing their designs on real blueprints, that is like when a commercial says “real people, not actors” when it’s actors, but actors are actually real people.

  3. Benedikt Schneider

    How to make WoWs Battleships invincible and fuck everything else:
    Would be a better title.

  4. ok, these are good points, but WG would never change a core mechanic like this…
    :/
    It’s mostly just tweaking numbers tbh. I hope that they see this, because I think that this is really well put, and as per usual, very well backed up.

  5. Theres just 1 problem.

    There are to many stupid ppl playing this game and if WG would do such chanes they would leave.
    Why leave because they would not know how it works. If some sort of training or teaching would be added it would be to long and complicated. Yet again new ppl come look it over don’t get it and leave.

    So you need to dumb down the game if you want your game to be populated whit decent numbers.

    Hate me if you want but that’s a fact.

  6. And you think WG will actually take a logical approach to this problem?? They reduced the range the guns, but did not reduce the penetration values by the same amount or take into account the way armour was designed to work at the vastly longer ranges IRL. These are fundamental problems designed in the game from day one, so if they either didn’t see the problems or ignored them…..does not inspire confidence. How can any form of balance be achieved when the game design itself skews what is a really simple thing to implement, they changed the range dynamics of the guns, so they have the knowledge to do the same with armour. If WG was to change this design flaw within the game, it would be admitting they made a monumental fuck up at the design stage…..and we all know WG do not like admitting they get it wrong. As always iChase, excellent video, keep em coming fella.

  7. 6:30 THERE’S SOMEONE WALKING ON THE DECK

  8. Hmm…. the current mechanic negatively impacts cruisers, correct?

  9. Bow on gameplay? there’s a counter to that, it’s called “Yamato”

  10. I like your historical argument and I agree with it as it pertains to battleship gameplay in WoWS. But how do you balance the other 2 classes with your new historical armor setup? The way I see it, a more fundamental problem of the game is wargaming’s premise that BB, DD and CA/CL should be equally powerful on the battlefield and were design in such a way to “counter” each other in a way that didn’t occur in real life. As such, capabilities of BBs had to be neutered compare to real life to make playing DD or CA viable. I think that is the reason why many BB players complain about DD torps or HE spam, because the power of BB is much weaker in game than their expectation based on real life capabilities. If BB armor now actually functions closer to real life, cruiser and DD shells will have much harder time damaging BBs. This will undermine the premise of the game, and will be too drastic a change for wargaming to even contemplate. Even so, I admire your thoughts and work you put in in making the video.

  11. I play German BBs, and this totally sounds like a great idea, proper engagement ranges would make the BBs much more fun to play, admittedly it would also make it so the better players would have the advantage of using their ship like it was designed to but that tends to happen anyway, plus it would give me a good reason to close distance with my Gneisenau.

  12. I mean if we’re going for realistic armour behavior, that’s going to require so many ships being rebalanced. Having more realism doesn’t exactly make it better. And it’s not as if this completely ruins the Iowa or Montana. They’re good ships [Montana is a bit outclassed though]. Iowa in particular still has it’s strengths, like speed, that meaty anti-air, really decent turret traverse, and fast shells that specialize at mid-long range. But it’s weaknesses are straightforward: Not super maneuverable, long and easy to hit, and that big citadels makes it extremely punishable. But it’s only punishable if you show that broadside. Just because the way you play it isn’t fun doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work. The armour system they have in place is okay as it is for gameplay purposes. The only complaints are due to where WG places some parts of some ships [Zao citadel best citadel, troll Kurfurst gun armour]

    I mean I’m not at all advocating for the use of battleships in the first place due to the shitty system of non-deterministic RNG for accuracy in the guns shared by all battleships, but this is relative to battleship standards

  13. EF2000Typhoon7LWA

    but we have to say that farest hit ever made by a battleship was only 24km. All these values are nice but in real life they would haven never hit.

  14. Are you sure this really makes sense, Chase? Historically, the longest shot ever achieved by a battleship against another moving target was at 24km. Yet that is shorter than your example. And that’s the longest shot ever, not even average engagement distances. And just for example Hood was destroyed at a distance of about 14km. And in ww1 where half the game’s BBs come from, the distances would be even shorter on average, right?

    eta: Or is the real problem that in WOWS the numbers listed as 15km for example are actually much shorter visually and the game is treating the penetration as if the visual distance is the correct one while ignoring what numbers it displays to the player as the distance?

  15. Whiskey's Gaming Lounge

    iChase, you could have saved yourself a lot of mental math by pulling up the Immunity Zones for the Iowa… (Hint: 23600-27400 yards against the Mark 8 2700lb shell, 18000-30000 yards against the 2250lb Mark 5 AP shell).

    Also, per WarGaming the citadel hits for Magazines is for 6.1″ guns or higher. 6″ guns and 5″ gun magazines do NOT count as citadels for ANY ship in the game (aside from Iowa/Montana/Missouri/Alabama, but not explicitly because of the 5″ gun mounts but because of arbitrary labeling for citadels). The problem is that WG’s own definition for citadel hitboxes is not in conjunction with the way the Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Alabama, Yamato(???) has their citadel hitboxes laid out. According to WG, the citadel is the machinery spaces (engine rooms, steering gears) and magazines (larger than 6″ guns). There is nothing in the deck between the boilers and the main armor deck that would fit that definition, hence the gripe. Now there is a legitimate claim that any shell that makes it through the armor on Iowa and into that space is going to cause damage to the machinery spaces below since the deck below is 0.65″ thick, but then why do no other ships also suffer from this problem aside from the above mentioned ships?

    No matter how you boil it all down, WG is NOT being consistent with the implementation of citadel hitboxes and it unnecessarily punishes USN BB’s more than other ships.

    Also, as a final aside, the first thing an AP shell sees when it hits the side of a SoDak or Iowa class BB is that 1.25″ or 1.5″ (SoDak and Iowa respectively) STS outer hull plating which was designed to yaw and decap some AP Projectiles. That is also not represented in this game.

  16. TheAmityboopfliction

    Eh time for US fans to accept that the Iowa was nothing more than glorified carrier escorts

  17. Hey IChase can you give me the NC blue prints pls ??? I want to know why NC is below the waterline and her bigger cousin isn’t.

  18. You said it right in the description. Not in the title. Because there’s a lot more wrong with wows than citadels. Cloaking devices, fire mechanics, spotting mechanics, “overpenetration” mechanics, pay to win ships…there’s plenty to choose from. Sadly.

  19. So, as a former boiler tech in the USN and having spent a little time on the Iowa, I would like to point out a couple of things all wargaming issues aside.
    First, the upper parts of the boiler room you mention are what is known as the uptakes and while it would not be any fun to take a shell there, it is not the same as the boiler proper, which if hit, would in fact be catastrophic . Second the 5″ powder magazines are very well protected and are located down in the bowels of the ship, safe from incoming fire. The main machinery spaces and the magazines on the Iowa’s were very well protected.

  20. Oh wow great idea I think the bow on gameplay is fucking stupid as hell. Battleships and Cruisers angling in like tanks and reversing…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *