|
BadLlama posted:Would torpedoes even travel 2KM in real life? I know absolutely nothing about naval warfare that just seems like a far distance for a tube to plow through the water. 2 km is point-blank in naval warfare. For reference, the Long Lance torpedo the IJN carried had a maximum range of over 40 km, and an effective range of slightly over 20. The ones the US carried was not as good, but still hit at significant ranges. Naval gunfire is similar, and in general battleships were perfectly capable at ranging out to around 20 km easily. Incidentally, count me as interested in this, and I may try to sign up tomorrow. Or just wait and get into it once it goes gold, we'll see.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
James Garfield posted:All torpedoes have a wake. There are torpedo indicators that pop up when the torpedoes are close enough, "close enough" in this case meaning "still pretty far away". You can't see the wake until the torpedo indicator shows up. While all torpedoes cause some wake due to simply moving through the water, a significant chunk of their wake comes from the bubble trail left by their propulsion. The Long Lance, which used compressed oxygen, left virtually no bubbles behind, which almost eliminated that part and made them extremely difficult to spot. Of course, the tradeoff is that compressed oxygen is also highly explosive, and it's highly debatable if the IJN should have been sticking Long Lances on their heavy cruisers to begin with, because there were multiple lost due to their torpedoes getting hit in their launchers by an errant shell. Destroyers by their very nature are eminently disposable, and rely on the principle of "don't get hit" to survive in the first place. Heavy cruisers are supposed to be able to actually take a hit, so putting a component that volatile on their ships may not have been the best idea. Of course, from the videos it doesn't really seem that they've modeled that "extreme danger to the ship they're on" aspect, so removing them being almost impossible to spot is probably fair too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Got an app in pretty fast, as I simply tried the most expedient solution - i.e. I deleted the "closed" from the HTML line - to see what happened as soon as the time passed 1400. Was slightly slowed down due to having to quickly set up a Wargaming account, but pretty sure I still had the app in before a lot of the "try the news page" messages started popping up. Now just to wait.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Hopping on the  , I got in, so time to try this out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:I can't find the photos because it's an incredibly awkward thing to search for, but it certainly did happen where they just stuck a tank on the deck of a ship and used it as a gun. You might be remembering the first Tiger captured? Got stuck on a cargo ship for the journey to England, and the person who captured it turned its gun on a U-boat that attacked them, since it was already lashed to the deck. As for the game, currently terrible but improving. Destroyers are great fun, and only experience so far with ramming has come in one too. Dodged an enemy destroyers torpedo spread, only for them to turn themselves into a final one. Actually a wise move too, as I was lining up an extremely close-range kill shot on a Kongou before having to maneuver to dodge.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
While there's still plenty of adjustments to be made, both major and minor, one that really sticks out to me in the "I cannot believe anyone thought this change was a decent idea" is the IJN destroyer gun speed. They're basically all sitting at ~45 seconds for the 180 turn, while US ones are turning that distance in 5. That's battleship speed, which is completely unacceptable on a platform maneuvering like a destroyer needs to. While IJN destroyers have better torpedoes, they're not THAT much better - especially at the higher tiers when the US start getting pretty good ones themselves. I just cannot imagine why anyone would play the tier ~9-10 IJN destroyers currently, as at that level both sides have >10 km, 60+kt torpedoes, while the US have such better guns it's not even funny. Excellent torpedoes and guns so poor they might as well not be there vs. very good torpedoes and excellent guns is not exactly a hard choice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Well, got my first massive torpedo crit tonight on the left side of Fault Line. Was driving a Kuma, dropped a spread into a gap where I vaguely expected a line of battleships to cross, and then retreated, as one of them got me with 2 shells dropping me deep into yellow. 15 seconds later, one full health to dead Kongou in a single torpedo. On the bright side, he wasn't angry, though he was very incredulous.