New Gimmick in the game? - Modified shell types

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

With the release of Spanish T9 BB Victoria it seems like we will get a new Gimmick, Modified shell typed, which by switching changes the shell ballistics of both HE and AP shells. So more faster shells but with nerfed damage output. (right now its just in testing) 

Not really sure what advantage you get by faster velocity? Is it just easier lead time or does it effect the armor pen?!

 

 

Edited January 17 by OldSchoolGaming_Youtube

[Admiral_Karasu]

It's not like we needed more gimmicks.... with up to four different shell types to choose from they are really trying to make WoWS into a thinking man's game.

[Project45_Opytny]

34 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Not really sure what advantage you get by faster velocity? Is it just easier lead time or does it effect the armor pen?!

Easier lead time versus higher Alpha potential when in situations that you are sure that even with very low velocity the shells are likely to land correctly on target, or it is really needed to attack with plunging fire.

For Victoria, "High Velocity" shells have Slava-esque ballistics but very poor Alpha for 15-incher guns; "Low Velocity" ones have arched ballistics akin to MK6 and very high Alpha. It has been stated that the two types of AP will have similar penetration to make it really a choice.

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

30 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

It's not like we needed more gimmicks.... with up to four different shell types to choose from they are really trying to make WoWS into a thinking man's game.

Yes this and the changes coming to submarines and different mechanics, heights/spotting modes for CV planes etc etc suggest more thinking than you see in you're average T10 players these days. Most cant even grasp how smoke fire, detection radius or angling works and what the battle modes are about.

[Project45_Opytny]

17 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Yes this and the changes coming to submarines and different mechanics, heights/spotting modes for CV planes etc etc suggest more thinking than you see in you're average T10 players these days. Most cant even grasp how smoke fire, detection radius or angling works and what the battle modes are about.

On the other hand it is a surprise that such a straightforward mechanic/gimmick is developed so late in the ninth year.

[Admiral_Karasu]

Do these and all the other gimmicks enhance the game play, though? In my nine years in this game, I've never seen any player actually requesting more gimmicks.

[b101uk]

IRL you had reduced charge, full charge and super charge options, most naval guns had both the full and reduced charge options, some guns had just the normal full charge option along with the super charge, and example being the RN 15" guns.

 

in essence it was the shall that remained the same, it was the propellent charge that changed, and I would wager it is just WG describing it badly, as the limitation of the game would require shell switching and mass changes to mimic the above.

Edited January 17 by b101uk

[Wolfswetpaws]

59 minutes ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

With the release of Spanish T9 BB Victoria it seems like we will get a new Gimmick, Modified shell typed, which by switching changes the shell ballistics of both HE and AP shells. So more faster shells but with nerfed damage output. (right now its just in testing) 

Not really sure what advantage you get by faster velocity? Is it just easier lead time or does it effect the armor pen?!

 

 

High velocity advantages = less "leading" of the target needed, reduced "flight time" of projectile, which contributes (in theory) to increased hit probability.
(Real-life physics would imply the gunpowder charge remains the same and that the projectile is lighter.)

Low velocity advantages = heavier projectile being used, which may have a trajectory with a higher arc and a "plunging" path at the point of impact, which may bypass the broadside armor of a target because the projectile is impacting at a nearly vertical angle and going through the weaker deck-armor.  Possibly more volume in the projectile can be utilized for the explosive charge, depending upon whether or not the projectile is High-Explosive or Armor-Piercing.

In "real life" heavier projectiles tend to retain their velocity better as the range increases, due to a better "ballistic coefficient", when compared with lighter projectiles of the same diameter fired from the same gun-barrel using the same gunpowder charge.  Essentially, the lighter projectile starts out with a higher muzzle-velocity, but the worse ballistic coefficient means that it loses velocity at a faster rate due to atmospheric drag.  At some distance, the two different types of projectiles will be travelling at the same velocity and then the drag will cause the lighter projectile to travel slower than the heavier projectile.
 

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, b101uk said:

IRL you had reduced charge, full charge and super charge options, most naval guns had both the full and reduced charge options, some guns had just the normal full charge option along with the super charge, and example being the RN 15" guns.

