|
BadLlama posted:So are the only nations that are in America and Japan? Germany and Britain are scheduled to be added later, and the company has expressed interest in adding the Italians.
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
xthetenth posted:The French are actually one of the best candidates for a nearly full tree of real ships or ships that were seriously intended to be built. French, Italians, and Soviets are all good candidates for later nations. The Dutch at a stretch.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:There will probably be paper planes for some of the carriers too. And to be fair, there are probably a lot of liberties taken with everything. Pick the Yamato, and it looks like in this game you'll actually be able to do something with it, which is more than could be said for the ship in real life. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Will Wargaming ever produce a game that doesn't have some lovely masturbation fantasy anime associated with it? This is a game featuring Imperial Japan in a way that pretends the IJN wasn't hopelessly outclassed and didn't have leadership so dysfunctional the Galactic Empire would tell them to calm down and attend team-building exercises. Weeaboos are going to be a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Right, so just replace all the Nazi war criminal trolling from WoT with poo poo about katanas and samauri being notorious boy fuckers. Also, Imperial Japanese war criminal trolling. The Japanese were just as bad as the Nazis in most regards and worse in some.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:The US has enough battleship classes to make two full lines of constructed warships, I count 17 classes reaching as far back as the St. Louis cruiser was built. Add to that the Alaskas, the unbuilt Montana and the 1920 South Dakota and you've got enough for two full trees plus a couple premiums, just missing something to go with the Montana at tier X Early in the game's development they claimed that the Iowa would be the Montana's stablemate, being the fastest battleship in the game. No idea if that's still the plan.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:What the gently caress is with the game not rendering torpedoes until they're like 5 seconds from hitting? The last day or so I have played I've died to torpedoes over and over because they just materialize out of nothing far too late for you to do anything about it. Get better at maneuvering if you're under attack from a torpedo-armed ship, and start maneuvering before you see the actual torpedoes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:That doesn't answer my question. The first few days I played Torpedoes were visible from enough distance away that you could at least react. The last 10-20 rounds they've just materialized a hundred yards from my ship. It does answer your question. By the time you can see the torpedoes it's probably too late. If it's a destroyer, Japanese cruiser, or one of the oddball American cruisers, assume they're firing torpedoes at you and act accordingly. Alternatively, mess with your graphics possibly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:Yes "Maneuver" is a great answer to "Why are torpedoes suddenly appearing at much closer rangers than they were before", thanks My point was that it doesn't matter all that much, you should be responding to the probable attack before you see it. It's been my experience that unless I'm in a destroyer myself, by the time I see torpedoes it's usually too late to do much about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:WoWS has penetration mechanics, it's not pure RNG, it's just opaque to users. It's just that with your cursor in the right place there's no much more you can do to get citadel pens. At close range you're sometimes in the situation where a "good" pen roll on a shell will actually cause it to overpen. It's also my experience that precise aiming really isn't a thing in this game, with the constantly moving and turning ships, typically long-ish engagement ranges, and firing randomness. Try to hit the center and hope for the best. I'm enjoying cruisers in a screening role, keeping destroyers and planes away from the battleships.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:Pubs don't get that. And the players who demand to be protected instead of trailing behind the battle line are almost as bad as the publords who send their whole first strike against the enemy CVs. A trip to the other side of the map with an uncertain outcome which might cost you the whole strike force. I love it when the other team's carriers do this when I'm in a cruiser with good AA. It's just a matter of thinking "What's the boat on my team most alluring to pubbie carriers?" and staying close enough that I can intercept planes heading for the carriers/fatass battleship.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
rossmum posted:The other day the carrier shitters kept focusing another Fuso I was rolling with. Dumb carriers always seem to focus purely on either the other carriers (if present) or the biggest battleships on the other team. My personal record so far is 42, babysitting a Nagato (I think) the pubbie carriers had a hardon for killing. Cythereal fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
The conclusion I am coming to as a cruiser fan is that my job is idiocy mitigation. While I have the throw weight to hurt other cruisers and dent battleships in a pinch, my primary duty is safeguarding dumb battleships, carriers, and cruisers from destroyers and carriers. I keep seeing battleships get so locked in on dueling other battleships that they completely ignore destroyers racing in and approaching planes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
EponymousMrYar posted:Much like Tanks, Teamwork is OP. In my Kongo the only single ship I'm afraid of is a Fuso. That's after Torps. Even then I'm fairly certain I can trade long-range shots and dodge their's via maneuvering. Regardless I'm always going where teammates are to add my guns and giant HP blob to theirs. The better teamwork/skill of the players is usually the deciding factor of matches. Likewise, as a cruiser fan I've found it works best for the overall match if I play a screening role for battleships and carriers, intercepting fighters and destroyers while the battleships save their guns for bigger targets. This is of course contingent on my teammates not being retards.