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:Not really, you get better torpedoes, faster and more agile ships. Your trade off are worse guns that take longer to turn. Take away the turret advantage on US DD why would you even play one then? This is so absurdly downplaying the issue it's somewhat funny. Let's look at a comparison between some of the higher tier destroyers, shall we? Full upgrades for simplicity. US Tier VIII Destroyer: Benson HP: 15400 Speed: 38kts Main Turrets: 4 -RoF: 13.3 rnds/min -180 Turn Speed: 5.3 seconds Torpedo Launchers: 2 with 5 tubes each. -Damage: 14500 -Range: 8.2 km -Speed: 52 kts .RoF: 0.6 rnds/min Maneuverability: 89 Concealment: 82 IJN Tier VIII Destroyer: Fubuki HP: 13900 Speed: 35kts Main Turrets: 2 -RoF: 6 rnds/min -180 Turn Speed: 45 seconds Torpedo Launchers: 3 with 3 tubes each. -Damage: 17233 -Range: 15 km -Speed: 57 kts -RoF: 0.6 rnds/min Maneuverability: 86 Concealment: 83 So, the US one gets an insanely better gun, more turrets, faster speed, better maneuverability and still gets decent torpedoes. Meanwhile, the IJN one is stuck with guns that turn slower than the same tier battleship. So, please go on as to how those somewhat better torpedoes make everything else being worse - and in the case of the gun absolutely horrible - somehow desirable. Keeping in mind that due to how they have torpedo spotting currently coded to work, that extra range when firing close by is actually a liability. And that at 15 km you're not even really aiming any more, but rather just firing randomly and hoping someone blunders into one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:The Japanese get 3 destroyers that both have higher speed and better maneuverability than their equal tier US counter-part. The US, only gets one which magically happens to be the one you chose to compare. You under value the ability to poo poo out torpedoes at a cap 10KM away when this game is full of retards just like WoT. ...You're absolutely right. I mean, it's not like I could have gone up another tier, where the US destroyer is STILL faster than its IJN counterpart and their maneuverability is tied, while also gaining torpedoes with >10km range, or to Tier X, where the IJN regains the speed advantage while the US actually gains LONGER RANGED TORPEDOES. No, clearly I was cherry-picking. You made the argument that US destroyers would not be worth playing if IJN guns became not-horrible, which is a ridiculous statement. True, US destroyers start at a significant disadvantage in regards to their torpedoes, while the IJN ones have poo poo gunnery. The issue is the US ones steadily gain better torpedoes as they go up in tier, with their only disadvantage at the highest one being reduced damage, while IJN gunnery is just as poo poo at Tier X as it is at Tier I. Hell, the Tier VI IJN destroyer is horrible to switch to from the previous tier, because it starts with 6 km torpedoes for some ungodly reason with no real benefit to balance it out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Armor of the Aoba is even weaker than I thought. Got a Citadel penetration at 7km on it last night with a Nicholas. Shooting HE. The higher tier Japanese ships really need a buff of some sort, and I'm not sure just fixing the torpedoes is enough, because right now they're almost unilaterally strictly weaker than their counterparts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Honestly, one game type that would be interesting to add would be night battles. Drastically reduced spotting ranges for everything, along with difficulty lining up shots where you want them(unless you happen to know just where the weak points on a ship are just from its silhouette) It'd radically change the force dynamic of that scenario, since basically everything becomes knife fights, resulting in a significantly changed force dynamic. Battleships are still lethal if they can hit of course, but their slow rate of fire means they HAVE to operate as a team with others or they'll just die horribly via destroyer or torpedo-armed cruiser. Probably just lock carriers out of that game type entirely. Of course, a bunch of the pubbie BB drivers would probably rage and scream, demanding nerfs to the "OP" destroyers, so I guess we'll never get that. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Ships are oddly named all over the place. In the tech tree, USS Lexington is the next tier up from Ranger, while in real life the first one preceded Ranger while the second was an Essex class. So ??? as to its placement. Yorktown, or Enterprise if they're not sticking to name ships, would fit there a lot better. Like the IJN carrier tree is completely missing Akagi and Kaga, both of which were unique, rather well known carriers. As for Zuikaku rather than Shokaku, maybe they just wanted you playing as the one known as the lucky ship, rather than the unlucky ship? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