 

in essence it was the shall that remained the same, it was the propellent charge that changed, and I would wager it is just WG describing it badly, as the limitation of the game would require shell switching.

So.. it's WG simplifying things?

Had a quick look, those 15" guns (and superchargers) were used on the unmodernised RN battleships with a maximum of 20 degree gun elevation. Yet, apparently in WoWS this new, gimmick or not gimmick, depending on your point of you, will it be used on those ships, on some other ships, or an all ships regardless of any elevation limits on their gun turrets?

[Wolfswetpaws]

10 minutes ago, b101uk said:

IRL you had reduced charge, full charge and super charge options, most naval guns had both the full and reduced charge options, some guns had just the normal full charge option along with the super charge, and example being the RN 15" guns.

 

in essence it was the shall that remained the same, it was the propellent charge that changed, and I would wager it is just WG describing it badly, as the limitation of the game would require shell switching.

While you're not wrong (for a number of ships in real life) there are examples in the U.S. Navy battleship development, wherein newer projectiles created for newer guns could not be used by older battleships.
Thus the USN had to continue producing projectiles of differing weight & dimension specifications to accomodate the older battleships while simultaneously producing the newest projectiles for the newest guns mounted on the Iowa class battleships.

If I recall some Battleship New Jersey Museum youtube videos correctly, the Iowas could use different gunpowder charges for certain purposes & situations (reduced, normal and more-than-normal).

Edited to add:  On a smaller scale, rifle cartridges used by people in the USA can often have different projectile weights among cartridges intended for use in the same rifle.
The ".30-06" cartridge has a range of projectiles available in various weights, but the common variations are 150 grain and 180 grain.
The ".303 British" cartridge also has some common projectile weights, 150 grain, 180 grain, and 174 grain, available here in the USA.
So, the concept isn't too far-fetched, I feel.

Edited January 17 by Wolfswetpaws

[b101uk]

9 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

While you're not wrong (for a number of ships in real life) there are examples in the U.S. Navy battleship development, wherein newer projectiles created for newer guns could not be used by older battleships.
Thus the USN had to continue producing projectiles of differing weight & dimension specifications to accomodate the older battleships while simultaneously producing the newest projectiles for the newest guns mounted on the Iowa class battleships.

If I recall some Battleship New Jersey Museum youtube videos correctly, the Iowas could use different gunpowder charges for certain purposes & situations (reduced, normal and more-than-normal).

in essence correct, as some guns of the same calibre had shell length limitations as dictated by the shell hoists etc, but they would be the ones that exclusivly fired that specific shell, and doing so with a specific propellent change, which at best would be just a reduced number of the same bag charges, else its own specific bag charges.

 

the Iowa's has standard and reduced charge, both were 6 bag charges, with the bags being the same length, it was just the diameter that changed with the latter to be more alike to the 203mm full charge bags in terms of diameter.  

[ArIskandir]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

With the release of Spanish T9 BB Victoria it seems like we will get a new Gimmick, Modified shell typed, which by switching changes the shell ballistics of both HE and AP shells. So more faster shells but with nerfed damage output. (right now its just in testing)

This is nothing new, many ships already have different ballistics for their HE and AP shells. Also, since Canarias was first tested, the burst fire mode was considered to alter the damage and penetration of the shells, just because... 

This new variation is like having a third shell type, not the wierdest thing they have done and imo far less bizarre than the "Funny" button 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Do these and all the other gimmicks enhance the game play, though? In my nine years in this game, I've never seen any player actually requesting more gimmicks.

Gameplay? Not really.

Monetization? That's where the gimmicks offer WG value.

[Admiral_Karasu]

10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Gameplay? Not really.

Monetization? That's where the gimmicks offer WG value.

TBH, I don't see a direct connection between gimmicks and monetization. Unless we are talking about something like introducing premium ammo, a true pestilence like those who play WoT know all too well.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

24 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

TBH, I don't see a direct connection between gimmicks and monetization. Unless we are talking about something like introducing premium ammo, a true pestilence like those who play WoT know all too well.

More that WG believes individual ships need some differentiation from each other besides just historical differences. WG believe that players select ships based on gameplay differences.

[Admiral_Karasu]

6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

More that WG believes individual ships need some differentiation from each other besides just historical differences. WG believe that players select ships based on gameplay differences.

