|
The t4 is better than the t3, at least the guns do damage
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:05 |
|
|
psy.Che posted:Just got the Amagi and the first game went pretty well for my standards (sorry for the screenshot). Is the ship really good or was this just a one-off? From what I've heard, the Amagi is a pretty good boat. The only 2 "meh" IJN BBs are the Myogi and the Izumo, and they're not BAD, just not good either. The Kawachi isn't amazing either, but its fuckin tier 3, and its gun placement let you do some silly stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:From what I've heard, the Amagi is a pretty good boat. The only 2 "meh" IJN BBs are the Myogi and the Izumo, and they're not BAD, just not good either. The Kawachi isn't amazing either, but its fuckin tier 3, and its gun placement let you do some silly stuff. What's meh about the Izumo? I was originally looking forward to it due to the unique turret setup. I was hoping for the Nelson class to be included in the Royal Navy for the very same reason (I can't wait for the Brits anyway).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
psy.Che posted:What's meh about the Izumo? I was originally looking forward to it due to the unique turret setup. I was hoping for the Nelson class to be included in the Royal Navy for the very same reason (I can't wait for the Brits anyway). I'm looking forward to the Brits as well. Also, WG seems to make all of the Tier 9's rather meh. I'm grinding the Japanese cruiser line right now and plan on skipping the Ibuki entirely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
I'm super excited for the Brits. My grandfather sailed on two separate Tribal-class destroyers during the Second World War in the Royal Canadian Navy, and saw a ton of action. I saw somewhere that the Tribals will be the Tier 7 British destroyers, so I'm excited to role play my grandpa 
Alain Perdrix fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Oct 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
psy.Che posted:What's meh about the Izumo? I was originally looking forward to it due to the unique turret setup. I was hoping for the Nelson class to be included in the Royal Navy for the very same reason (I can't wait for the Brits anyway). Mediocre accuracy, armor that doesn't seem to entirely be working correctly, massive amount of empty space on deck - which both looks weird aesthetically and makes it far easier to use plunging fire against you, since in WoWS superstructure or equipment tends to intercept shots, and seems to catch on fire at the drop of a hat. Oh, and it has the general Japanese battleship problem of the stock hull using absolutely poo poo AP shells. It has one of the overall lowest win rates in the game, and I believe it has had the lowest WR occasionally. MoraleHazard posted:I'm looking forward to the Brits as well. Mainly seems to be on the Japanese side. Izumo is bad, Kagero is at the very least a step down from the Fubuki if not bad, and Ibuki is mediocre. Taiho is supposed to be good though. For the US, Iowa is good, Fletcher is good - for a destroyer, and Essex is good. I seem to recall there are complaints about the Baltimore though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
The T9 Fletcher is arguably the best torpedo boat in the game and the T9 Iowa is almost as good as the Montana. The Kagero and both CVs are also very good, and I hear good stories about the Baltimore (including it being the best AA ship in the game). I even thought the Izumo was good, definitely better than Amagi. It's the most accurate of all BBs. Edit: How is Kagero a step down? If you want to fire torpedoes at long range from stealth there is no question Kagero is better than T8. If you want to do something other than that, you are playing the wrong line. Izumo is not a bad ship. It has better front armour than Iowa and is more accurate. It's biggest problems are a slight lack of range but even worse, it's concealment rating. The 2m cred concealment mod is mandatory. kaesarsosei fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
So what's this about stock hulls affecting AP shell quality? Does AP penetration and gun accuracy increase as you upgrade Japanese battleship hulls?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Anyone know if the German higher tier CAs are any good? Suffering through the Karlsruhe makes me wonder if it's even worth it. I know the Königsberg is pretty cool, but what about t7+?