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Poil posted:I've been put in a few games with only one carrier now. My team has a carrier, me, and the other team has none at all. It has made me realize just how lovely dps the carriers actually have. The time it takes for the planes to prepare, lift, wait for the rest of the group to lift, get to the target, get in position, fart around to actually attack, get all the way back, manage to land and reload is just so long. If you're not at least causing heavy damage to a ship every cycle you're just dead weight to the team. And then some Karl Dönitz weeaboo manages to somehow unbeach his battleship and dodge 10 torpedoes while reversing. The strength of carriers, I think, is that a good player can deliver a very hefty amount of damage to almost any ship in the match on demand. There's a flexibility to carrier damage that's unique among ships, and they're excellent scouts. Think of the carrier as more of a support ship than a major damage dealer in its own right. That being said, I do think carriers could stand to be buffed some. Good carrier players in my experience are wizards at picking off ships at will, but average carriers have only a marginal game presence and bad carriers are free points.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Delorence Fickle posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_battleship Premium low-tier US battleships would be my guess if they ever appear. Like the TOG, but infinitely worse.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Kuntz posted:I liked the sound of this and googled it, look what I found. Brits have the best ship names, honestly. The US ship naming system is boring as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Nahh. that stuff's too nuts for Dai, and if anything it'd be glorious Nippon superships, but there's much worse on those forums. Comedy option: Surcouf as a French destroyer?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Well that was a thing. Unintentionally pulled off a very nice stroke of teamwork when I sent my critically low on HP cruiser barreling towards a Fuso on a collision course, forcing the Fuso to turn to evade me but blundered right into a full spread of torpedoes from a destroyer. Ramming speed a viable option when you have nothing else to lose?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
demonR6 posted:I think there is no way in hell you would be spotted out in the open ocean with that camo job, good work! You ever seen an ork in purple camo? I didn't think so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
demonR6 posted:
Looks like a shadow from that thing sticking out at the blimp's midsection.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
A less obvious use of torpedoes is to flush attentive enemies into new courses, preferably ones advantageous to you. Against smarter pubbies (and they do crop up occasionally), they're almost more useful as area-denial than as actual weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I really hope that British cruisers have a pronounced tendency to Blow Up from strikes to the guns. Likewise, I hope the Japanese carriers have a crippling vulnerability to dive bombers and can sink from one hit with one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Slaan posted:
Maybe it will be an easter egg. Dive bombers get a scaling chance to critically hit the more airplanes US carriers feed into the Japanese fighter woodchipper.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:(and the Yamatos for cheating cheaters who cheat) And were utterly useless to boot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:ask me about getting torpedoed by my division mate I got torpedoed and sunk by a friendly carrier so his division mate had a clear line of fire for his torpedoes against the battleship I was slipping into a channel to get away from.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Missing Name posted:The World's Worst Warships by Anthony Preston Please tell me the Yamato has a place in this book.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Preston#World.E2.80.8A.27.E2.80.8Bs_Worst_Warships Interesting. Just requested it through ILL at the library where I work. Already have Shattered Sword and Castles of Steel on my bookshelf at home.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:This is more of a ship question and not a Swedish navy question, but how did engineers extrapolate the shape of a ship's hull from 2d cross-sections like that? I assume each line under the deck represents the contour every set unit of length or so, but then suddenly calculus????? It's a drafting question. Look at the curved lines in the head on/back draft view - those are contour lines indicating curves in the shape of the hull. Combine that with the top/side drafts which mark where each change in the ship's hull occurs lengthwise and you can put together a mental image of the boat's shape that you can then calculate for other relevant information.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Poil posted:Yup. But often they don't change course or speed at all. It's at times like those that as a cruiser fan I'm torn between saving the moron or letting natural selection do its thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
demonR6 posted:Saying "GG sea cancers.." made two enemy carrier players mad. One tried to go into a tirade but the cap timer ran out. Mission accomplished. Carrier sailors also get really mad when first their fighters then their torp bombers fly in a straight line towards the battleship blob and into a cruiser's woodchipper I've discovered. Seriously, carriers consistently seem to attract the biggest morons in my experience. At least tunnel-vision battleships usually put some shells on target.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:Calling them Sky Cancer is fun, but I prefer calling them worthless instead. Especially the ones who call to "protect the carriers guys!" at the start of the match. I like to tell them that they aren't sky cancer. Cancer doesn't have a cure. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Missing Name posted:If you pilot a carrier, it doesn't have any planes on it, right where the fuel shortages start. Only the Yamato gets shells. And the Yamato runs out of fuel five minutes in.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:Russia, then Germany, then UK. Then Italy, then France IIRC.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
ChickenWyngz posted:I hear Japanese destroyers are far superior, any truth to this? American and Japanese destroyers play very differently. Japanese destroyers rely on their torpedoes as their primary weapons, US destroyers use them opportunistically. Japanese destroyers as such do better against big game if you're good with torpedoes, US destroyers are the premier destroyer hunters and can do a reasonable job against light cruisers and carriers with their guns alone, but their torpedoes aren't as good.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Last they said it was Russia > Germany > UK. Then Italy then France.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
Welp. Downloading this again for the first time since early in beta since I'm looking for a good time-waster. Time to relearn how to play.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 19:09
|
|