As such, I think a 50 mm weather deck is an acceptable compromise, as this would only affect Henri IV and non-German IFHE 203 mm guns which are quite rare. I can see that a 57 mm weather deck is arguably too strong, as it would resist the HE shells of Hindenburg, Roon, Hipper, and Prinz Eugen, as well as IFHE 203 mm guns. Giving Montana her historical designed deck thicknesses would be an indirect way of curbing those bombs' effectiveness. I personally think that those bombs are detrimental for the game, and the current Montana is quite vulnerable to them. The most beneficial aspect of this change would be protection against Graf Zeppelin AP bombs. Currently, the in-game values are 38 mm and 150 mm respectively. As designed, the Montana's weather deck is 57 mm, while the main armor deck is 179-184 mm (179 is for the inboard section, 184 is for the outboard section). The Montana in-game is missing a substantial amount of deck armor. My images are scans from Friedman and Garzke & Dulin. While "realism" may draw some skepticism, I want to point out that for all the liberties that WG takes from realism, they generally do not deviate from historical armor values. Some of these changes also have historical precedence. My goal for these changes to the Montana is to make the ship more rewarding for skilled play while making mistakes and poor play more punishable, while also reducing vulnerability to certain "skill gap reducing" elements that have been introduced (*cough* Conqueror *cough*). While it's true that game balance should take precedence over historical accuracy, I believe the following proposal can fulfill both. I'm a pretty big history buff, and currently I see several historically incorrect armor values for Montana. Forward: The purpose of these proposed changes is to make the Montana both more rewarding to play, and also more historically accurate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |