Some of you might be aware, others might not, but there has been some argument from players to Wargaming regarding Alabama armour model. Sub_Octavian has shed some light into the subject and here’s what he has posted in the official forum.
Iowa/Missouri and Montana citadel
As I answered on reddit, we are considering the community-proposed changes to Iowa and Montana citadel. The statement that we would be happy to cooperate and make them more comfortable in BB-BB combat is still relevant, but at the same time we should be careful not to buff them outside the class, where their effeciency is absolutely normal. This is why we are working on new citadel placement prototype for them, and will make the final decision only after we have some solid evidence that it will not break balance. So, I guess it is “work in progress” for now.
Alabama, on the other hand, is a new ship and was tested in relevant meta, with all knowledge and known community concerns in mind. And we see that combination of her qualities, specs and layout makes her solid good ship. Lowering her citadel has no balance reasons and is qurrently out of question. It is obvious it is a mutual interest for devs and players to release a fine, well-balanced ship. Alabama will make such ship, and she does not need opague last minute changes.
Alabama armor tapering
So the plate that is discussed indeed has tapering, we know that. Problem is, we don’t have any solid proof of thickness distribution, like we have for some other ships. So we cannot model this plate with high accuracy. What we could do it to make it up like this:
Such “slicing” would reflect the tapering with at least some degree of historical accuracy. However, our tests indicated that it would not make any impact on ship survivability. While any additional details for armor model increase server load. Of course slicing that single plate won’t make any server lags by itself, but every complication of sever model contributes. So we try to avoid unnecessary details that do not affect player experience for the sake of optimization.
This is why we decided to leave average thickness for this plate – we don’t have 100% data, and it does not influence ship performance.
And this honestly makes statements “already massively in error”, “what the hell have you done WG”, “armor model essentially “skips” over a huge chunk of the primary belt armor” and “be open to citpens through her belt from 8″ cruiser guns as far away as 14km” way too dramatic (at the very least). No, good folks, this is not true. That plate is not historically accurate, and this is pretty much it.
On this one one, when you have the information, what do you guys think? Do you think it is important to reflect tapering at least for some degree like in my example (274/168/60)? Please share your thoughts, and we will see what we can do. We are as always open to discussion and thankful for your input.