...So, it's apparently started. People gaming MM to give whatever team they're on a huge advantage. Div2 on their team completely screwed up matchmaker, giving their team the advantage both in quality and numbers. So congrats on your win, fuckers. edit: The Kitakami was a moron too, so that certainly didn't help, but in the grand scheme of things it would not have mattered.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
JuffoWup posted:I don't think it was just the platoon. The matchmaker goes absolutely bonkers if it can't find another carrier for the opposing team. Especially higher tiered ones like your lexington. No, I'm aware of that, and I definitely agree that didn't help. But that platoon basically has no reason for existing outside of screwing up MM. Tier VIIs and Tier IIIs should never be in the same game, especially as MM will try to compensate. Badly. Insert name here posted:Why did you blank out your name Habit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Also shooting HE from Destroyers at carriers is pretty important - AP isn't going to do worthwhile damage while you're heading into torpedo range, whereas if you start a fire on a carrier it becomes unable to launch/recover aircraft, which can be pretty vital. On the weekend I shut down a Saipan and a Ranger with my Isokaze by doing that, even managed to sink the Ranger with fire. Magni posted:
Is there a trick to this? I occasionally do it, but I've also had matches where I've put ~50-70+ HE shells into a carrier without setting it on fire even once. Typically when I'm stern chasing the drat thing because I've got nothing better to do. Pretty frustrating when it happens, because they'll obviously focus on you, and if dive bombers get lucky the damage they can do to destroyers actually can add up fast.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:Very different playstyles. Cleveland handles like a pig, can take more of a beating and has more, quicker guns. Aoba is made of cardboard, has effective-but-awkward torpedoes, and has fewer, bigger guns. Cleveland shreds destroyers and cruisers, while Aoba is more effective against battleships (if it can avoid getting shot). Honestly, the situation reverses itself at Tier VII with the Mogami and Pensacola. The Mogami simply rips its counterpart to shreds, barring multiple lucky citadel hits - which the Mogami is more likely to get anyways. It has more health, almost double the armor, torpedoes and, assuming you're using the 155s, a far faster firing rate that still has no issue penetrating the Pensacola. Unsurprisingly it also shreds destroyers and can even rack up damage on battleships due to simple weight of fire. Given it packs more guns than even the Cleveland and, unlike the Cleveland, is actually decently maneuverable with pretty good speed makes it pretty high up there in my favored cruisers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
NuckmasterJ posted:101 hits in a DD? drat, driving IJN DD's I barely shoot the guns. Zip in, torp torp torp try to find an island to zip around. Maybe I need to try out Freedom ships. Since they were patched they are at least vaguely okay, so using now is fine as a secondary tactic. I beat a Hatsuharu in a Mutsuki, after I'd "upgraded" it to the two turret version, in a close range gunnery duel because he absolutely refused to use his. Instead, he kept trying to torpedo me. Incidentally, the Hatsuharu actually has somewhat decent guns, unlike the Mutsuki, so it was doubly stupid. Admittedly I've also mostly switched over to AP for IJN destroyers unless I'm shooting at a CV, BB, or CA. They have a low enough rate of fire that I just don't feel HE rounds really do enough damage to realistically kill a target in a reasonable timeframe, while with AP all it takes is a few good shots to sink another destroyer. For rapid fire gunds HE can be good though.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Well, that was fun. Ran out of bombers so I just rammed the enemy Ranger with my Saipan instead. Thus ending the match in a win. It was actually a fair carrier match for once too. One Saipan and one Ranger on each side.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Germany didn't have proximity fuses at the time, and I don't think wargaming is taking them into account. I'm sure the 55 mm guns will get nuts stats though. While if they add a secondary IJN line I imagine the Akizuki will be part of it, I'm not sure what the hell it's going to do. The class was designed primarily for AA and ASW work, and its surface armament was reduced to do so. And AA destroyers were really just because cruisers were in much more limited supply than destroyers. Something you might note doesn't apply to WoWS.