|
I suspect it's because it would be a special gimmick just for American BBs and once weeaboos and wehraboos realize it they'll be kicking and screaming for balancing. Radar FCS historically gave the US a ridiculous advantage.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Met my first Warspite. Took about 20k hp off her within a couple minutes of shooting her with the Mahan.  MoraleHazard posted:I love the Nagato's secondaries. Simply shreds destroyers at 7.5 km. Amagi has somewhat weaker secondaries. Those on Nagato are comparable with the Yamato. And how would they include radar-assisted fire control anyway? Most of the big advantages of it are when you're not fighting under the fiar weather conditions of the current maps, so what's left? A slight passive bonus to shell dispersion? Magni fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Magni posted:Met my first Warspite. Took about 20k hp off her within a couple minutes of shooting her with the Mahan. Radar assisted FCS lets you score accurate hits from the first shot. It lets you make real time corrections to your firing solutions at a faster rate than traditional methods. For game purposes it means American ships get tighter spreads and the lead indicator hardcoded into the game just for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Radar assisted FCS lets you score accurate hits from the first shot. It lets you make real time corrections to your firing solutions at a faster rate than traditional methods. For game purposes it means American ships get tighter spreads and the lead indicator hardcoded into the game just for them. You can already do that in-game anyway. And gently caress giving anyone the lead indicator (not that WWII-era radar-assisst was anywhere close to that in terms of actual capability) unless the ships in question are nerfed into the loving ground so hard nobody wants to ever play them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
MoraleHazard posted:I love the Nagato's secondaries. Simply shreds destroyers at 7.5 km. Are there any colourful picture guides to Citadel locations yet? I always aim dead center on a ship at water line or I pepper the towers. I'm not sure if I am doing it wrong, but I never seem to get Citadel hits so I assume that's not where they are on the ships I'm shooting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
NuckmasterJ posted:Are there any colourful picture guides to Citadel locations yet? I always aim dead center on a ship at water line or I pepper the towers. I'm not sure if I am doing it wrong, but I never seem to get Citadel hits so I assume that's not where they are on the ships I'm shooting. Aim below the smokestacks and the turrets, right at the waterline. Some ships are harder to score citadel hits against than others and distance also plays a role becuase for best results, you want to hit the belt at a slight downward angle or the deck on a steep one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I can't believe they are ignoring radar directed fire control on American BBs. The American BBs didn't have huge conning towers and optical directors specifically because of the radar director, if they ignore it, American BBs are going to be nigh on useless, though their 16 inch guns could pen as well as Jap 18 inchers so there's that. Think the HMS Warspite as far as range, but with an entire tree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I can't believe they are ignoring radar directed fire control on American BBs. I'd rather have the Iowa in the game than radar fire control, and with it she'd be a tier eleven at least. IIRC, it was the Iowa and New Jersey that dropped a first salvo straddle on a destroyer at 25 km. Hopefully good radar gets a big fudge factor adjustment (if I remember right US BB ranges were pretty competitive, and didn't have the awful range the Kawachi had at tier three.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
I just don't know if I could support a tree of BBs that literally cannot shoot past 20km, period. They should probably still have moderately tighter groups for shots because their gunnery computers were miles ahead of the Japanese solutions, even without the radar director for ranging, but without that director they just don't have the backup hardware to get the 22+km range that the Japanese BBs have in Warboats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
orange juche posted:The American BBs didn't have huge conning towers and optical directors specifically because of the radar director, if they ignore it, American BBs are going to be nigh on useless, though their 16 inch guns could pen as well as Jap 18 inchers so there's that. Think the HMS Warspite as far as range, but with an entire tree. Um, no? Most of the BBs in the tree are considerably older than radar directors. Also, having a kilometre or two less maximum range is hardly gonna render them "nigh-on useless". Shooting beyond 15-16km with battleship guns only works against targets that don't even try to evade anyway and even then it's a crapshoot that's going to do nothing substantial most of the time. And I somewhat doubt that any 16in-armed BBs below the high tiers are going to get the superheavy shells.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
orange juche posted:I just don't know if I could support a tree of BBs that literally cannot shoot past 20km, period. They should probably still have moderately tighter groups for shots because their gunnery computers were miles ahead of the Japanese solutions, even without the radar director for ranging, but without that director they just don't have the backup hardware to get the 22+km range that the Japanese BBs have in Warboats. Pretty sure their max range was pretty good. Hopefully it still is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
FYI the player profiles on the WoWS web site are working again today. RE: US BB's, if they don't take the radar into account for the range, and only use the height of the spotting towers, it would be pretty odd, as the earlier 14" guns with their giant towers would out range the later 16" armed BB's that lost the towers. Somehow I don't see the USS Texas/Arizona at tier 6? out ranging the Iowa or North Dakota at 9 and 10.