Well, I think that's a fair assumption to make, at least as far as what your expectations for different classes and ships within a class and/or nation are. I just wish that historical trends would be a kind of a common thread for this.

[Hugh_Ruka]

2 hours ago, b101uk said:

IRL you had reduced charge, full charge and super charge options, most naval guns had both the full and reduced charge options, some guns had just the normal full charge option along with the super charge, and example being the RN 15" guns.

 

in essence it was the shall that remained the same, it was the propellent charge that changed, and I would wager it is just WG describing it badly, as the limitation of the game would require shell switching and mass changes to mimic the above.

I think there are also a sub-caliber options that introduce a lighter and smaller shell that will travel faster with the same propellant charge ... don't know if they were used in the relevant period on naval ships ...

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

In "real life" heavier projectiles tend to retain their velocity better as the range increases, due to a better "ballistic coefficient", when compared with lighter projectiles of the same diameter fired from the same gun-barrel using the same gunpowder charge.  Essentially, the lighter projectile starts out with a higher muzzle-velocity, but the worse ballistic coefficient means that it loses velocity at a faster rate due to atmospheric drag.  At some distance, the two different types of projectiles will be travelling at the same velocity and then the drag will cause the lighter projectile to travel slower than the heavier projectile.
 

Ah, the paradox of size, design and innovative design variations that make no sense and yet.......  Which, is really the paradox of design: pretty bullets or odd shaped bullets...  And, to make matters even more convoluted, the 6.5's simply perform better that the 7.62.........at higher velocities with lower bullet weights....because, there are optimal applications of theory...   A theory floating around is that Gravity, the makeup of the terrain(the conductive mineral composition of the soils) where testing is conducted and elevation/air densities are not "consistent enough" in the world to allow the math to be consistent in form, fit and function of the calibers tested...   Take for example my 1884 Trapdoor, with the Buffington sight, shooting a 535 grain, hand cast, lead bullet, Black powder propelled;  and,  my 300 Win Mag shooting a 208 grain precision bullet, with modern smokeless powder.  Both, are extremely accurate at 800 yards....  But, the 1884 is much more tolerant and consistent with Lead bullets, traveling much slower,  no matter where I was shooting?  A hand cast, lead bullet, propelled by Black Powder, actually performed 40% better.......  Weight, location or conductivity???  Lead is not conductive......copper and copper alloys are.  Hmmmm?  There are some right now running the numbers.....     

Now, apply those thoughts to shooting on water.  Yikes !!! 

It's a game.  It's supposed to be fun.  IMO, who cares what they (WG) does anymore.   BUT, there is one thing I brought up several years ago and it is GOLD.......  Remember, in WOTS, Gold = Great....  The era or "Golden" everything is pure profit for WG........

[Asym]

9 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

I think there are also a sub-caliber options that introduce a lighter and smaller shell that will travel faster with the same propellant charge ... don't know if they were used in the relevant period on naval ships ...

Or, tapered bores or SABOT, or..........  The Germans were screwing around with captured Lahti 20mm Anti-Tank guns/munitions for Infantry deployments....  Those buggers were super-fast and very accurate.  I had a friend that was testing them in the 1980's to see just how far you could tinker with velocities and accuracy.  Of course, his testing garage was a machine shop that abutted a 1,500 yard range which was his back yard...!!!  So jealous.....  I never could beat him........sigh. 

Yes, sub-caliber has been around a long time.

[b101uk]

27 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

I think there are also a sub-caliber options that introduce a lighter and smaller shell that will travel faster with the same propellant charge ... don't know if they were used in the relevant period on naval ships ...

yes but the notion of "sub-calibre" is used to describe the notion of a gun that has been sleeved down to a lower calibre, i.e. you can't swap back and forth from different diameter (calibre), just in essence length, shape and mass, this is also what some guns in ww2 had divergence in MV between AP and HP (given functionally NO BB fired HE in their main guns at other ships, AP was, HE was for shore bombardment, and as such different targeting methods were used so having a different MV mattered not)

 

for example in WW2 some 13" or 14" RN guns were sleeved down to 8", and were used for experimental very high velocity guns able to lob a shell to 30km altitude some 75km down range for the purpose of weather reports by using smoke shells with timed AAA fuses.