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Yep. Though BBs seem to be supposed to be torp bait to some degree. It's that cruisers are such easy targets that surprised me! The game keeps telling me they're for hunting destroyers, but in a destroyer I see a cruiser and dollar signs float past my eyes. Slim Jim Pickens posted:This is no longer true after tier 6. Don't even try to hunt high tier IJN cruisers. They are actually pretty nimble and can slide through your spreads, their guns can kill you in a few hits, as they don't really overpenetrate, and they have lots of them. Probably US ones as well, but I'm still on the Cleveland, which has no real mobility to speak of. Well-driven Fusos can also eat destroyers they're aware of, due to the extra gun turrets allowing them to multiple chances to kill you.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:In that case I just say gently caress it because imho fightercover for my team is more important. It's actually not. Simply because if they get even a single run in, which is likely since your fighters cannot be everywhere at once, they have now contributed more to the match than you can ever do. In other words, the absolute best situation you can end up in is one where there are two ships not contributing anything to the match. And it only goes downhill from there.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
It seems to make a decent amount of sense, though I've no clue why the Fubuki has such a lower win ratio than the Hatsuharu, and seems to trend along the same lines as the ships themselves. That is, a bunch of the high-tier lines just don't feel like upgrades at the moment, and that's a big issue. Comparing the Mogami to its "upgrade" the Myoko as an example, you're trading less armor, HP, maneuverability, and concealment for a small(though admittedly decent) increase in firing speed(though the turret turn speed is half again as long for some reason), and very, VERY slight boosts to torpedoes(which are hard to use with cruisers anyways) and AA. The placement of the third forward turret is worse too. Hell, the Tier 9 Ibuki is effectively just a Mogami with better torpedoes for that matter. Same guns(except with slightly worse turn speed), same maneuverability, less concealment and same armor/HP. The high-tier US cruisers run into a similar issue, and the said about some of the mid-tier IJN destroyers the better.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Interestingly, I had the oddest luck with an auto-torpedo drop last night; and/or the dumbest DD driver ever. Was trying to desperately maneuver, both to avoid some dropped torpedoes(mostly successful) as well as get out of LoS of multiple enemy BBs ahead(failed) while also managing my squadrons, so I was flipping back and forth between hotkeys. Accidentally pressed Shift while I had a torpedo squadron selected, which screwed up my whole viewpoint and I was stressing a bit trying to get out of it and back into overhead view. Finally did and was trying to give reorient and give attack orders to that squadron as well as get my second torpedo squadron in the air, when I noticed my previous one was empty. I had apparently accidentally given attack orders on the DD for my active torpedo bomber squadron, and I never noticed - until I suddenly got the "Torpedo Hit" and "Ship Sunk" notifications. Of course we still lost because I was the last one alive because the team had completely folded and I was well within firing range of multiple ships, but that was still amusing.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Noooooooo!!! God damnit, I just unlocked the Essex and want to enjoy my tier X dominance!! This question, but for ships getting swapped around as well. I've got the Mogami, and exp-wise I'm closing in on the Myoko, so what's going to happen when they reverse them?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
grrarg posted:Limited torpedo reloads concern me more than gun ammunition, but that would be one way to tone down the Nicholas and Minekaze. You cannot possibly be serious. Destroyers, especially IJN ones, already have extreme difficulties effectively contributing to the battle outside their torpedoes and point capping. Now Wargaming is introducing a mechanic to screw over the higher tiers of them even more, given they're allowing cruisers to use an ability that recharges in HALF THE TIME it takes high tier destroyers to reload their torpedoes to destroy said torpedoes. The high tiers should not have reload times of loving 3+ minutes for their torpedoes, which is what it is at the moment. It should probably be half of that. VV edit: Well that's a start at least, if still probably too high. Lord Koth fucked around with this message at 21:37 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:There as just as many reasons outside of the abilities of the strike group or their commanders that could have influenced the number of hits in the cherry picked examples. Less