|
Delorence Fickle posted:I could see these ships being a tier 8 premium or even set up as its own "experimental battleship" line on the US tech tree. Yeah, some of the earlier ones might actually work. I kind of expect the best spot for them on the tech tree to go to the 1920s south Dakota design though, so premium is semi-likely.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
Tiger Crazy posted:I thought this video was pretty cool showing the way they loaded they massive 16in gun. This video is amazing. "It's a lotta turret"  "An outstanding case where's it's better to give than to receive." 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
The only damage that needs buffing is dive bombers for CVs, travel time or rearm time could be tweaked if that isn't enough (there's some skills/upgrades for this though). Biggest issue is the weirdo fighter DPS figures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:The disparity between air power is what I mean, if you're up against a CV a tier higher than you, your fighters will get shredded even in a 2 vs 1 situation. They need to either fix that or fix the MM for it. Fixing it with health alone might not be a good idea since plane hp needs to increase to counter ever increasing AA with tiers. I'm not that good at playing my CV, but I have my moments. When I do well, I crush it. Every flight of torpedo bombers has the ability to completely wreck up any capital ship you throw them up against. Even if you fail to kill them outright, a good run leaves them broken and bloody. The problem with boosting them is that they're already real bastards when you play them to their full potential. Dive bombers need work, yes, but torpedo bombers? Those things hurt. Getting sandwiched between two flights of them is basically game over for any BB you throw them against. If they're boosted further because people can't use them to their fullest potential, the people that can do well with them right now will crush it. It's the same with BBs. You could argue that the long reload on their guns is a great burden for people that can't aim, but serious balance problems would pop up if BBs were made any stronger. You can see how much damage you're doing if you linger until the end of a game and check out a detailed report, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li-G09vw9bc never be afraid to beach yourself, if the time is right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Do destroyers even get spotting XP and credits?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:Do destroyers even get spotting XP and credits? i dunno, do any boats get those in this game?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Delorence Fickle posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_battleship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Incomparable 20-inch guns.  Also, I first read the name as HMS Inoperable, which probably would've been quite fitting, really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:I'm not that good at playing my CV, but I have my moments. When I do well, I crush it. Every flight of torpedo bombers has the ability to completely wreck up any capital ship you throw them up against. Even if you fail to kill them outright, a good run leaves them broken and bloody.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Nordick posted:This was linked in the "see also" section: Am I reading that correctly ? Tillman IV was designed with a main battery of 24(!) sixteen inch guns?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Am I reading that correctly ? Tillman IV was designed with a main battery of 24(!) sixteen inch guns? IV-2 had 15 18 inch guns, which considering the ratio of 5 18s to 12 16s I remember from Montana design studies is similarly nuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
hopterque posted:Knowing Wargaming we're gonna get a ton of insane paper projects and stuff that only ever existed as a tall tale told around a campfire. Unlike the paper tanks, paper ships typically received a lot more effort and were way more fleshed-out before being discarded. The Montana-class was all ready to go until the US decided it didn't need a giant anti-Yamato BB when aircraft carriers were working just fine; similarly, the Super Yamato-class designed to counter the Montana was completely planned out, but was never built because they had to divert production to other ships. Even ships that were never really expected to be built got lots of attention as theoretical exercises. Nordick posted:20-inch guns. The Super Yamato was going to have 6 20-inch guns. To replace those lame 18-inch popguns on the Yamato. Japan really went in hard on the "Bigger is better" school of thought. The Shinano at 65,000 tons was, I believe, the biggest non-nuclear carrier ever built. Vengarr fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Well, Diagansui has already shown up on the WoWS forums, so who knows, maybe we'll see an H-45 be put into the game and wehraboo dreams will be fulfilled. ^^^ The Saratoga class was considerably larger than the Shinano and was non-nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
lmbo 3 cleveland division is the greatest poo poo ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:^^^ The Saratoga class was considerably larger than the Shinano and was non-nuclear. Wikipedia lists its displacement as 20 thousand tons less
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
grrarg posted:I think the main problem with carriers at the moment is the lack of a tutorial or firing range to practice torpedo bombing. It is hard to get the hang of the timing for manual drops when you start with one wing of bombers and have several minutes of flight time and reloading between drops. There is way less margin for error and feedback for mistakes than the slowest reloading and traversing battleship guns. Agreed. I can't honestly say I'd have known about manual mode or how to make it work if I there weren't posts on the forum, and gameplay vids on Youtube I went looking for. They should just put tutorial videos embedded in the game, under help. 'This is how you launch torps manually, this how you work your planes, this is the difference between HE/AP,' etc. Simple things that are easily translated, and transmit as much information through pure visuals as possible. But even if that happened, I doubt more than a few people would take advantage of it. WG's playerbase has always been thick as poo poo and twice as stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