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Magni posted:Um, no? Most of the BBs in the tree are considerably older than radar directors. Also, having a kilometre or two less maximum range is hardly gonna render them "nigh-on useless". Shooting beyond 15-16km with battleship guns only works against targets that don't even try to evade anyway and even then it's a crapshoot that's going to do nothing substantial most of the time. And I somewhat doubt that any 16in-armed BBs below the high tiers are going to get the superheavy shells. It being a crapshoot is more a function of the Japanese BBs having a huge RNG circle where the shells can land. If the US BBs have the same firing characteristics, then everyone's going to just pick the ones with better armor, which is probably leaning heavily on the Japanese for the higher tiers. The US BBs were both slower and had less armor because they adhered to the Washington Naval Treaty, with the exception of the Tier X theoretical BB that was never built. They did neat poo poo like sloping their armor on some of the later hulls like the South Dakota and the Iowa to get better protection within the constraints of the Washington Naval Treaty, but they definitely had less armor. orange juche fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Don't have time to research it right now, but I don't think the Iowa's were built per the treaty, but they were designed to fit through the Panama Canal. They are just barely small enough to fit in the canal locks. The treaty had a displacement limit of 35,000 tons? The Iowa's are way the hell over that, at least 45,000 tons. The treaty also limited aircraft carrier displacement, which was completely ignored by all the US fast attack carriers. Along with the above, the treaty limited total displacement of the fleet, which was clearly ignored completely during an all out war where the US built as many ships as possible, as fast as possible. The US had something like 10x the treaty limits for displacement in aircraft carriers alone at the end of the war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
orange juche posted:It being a crapshoot is more a function of the Japanese BBs having a huge RNG circle where the shells can land. If the US BBs have the same firing characteristics, then everyone's going to just pick the ones with better armor, which is probably leaning heavily on the Japanese for the higher tiers. The US BBs were both slower and had less armor because they adhered to the Washington Naval Treaty, with the exception of the Tier X theoretical BB that was never built. ...dude, the only post-treaty BBs in the japanese tree are the Amagi, the coming T9 papership and the Yamato - and the Amagi was under construction when the treaty was signed. And similarily, the Colorado at T7 is the last treaty BB in the current US line (and like the Nagato part of the "Big Seven"). The North Carolina at T8 is in its "escalator clause" configuration that tossed quite a few of the treaty limits including the 14in gun limitation. By the time the Iowas were laid down, nobody gave a flying gently caress about the treaty anymore. Magni fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
The WWII treaty battleships other than the KGV all had more than 14". The North Carolina and South Dakota are both treaty ships, and the Iowa is just a South Dakota that gained 10k tons for 6 knots. Treaty battleship means 35000 tons, pretty much. Incidentally the Essexes are basically follow on Yorktowns with the most desperately wanted stuff. The first entirely non-treaty carriers were the Midways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Man, going back to the Cleveland is kinda ridiculous once you're used to making every shot count and getting good at angling with the Pensacola. I guess playing against unmitigated bads helps, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The WWII treaty battleships other than the KGV all had more than 14". The North Carolina and South Dakota are both treaty ships, and the Iowa is just a South Dakota that gained 10k tons for 6 knots. Treaty battleship means 35000 tons, pretty much. What are the chances that they'll add a midway class in the game? Despite what I said earlier about not paying for a ship, if they add that as a premium, I'll throw my credit card and pin code at them. E: I just read the entire wiki article regarding the Midway class and it pretty much answered my question: Never Dalael fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Apr 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
orange juche posted:
All these armor values are freely available online, and the only ship that has better armour than the Iowa is the Yamato. Things are as they should be. The H series ships would have equivalent armor schemes to the Iowa, being made out of magic. The Iowa also has the best deck armour out of any ship, which will be nice. You do realize that the tier-counterparts of the South Dakota/North Carolina is going to be the Amagi right? xthetenth posted:The WWII treaty battleships other than the KGV all had more than 14". The North Carolina and South Dakota are both treaty ships, and the Iowa is just a South Dakota that gained 10k tons for 6 knots. Treaty battleship means 35000 tons, pretty much. Are they going to put the KGV as a tier 7/8? 14-inch guns don't seem to change the game too much but the British tree might be a clusterfuck with all the weird gun changes and war programme desperation. German ships might actually be fun. Terrible deck armor and stern strength isn't going to factor into the game too often, and being overweight doesn't at all. Bismarck is going to be a crazy brawler with its cruiser-cancelling belt armour.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Hey guys, you know what these battleships with good speed, great armor and guns as well as the best AA really need to be competitive? More accuracy. There should be a weeaboo/wehraboo equivalent for people who want US ships to be heads and shoulders above their competition because of realism (no nevermind those other ships, those should be balanced around gameplay). I suggest eaglefuckers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Dalael posted:What are the chances that they'll add a midway class in the game? Despite what I said earlier about not paying for a ship, if they add that as a premium, I'll throw my credit card and pin code at them. Midway's the ten soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:There should be a weeaboo/wehraboo equivalent for people who want US ships to be heads and shoulders above their competition because of realism (no nevermind those other ships, those should be balanced around gameplay). I suggest eaglefuckers. We just call them "americans" usually. Eaglefucker is nice though. Gonna try to remember that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
orange juche posted:They did neat poo poo like sloping their armor on some of the later hulls like the South Dakota and the Iowa to get better protection within the constraints of the Washington Naval Treaty, but they definitely had less armor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Not enough connotations with obesity. Burgershitters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Not enough connotations with obesity. Fatlers
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Azhais posted:Fatlers Also: Dalael posted:What are the chances that they'll add a midway class in the game? Despite what I said earlier about not paying for a ship, if they add that as a premium, I'll throw my credit card and pin code at them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Also: Probably when the tree goes feature complete.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Also: gently caress no! I enjoy playing carrier so much, its possibly the only class that is not going to get any free xp invested into it. I enjoy each of my carriers for as long as possible, including the Langley. I don't know wtf is wrong with me...