wind over the target, a more effective CAP over one fleet than the other, luck, etc. After all, when examining battles in which the Japanese carrier aircraft mounted successful attacks on non-DD warships you're looking at a grand total of 3 battles - all in the first year of the war. That's a pretty tiny sample size to base your judgements on. The sunken ship metric at least covers the entire time frame and includes all battles and engagements. That was more due to the discrepancy in planes than the carriers or tactics. They basically did nothing in 1943 as they were rebuilding their air wings, and by the time 1944 rolled around the planes were mostly obsolescent anyways. The people in charge basically did not give a poo poo about naval aviation, which meant it was low-priority both in terms up technological upgrades and production. Zeroes, which were being used at the beginning of the war, were still the main fighter at the end of the war - if slightly upgraded. They were good at the beginning; they were hopelessly outclassed by 1944. So trying to tie this to tactics when one side had a massive edge both numerically and technologically is rather silly. Hell, if I recall correctly the number of carrier aircraft producing in the entirety of 1942 was in the double digits. Around 40-50, if I'm remembering right. Also, stating that they lost more carriers in 1944 than any other year when tying it to a discussion about carrier effectiveness is incredibly deceptive. Most of those extra losses were in escort carriers mostly for things like training or convoy escort. Most of them were also lost to subs, and thus completely irrelevant to a discussion of air wing efficacy. In actual relevant carriers, they lost 4 fleet carriers in 1944, which you may recognize as the same number lost in 1942. Of course, of those 4 one was deliberately sacrificed as bait and had no planes, and another wasn't actually carrying an air wing(and sunk by a sub). Oh, and Shinano, which besides being sunk by a sub and carrying no air wing, also only had the capacity of a light carrier anyways. Of light carriers, they lost 1 in 1942 and 3 in 1944, all without air wings and one of which was by naval gunfire anyways. Warbadger posted:Point capping is pretty drat important and torpedoes are their primary weapon, so I'm not really sure what else they should be effectively contributing with. Note that torps are supposed to be getting harder to spot from the air, which is going to be a pretty hefty buff at all tiers. And I never said it wasn't important. However, their "effectively contributing" weapon has a reload speed 6x longer than the guns on a battleship, which you may notice are also perfectly capable of doing massive damage - or even one-shotting people, from significantly further away. Lord Koth fucked around with this message at 22:07 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
IJN battleships start getting good with the Kongo, though the Fuso really needs the accuracy module to reliably hit stuff at long range, and I suspect it's similar with the American ones - at the very least I've not been particularly impressed with either the South Carolina or the Wyoming. Just because you hated the Tier 3 and 4 ones does not mean you'll despise them past that. Not to say you'll necessarily enjoy the playstyle - I personally prefer cruisers and destroyers - but if it's speed and accuracy you're complaining about then those are mostly fixed once you get out of the first two. And yes, from what I've heard the Nagato's secondaries(or probably just secondaries in general) were nerfed in the patch, but are still quite lethal to those who have to spend any extended amount of time within them.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Yamato? Neither Amagi or Izumo have particularly good secondary setups as far as I can tell. Incidentally, though I don't have it yet, I'm honestly not too impressed with what the stats on the Izumo say. It doesn't have great secondaries, its armor is absolutely terrible, and its speed is mediocre at best. And having all its guns mounted on the prow is only situationally useful. What, exactly, is it gaining in exchange for having armor barely better than a heavy cruiser? Can someone who actually has it weigh in?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Weissritter posted:What about US BBs? Just looking at the stats (I only have up till the Nex Mexico), it seems on paper they have strong AAs, and weak secondaries. Not sure in practice though. Looking at their stats, the high tier US ones all seem to mount 10x2 127mm secondaries. Comparing that to the 18x1 140mm PLUS 4x2 127mm guns on Nagato it seems decently weaker, but I'm not sure how effective or not they actually are in practice. At least they don't suffer a reduction in range from 5 to 4.5km like Amagi and Izumo do.