In this thread you can discuss any thoughts you have about balance within the game. Does a particular unit need a specification changed? Is a stealth plane not stealthy enough? Do "Belli Bar" levels need to be changed? Let us know and discuss it all here.
The Iowa class battleships remain unmatched to this day. Although there are no longer any enemy battleships to fight, they are unmatched in their ability to blast shore based targets. Their armor makes them nearly invulnerable to anti-ship missiles in use today. Their speed allows them to keep up with the fastest elements of the United States fleet. And with upgraded weapons systems including anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles, the Iowa class battleships remained versatile and useful tools for our nation's defense. Isn't it interesting that the one consideration taken for granted during their design -- the cost of sending them to sea and assembling a crew -- is the one factor that led to their demise.
The 16inch/50 caliber Mark 7 gun fires two basic rounds; a 2,700 pound AP (Armor Piercing) and a 1,900 pound HC (High Capacity) shore bombardment projectile. Nine of these guns, the most powerful ever mounted on a United States Warship, are mounted in well-protected turrets. These gunes, with their combination of a longer barrel and heavier propelling charge, are a vast improvement over the earlier Mark 6 guns on earlier battleships.
....
In 1969, Captain Edward Snyder of the New Jersey was quoted as saying that the AP shell is capable of penetrating up to 32 feet of reinforced concrete. The HC round carries a high-explosive charge of 154 pounds. The maximum rang eis 41,622 yards when fired with the normal propelling charge of 660 pounds, with a muzzle velocity of 2,690 feet per second.
and looking at the IOWA equipment statistic, I came to the conclusion that this battleship need rebalancing. I propose to increase it Soft, Hard and Fortification attack values by 50%to represent its unmatched abity to bombard shores. To compensate fall all its increase in firepower, I guggest lowering initiative by 1 level. Also because of the fact that it posses a very good defence again modern day anti ship rockets, it should have an increased surface defence. I propose to increase ground defence by 33%.
Do you have any controlled test of the Iowa? Remember that the Iowa is one of the few ships in the game that fires indirectly meaning it will damage multiple units in a target hex. We can't increase values to the point that it is killing off large portions of multiple battalions in one shot.
Let's compare it with Artilery pieces we know well shall we? A basic 155mm Artilery unit has an average soft attack of 30, multiply that by 18 squads and you get a total soft attack of 540. Now lets campare that with the soft attack value of the IOWA. The IOWA soft attack value of the IOWA is only 150. Compared to the soft attack value of a basic artilery unit, that is almost four times less . This is IMHO totaly unbalanced if you realise that even a single 16 inch Turret on the IOWA has more firepower than 18 units of 155mm Artilery units together, and the IOWA has 3 of them.
Last edited by Sebastiaan on Oct 22 2005, edited 2 times in total.
I still need a controlled test for this, there are too many other unit stats that can be affecting the outcome. Also, we need to see if new values give the desired results and if they break anything. I'll need to check with George if there is any difference in how the soft attack value is calculated between land and naval units, there could be some differences inside the engine. If not, I would expect a controlled test would back up what you're saying.
Thorgrimm wrote:Here is the results of my testing. It may be a wee bit scathing but dealing with the Navy for 16 years you sort of get a feel for naval ships and ops.
First, all the bombardment ranges are wrong, check out this 16/50 gunnery test. Everything else should have been scaled to those ranges, as the 8 and 5 inch guns used by the ships of today do not even come close to those ranges, the only thing that does is missiles. And they do not have the explosive power of a 16" shell.
Second, since to correct that deficiency we need to increase the Iowa's bombardment range and factors quite a bit.
Third, need to increase the surface and indirect defenses on the Iowa.
Fourth, since the Tico was designed as an anti-air platform, and not a surface warfare ship, you need to increase the air defenses big time.
Fifth, you need to decrease the Tico's surface defense and indirect defense. If the Tico ever came up against something that throws shells instead of missiles, prepare for a sinking.
Sixth, to be quite honest, I think all the ships in the game need to be reevaluated. I am not trying to be a butthead, but I think whoever decided on the bombardment stats for the ships has never actually seen a naval bombardment. 5 and 8 inch naval guns are just powerfull enough to make you dig in and then you don't worry about it, unless one drops on your head.
Cheers Thorgrimm
Thorgrimm wrote:Big Stone, on an Iowa all you would do is scratch the paint, and then he drops a salvo of 16" shells on your over age howitzer BN, and no more howitzer BN. Remember those bad boys were designed to fight a monster throwing 18" 2 ton shells! you think a lil popgun howitzer is gonna worry a BB? Not likely.
But the indirect defense of the Tico seemed to be inline with what I expected, as long as you drop the bombardment strengths. But then again I still say all of the ships need reworking.
Cheers Thorgrimm
Thorgrimm wrote:Bergjaeger, I don't think they will, as they are in the mindset of if it is not the latest, it can't possibly be worth making. But the thing is, they have also done armor tests on the penetrating ability of modern missiles against armor thickness that is included on the Iowa class. NOT ONE modern missile penetrated the armor. They tried every concievable combination of missile types and still no go. even multiple hits on the exact same spot did not penetrate.
The reason they found out was a missile trades warhead size for kinetic energy to make up for the downgrading of explosive power. But against armor like on the Iowa the lack of explosive power could not be made up with the gained kinetic energy.
In the end the only thing that penetrated the armor were armor piercing bombs, and that took multiple hits in the same spot to achieve penetration. The reason the missiles could not penetrate the armor is that they were made for use of todays modern 'armor', and that did not prepare them for dealing with armored monsters like BB's.
But remember as I pointed out BB's are VERY susceptible to submarines, so you would need to give it the same ASW protection you would a carrier battlegroup.
Cheers Thorgrimm
Balthagor wrote:doing some work on the equipment file this week. Good to bump this once in a while to be sure I remember, it's a big spreadsheet
. This is IMHO totaly unbalanced if you realise that even a single 16 inch Turret on the IOWA has more firepower than 18 units of 155mm Artilery units together, and the IOWA has 3 of them. 
But the thing is, they have also done armor tests on the penetrating ability of modern missiles against armor thickness that is included on the Iowa class. NOT ONE modern missile penetrated the armor. They tried every concievable combination of missile types and still no go. even multiple hits on the exact same spot did not penetrate.