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The WWII treaty battleships other than the KGV all had more than 14". The North Carolina and South Dakota are both treaty ships, and the Iowa is just a South Dakota that gained 10k tons for 6 knots. Treaty battleship means 35000 tons, pretty much. The treaty explicitedly forbade new ships with guns bigger than 14in and only after the escalator clause was invoked was this limitation lifted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:Direct quote from the devs says they're basing max range on historical director height and width, which means the Japanese with their pagoda masts and focus on optics are probably going to have the longest ranged BBs in the game. Do you have the actual site/blog where they said? It'd be nice to see exactly what they said, though this is exactly the type of stupidity the devs would do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
So I bought the Warspite, because, gently caress you ROYAL NAVY, and the thing has glacially slow turning guns but, my word, it turns like a cruiser, the thing 180's in not much more than a couple of ship lengths it's really weird. Trouble is you then wait 72 seconds for your guns to turn around. I think this is one ship you fit the slower reload for faster turning guns mod on. I am also not sure if they already fixed the armour but it seems fine?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Magni posted:The treaty explicitedly forbade new ships with guns bigger than 14in and only after the escalator clause was invoked was this limitation lifted. Yes it did. The 35k ton ships were still treaty ships, just with that clause invoked. That's why the North Carolina, South Dakota, Dunkerque, Richelieu, Littorio and KGV classes are all treaty battleships and discussed as such, rather than just the Dunkerque and KGV classes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Burt posted:So I bought the Warspite, because, gently caress you ROYAL NAVY, and the thing has glacially slow turning guns but, my word, it turns like a cruiser, the thing 180's in not much more than a couple of ship lengths it's really weird. Trouble is you then wait 72 seconds for your guns to turn around. I think this is one ship you fit the slower reload for faster turning guns mod on. I am also not sure if they already fixed the armour but it seems fine?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Burt posted:I am also not sure if they already fixed the armour but it seems fine? One of the devs in the forum stated that it's just a display bug in the port menu.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:Do you have the actual site/blog where they said? It'd be nice to see exactly what they said, though this is exactly the type of stupidity the devs would do. http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/26229-hms-warspite-armor/page__st__40__pid__721222#entry721222  Also http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/26229-hms-warspite-armor/page__st__80__pid__722778#entry722778  Also apparently Radar isn't totally out yet, they just have no idea how to implement it yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Holy poo poo are Yamato's AA efficient in the game. I sent 2 squads of torpedo bombers in a straight run at a Yamato. 2 more Yamato were close, so all my planes were murdered. No problem, its my fault... I kinda expected it but did that run anyways. A little while later, there's this yamato alone with absolutely no back-up. I sent 2 more squads for it in a straight run. The first squad never made it close, while the 2nd squad dropped 2 torpedoes before vanishing. Okay, that didn't end well. gently caress it, I find where the 3rd Yamato is. He's all alone, so I send the rest of my torpedo bombers for him. 3 torpedoes make it to the water. I'm completely out of planes and am now completely useless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
 E: 141,584 after you tack on some small flooding   vvv done Sidesaddle Cavalry fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
I love destroyer games where everything goes right. Less so the ones where I end up in the wrong place and get proper hosed straight off. How do the Japanese cruisers play, I loved the Phoenix and once I got used to it I think the Omaha is my favorite ship so far. The Cleveland is a completely different animal though, and while I like the extra AA and the guns it's just terribly piggy. I miss having torpedoes too, it's nice to have something to knife fight with if it comes to it. Haven't played with any of the Japanese stuff yet, wondering if it's worth putting some time in that direction. drzrma fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/26229-hms-warspite-armor/page__st__40__pid__721222#entry721222 Also apparently the lower-tier US BBs with the shorter and wider hulls are going to have a similar turning circle radius as the Warspite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
So, some guy on my team got mad at me for ramming an enemy Kongo and killing it when I had 20% health and no forward battery left on my New Orleans... for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:20
|
|