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Haha, what? As far as I can tell they already had a wider spread than US torpedo planes - along with having to drop them further back as far as I can tell* - so they made it even harder to hit with a decent spread? While at the same time making the random chance zone of being an unintended recipient of a torpedo larger? Honestly, at this point Wargaming should just take carriers out if all they're going to do is nerf them having any impact on the actual match due to whiners. *=This is from anecdotal experience with them when 3.1 dropped. I admittedly don't play carriers too much, but it certainly seemed like the IJN torpedoes were faster but had the same arming time, leading to me having to drop them from further away. I'll admit I could easily be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Krogort posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo9AiJnIz7Y ...Yes, how dare a carrier be able to take out completely unescorted battleships, considering that's what one of their explicitly listed roles listed in the tactics section is.  You may also notice that the Tier 9 Iowa on that team STILL managed to score higher than the carrier - and got High Caliber to boot. Note that the green team played better overall too, and the Montana was already at half health before the carrier even started his attack runs. Also I'm fully aware you're being sarcastic, so no worries on that front.  Just also know there're plenty of people who actually do apparently feel that way.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Even that's selling carriers short. Almost none of the things that were wrong with artillery are true for carriers: they don't have remarkably high alpha damage, hitting isn't random (torpedo bombers aren't random at all; dive bombers are very random but do no damage), carriers aren't immune from retaliation, and so on. Really the only thing they have in common is being the longest ranged class, which in itself is only a problem for ehonor nerds. While kancolle might be behind several annoyances in this game, I'm fairly certain it has nothing to do with this one. No, this is just idiots that have no idea how combined arms works - or the capability of reading even the most basic blurbs put in front of their faces. I especially like all the posts that run along the lines of "Well I only play battleships, but it's not fair that these other classes I have no understanding of how they play or the skill involved are sinking me. I mean, I'm a BATTLESHIP!!!" Or do you not remember all the whining about how OP destroyers are too? Of course, that implies that they even know how to effectively play even battleships. Like I went head-to-head with a Colorado with my Nagato and, not only was I outshooting him to begin with, I also deliberately closed to secondary range ASAP, at which point they were tearing chunks out of his bar and setting fires. In fact, until I switched to HE for the last salvo to ensure the kill, I was shooting AP from my main guns the entire slugging match. This didn't stop my secondaries from setting multiple fires, which he then accused me of lying about - I clearly had to be shooting HE the entire time, because how else could he whine about fires? Tactics chat: DON'T STAY WITHIN SECONDARY RANGE OF A NAGATO, THEY WILL EAT YOU ALIVE.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Too be fair, they HAVE been useful after 1942; just as artillery platforms to support troops in coastal areas and later additionally carrying cruise missile batteries. In fact, that the Marines now lack any real way of receiving naval gunfire support has been a concern of theirs. That's probably not what said person means though when claiming battleships are useful.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:
Oh, I'm fully well aware. Though in reality they were just another ship added to a preexisting carrier task force, protected in the center along with the carrier itself, rather than having a completely separate one built around it. And the Montanas were truly not needed, as it's not like we were lacking in older battleships to use as gun platforms during WW2. It was ultimately just a dry comment about the fact that said person claiming battleships were useful even after WW2 was technically correct; just not in any sort of way he seems to think. Victor Surge posted:They are working on solutions for navel gunfire support. Initially this was by way of extended range gun munitions and the DD(X) program, but these programs haven't been doing to well which is why they've been working on getting naval rail guns operational in the 2020-25 timeframe. Nah, I'm aware of the various initiatives to find a solution to the issue, just as I'm aware that, as you mentioned, they've mostly fallen through. Hell, if I recall correctly there was supposed to be a solution already in place before they were even removed from the reserve fleet and placed into museum status. DD(X) was basically cancelled(no, I don't count a whole 3 as an effective usage of anything) and replaced with the lovely Littoral program along with a restart of Arleigh Burke construction, and the railgun stuff, while it looks cool and certainly will be effective at some point, is still very much in testing. And given that there's not even a realistic platform for it yet, I'm seriously doubtful it'll be deployed within that timeframe - especially given the current cuts going on. And yeah, the Space Battleship Yamato and friends event was cool as hell.