 

i.e. strictly speaking a sabot round is not sub-calibre per se, though it is obviously at some point after the muzzle smaller diameter etc.   

Edited January 17 by b101uk

[Hugh_Ruka]

6 minutes ago, b101uk said:

yes but the notion of "sub-calibre" is used to describe the notion of a gun that has been sleeved down to a lower calibre, i.e. you can't swap back and forth from different diameter (calibre), just in essence length, shape and mass, this is also what some guns in ww2 had divergence in MV between AP and HP (given functionally NO BB fired HE in their main guns at other ships, AP was, HE was for shore bombardment, and as such different targeting methods were used so having a different MV mattered not)

 

for example in WW2 some 13" or 14" RN guns were sleeved down to 8", and were used for experimental very high velocity guns able to lob a shell to 30km altitude some 75km down range for the purpose of weather reports by using smoke shells with timed AAA fuses.

 

i.e. strictly speaking a sabot round is not sub-calibre per se, though it is obviously at some point after the muzzle smaller diameter etc.   

an APFSDS tank round (any SABOT type round) is a sub-caliber ammunition. meaning ammunition smaller than the original caliber of the gun it is being used in. please do at least a basic wikipedia search ...

[Wolfswetpaws]

42 minutes ago, Asym said:

Ah, the paradox of size, design and innovative design variations that make no sense and yet.......  Which, is really the paradox of design: pretty bullets or odd shaped bullets...  And, to make matters even more convoluted, the 6.5's simply perform better that the 7.62.........at higher velocities with lower bullet weights....because, there are optimal applications of theory...   A theory floating around is that Gravity, the makeup of the terrain(the conductive mineral composition of the soils) where testing is conducted and elevation/air densities are not "consistent enough" in the world to allow the math to be consistent in form, fit and function of the calibers tested...   Take for example my 1884 Trapdoor, with the Buffington sight, shooting a 535 grain, hand cast, lead bullet, Black powder propelled;  and,  my 300 Win Mag shooting a 208 grain precision bullet, with modern smokeless powder.  Both, are extremely accurate at 800 yards....  But, the 1884 is much more tolerant and consistent with Lead bullets, traveling much slower,  no matter where I was shooting?  A hand cast, lead bullet, propelled by Black Powder, actually performed 40% better.......  Weight, location or conductivity???  Lead is not conductive......copper and copper alloys are.  Hmmmm?  There are some right now running the numbers.....     

Now, apply those thoughts to shooting on water.  Yikes !!! 

It's a game.  It's supposed to be fun.  IMO, who cares what they (WG) does anymore.   BUT, there is one thing I brought up several years ago and it is GOLD.......  Remember, in WOTS, Gold = Great....  The era or "Golden" everything is pure profit for WG........

  
https://maritime.org/doc/firecontrol/index.php

 

Quote

"... Fire Control Fundamentals, NAVPERS 91900, 1953, was created to introduce sailors to the basics of weapons fire control.   ..."

 

[b101uk]

21 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

an APFSDS tank round (any SABOT type round) is a sub-caliber ammunition. meaning ammunition smaller than the original caliber of the gun it is being used in. please do at least a basic wikipedia search ...

sub-calibre means to sleeve down or adapt by way of a sleeve or liner to a lower calibre projectile than the barrel\gun was originally intended, when sub-calibre is used without the explicit statement of adding projectile on the end (as in "sub-calibre projectile" [ammunition or shell could be used in place of projectile too]) then you are referencing a sub-calibre gun.

 

your exact statement was:

Quote

I think there are also a sub-caliber options that introduce a lighter and smaller shell that will travel faster with the same propellant charge ... don't know if they were used in the relevant period on naval ships ...

thus to me you were referencing a sub-calibre gun and NOT the notion of a "sub-calibre projectile" as you failed to make the explicit distinction, given both fire projectiles, so later talk of projectile or shell just confuses the issue, and naval guns were used as sub-calibre guns in WW2 for special purposes etc firing conventional shells.

 

 

[Wulf_Ace]

still 381mm feel underwhelming for a tier 9 no matter the new gimmick