gwrtheyrn posted:Wikipedia lists its displacement as 20 thousand tons less http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saratoga_%28CV-60%29 Sorry, I'm dumb. I meant the Forrestal class. The Kitty Hawks and Kennedy class were larger too, I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saratoga_%28CV-60%29 Of course there was more than one. This one has a more interesting end though. Sunk by atomic bomb test 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Nordick posted:Also, I first read the name as HMS Inoperable, which probably would've been quite fitting, really. I liked the sound of this and googled it, look what I found.  http://rcnc.rcwarshipcombat.com/Portals/0/Users/Kotori87/Complete%20List%20of%20I-boats.txt HMS Inexplainable HMS Insubmergible HMS Irretrievable HMS Inoxidizable And my favourite: HMS Inextinguishable 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Kuntz posted:I liked the sound of this and googled it, look what I found. This is a mix of amazingly good names and amazingly bad ones. HMS Immedicable HMS Implantable HMS Implausable HMS Incircumcisable HMS Insultable
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Surprisingly enough, The Forrestal class only displaces 60,000.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:Japan really went in hard on the "Bigger is better" school of thought. The Shinano at 65,000 tons was, I believe, the biggest non-nuclear carrier ever built. The funny thing is that the Shinano had a relatively small air group compared to other fleet CVs, something like 40-50 planes, roughly half as much as the US CVs had. The ship should have aided a task force by providing fuel and support, thanks to her enormous loading capacity. Only by the time she was launched (and promptly sunk) the battle was getting closer to the home islands already anyway, so that such a ship had no real use anymore. :navy sperging off:
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Well, Diagansui has already shown up on the WoWS forums, so who knows, maybe we'll see an H-45 be put into the game and wehraboo dreams will be fulfilled. 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. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Comedy option: Surcouf as a French destroyer? Nahh, the most delusional people are the ones who think the Germans ever built modern WWII ships. Surcouf would be funny but everybody knows the one true tier ten destroyers are the mogadors and capitani romani.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:This is a mix of amazingly good names and amazingly bad ones. HMS Manligheten still takes the cake for actual ship names. Captain: Johnny Bravo. This being wargaming I fully expect all this crazy paper poo poo to be in as some sort of Tier X+ or Tier XI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:HMS Manligheten still takes the cake for actual ship names. Captain: Johnny Bravo. Overall they seem to have picked considerably more sensible tens than in tanks. Good candidates for destroyer tens are more common than not, there's some good cruisers to be had, battleships aren't too nonsensical, and carriers are there for nations that had them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Well, Diagansui has already shown up on the WoWS forums, so who knows, maybe we'll see an H-45 be put into the game and wehraboo dreams will be fulfilled. The Kriegsmarine is going to need at least one of the H ships, probably 41, because the Bismarck isn't remotely feasible as a tier 10. The gently caress is a H-45 though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Kuntz posted:I liked the sound of this and googled it, look what I found. HMS Ignoble HMS Immemorable HMS Interchangeable HMS Inconceivable
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
It's a shame that the HMS Gay Viking was just a motor gun boat. Not to mention the notable butt pirate HMS Gay Corsair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
They really should buff the turning speed of guns on the Japanese destroyer. Moving around and evading fire is your primary means of not exploding, but this means you can't use your guns. At all. Sometimes your ship goes so fast that you can't bring your guns on target fast enough to track it and take a shot. Them having shittier guns than the US DDs is enough, really, they don't also need to be almost useless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:They really should buff the turning speed of guns on the Japanese destroyer. Moving around and evading fire is your primary means of not exploding, but this means you can't use your guns. At all. Sometimes your ship goes so fast that you can't bring your guns on target fast enough to track it and take a shot. One tip I got is that the Aiming Expertise skill is supposed to work wonders on them. +2,5°/s is a ~55% buff in traverse rate! Bit silly to have them so reliant on a single skill though. Now if only I could get a few piasters to actually try it out...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Nordick posted:Oh god, these are amazing. This document is the gift that keeps on giving. HMS Inflammable HMS Irreclaimable HMS Irredeemable If we ever get to name our ships I'm totally calling HMS Inflammable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:Them having shittier guns than the US DDs is enough, really, they don't also need to be almost useless. 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? Ugh the tier 7 US DD only goes 35 knots kill me now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
The research for a Swedish branch has already begun. Implementation in 2020, maybe? (no ships above ~9000 tons deplacement, no aircraft carriers - it's destroyers and "pocket battlecruisers" all the way down)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:IV-2 had 15 18 inch guns, which considering the ratio of 5 18s to 12 16s I remember from Montana design studies is similarly nuts. Does anyone have a picture of these? Even if you go French and stuff 4 guns per turret, you're still looking at 6 goddamn turrets on this ship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Was just put in a game by myself against a Yamato, a Baltimore, and a Mogami. What?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:Was just put in a game by myself against a Yamato, a Baltimore, and a Mogami. What? Did you win?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
YellerBill posted:This document is the gift that keeps on giving. I mean, I assume this is nothing official (no poo poo) but just some sort of complication of procedurally generated words, considering the first one is just "HMS Ible", but whatever, they're hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 21:36
|
|