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Are there videos of this? Yep.(I just grabbed the first one google gave me, there might be better ones) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZXFgHENC4Q
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Finally got my own person screaming at me about hacking/exploits and stuff. Would have responded but was too busy sinking his teammates. Specifically, was in a Pensacola on Iceberg capping A along with two friendly destroyers. We were opposed by two enemy destroyers and a Kitakami in the actual point. I'd done a sharp turn to make sure I stayed out of LoS of the battleship line and accidentally rammed an iceberg - luckily I was covered by smoke. Anyways, while slowly backing off it, a Fubuki popped up at 2 km right around where I was oriented so I caught him with basically a full volley of HE that sunk him - queue him blowing up in chat. And then he kept whining for minutes, claiming that clearly me proceeding to sink the stationary Kitakami that had rammed an iceberg itself and apparently gotten stuck(or at least hadn't bothered backing off it for a minute+ for whatever reason) was even more evidence. And shortly thereafter the other destroyer nearby also caught a full volley at ~2km or so and died. Match ended while I was closing on the other team's carrier, but had it gone on another 30 seconds to a minute I probably would have added a fourth kill to my tally. It was a fun match.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
jownzy posted:I have not played world of tanks, so this may be a dumb question, how are you able to level for the New Orleans in your Cleveland? Free exp. Admittedly, that's a LOT of free exp needed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Aesis posted:Nowhere did I write I was eating torps (apart from aerial ones right above). But then it seems you guys just like to think 'oh he's talking about torps, he must be eating torps that were launched from 10+ km so much'. I'd like to see you dodging all the torps that are being dropped right above you, in a battleship. Actually, complaining about aerial ones is even more stupid. After the last patch drop and the changes to manual drops, it's incredibly difficult to hit even battleships if they have a competent captain and you don't manage to catch them in a turn or something. I've piloted straight through a 2 squadron weave pattern dropped to catch me right in the middle of it without a single hit in a battleship, which really should not be possible. And even if you do hit them, it's unlikely to be with more than one or two, since one of the changes they made was to both widen the spread in general, and make it so manual dropping does not narrow it whatsoever. And yes, I'm laughing at your whining about how OP IJN torpedoes are too. "Oh no! He's making me maneuver a bit!" is the complaint you're making regarding their long range, and it's idiotic. More to the point, I'm fairly sure WG STILL has spotting distance tied to the overall range of a torpedo so you're actually spotting IJN ones from further out than their American counterparts, which is not only historically inaccurate, but also really lovely from a gameplay perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Do you know how many destroyer drivers, especiallly those driving US ones, still don't understand that they should probably check the range of their torpedoes before going into battle? More than a few times I've ended up having to rapidly dodge - or occasionally simply end up hit by - torpedoes launched by some idiot in a mid-tier destroyer at a target 10 km away. So not only did they launch them in a hazardous manner to their own team, but they were going to jack poo poo to the other team irrespective of any other factors regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Leif. posted:How do you do manual torp launch? Is that meaning just changing the direction the plane comes in from or do you mean something else? Holding ALT when you have a dive or torpedo squadron selected lets you manually set their attack run. That said, it's currently been nerfed into virtual ineffectiveness by WG at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 19:34
|
|