PirateBob fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Oct 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Alain Perdrix posted:I'm super excited for the Brits. My grandfather sailed on two separate Tribal-class destroyers during the Second World War in the Royal Canadian Navy, and saw a ton of action. I saw somewhere that the Tribals will be the Tier 7 British destroyers, so I'm excited to role play my grandpa I'm waiting for the County-class cruiser and Q-class destroyer for the same reasons, though not really expecting the Q-class to happen. I'm interested to see where the County ends up on the tree, as the class that succeeded it was a treaty downgrade, they were both from the 1920s, and they were the last British 8" cruiser classes. Could be the first tree to have a 6" cruiser sitting at 10.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
PirateBob posted:Anyone know if the German higher tier CAs are any good? Suffering through the Karlsruhe makes me wonder if it's even worth it. I know the Königsberg is pretty cool, but what about t7+? From what I understand they're really good at spamming AP (yes, AP) at targets. They'll drop dead if you sneeze on them with a battleship though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:I'm waiting for the County-class cruiser and Q-class destroyer for the same reasons, though not really expecting the Q-class to happen. I'm interested to see where the County ends up on the tree, as the class that succeeded it was a treaty downgrade, they were both from the 1920s, and they were the last British 8" cruiser classes. Could be the first tree to have a 6" cruiser sitting at 10. Depends on whether the Worcester is out by then I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
PirateBob posted:Anyone know if the German higher tier CAs are any good? Suffering through the Karlsruhe makes me wonder if it's even worth it. I know the Königsberg is pretty cool, but what about t7+? wdarkk posted:From what I understand they're really good at spamming AP (yes, AP) at targets. They'll drop dead if you sneeze on them with a battleship though. Based on stats they have really good AP Damage. Not sure how that relates to AP penetration and citadel-ability. The operative questions are whether they have higher penetration and accuracy to make that something that's feasible (especially at high tier) and the range/armor to not die horribly attempting to do so. On paper they're bog standard 8 x 8" or 9 x 8" gun cruisers until tier 10, when it's 12 x 8", and they have mediocre AA range so will be vulnerable. Personally I'm more interested in the 11" cruisers getting added, assuming it happens in a few years. Too much time invested in Navyfield to not grind up that line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
kaesarsosei posted:The T9 Fletcher is arguably the best torpedo boat in the game and the T9 Iowa is almost as good as the Montana. The Kagero and both CVs are also very good, and I hear good stories about the Baltimore (including it being the best AA ship in the game). I even thought the Izumo was good, definitely better than Amagi. It's the most accurate of all BBs. 3x3 is much better at blanketing an area than 2x4 to begin with, along with giving you more flexibility at staggering them, and Fubuki has access to 15 km torpedoes if you want them as well(You're probably thinking of the fact that Kagero gets access to 20 km torps). And shooting torpedoes over 10 km, and especially over 15 km, tends to be a crapshoot to begin with, more relying on luck someone will blunder into one rather than any skill besides knowing where people tend to go. Fubuki also has better gun rotation, speed, and rudder shift, along with the same AA(for all that AA on a destroyer matters). It does have fractionally worse concealment(7 vs. 6.8), but once skills, modules, and paint come into play that's virtually irrelevant. Adventure Pigeon posted:So what's this about stock hulls affecting AP shell quality? Does AP penetration and gun accuracy increase as you upgrade Japanese battleship hulls? While I don't recall anything specifically stated by WG, just about everyone on here who has played the Nagato has noticed the same thing. That is, penetrations and citadels become much more common once you get out of the stock hull, even when getting seemingly the same hits. And if you look at the detailed screen for the main guns, they list a switch from Type 88 shells to Type 91 shells. The only noted change is a 200 damage increase, but general feel is that they also penetrate SIGNIFICANTLY better. This affect Nagato and Amagi for sure, and possibly Izumo as well though it starts with so-called Type 90 shells at stock instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
IIRC the difference with the Nagato (and Amagi, and maybe other IJN ships) is that an Armor-Piercing Capped shell was developed between the wars, and the hull upgrade gives it to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:IIRC the difference with the Nagato (and Amagi, and maybe other IJN ships) is that an Armor-Piercing Capped shell was developed between the wars, and the hull upgrade gives it to you. Well, yeah, HISTORICALLY the penetration difference makes sense, but WG is generally perfectly capable of ignoring that stuff when they want, and plenty of the players are both not going to know that, and/or not notice there's a switch between the stock and A hull. And thus wonder what the hell's wrong with their guns, especially when switching from Fuso to Nagato, or Nagato to Amagi. It's a completely unlisted in-game change, which it not exactly the fairest choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Reiterating that New Mexico is the best boat. The only thing it can't thrash is another New Mexico angled properly. I've had a series of 100k+ damage games yesterday and today where I end up stuck in against another NM and we wind up in a slow dance of death before one of us fucks up or a cruiser shows up to burn one of us down. On one of those games, on the Ocean map, I got one full, clean salvo on an enemy New Mexico, 8 or 9 penetrations from about 12km took a huge chunk off of him. He pointed his nose at me and spent the rest of the match in reverse. I hit him several times, but the sections I was hitting were completely saturated, so I turned to clean up the cruisers in range while he lobbed some HE at me. I was wondering if he'd just keep backing up to the edge of the map, but another New Mexico on my team broke through on the other side of the map and forced him to try to turn away from both of us. Very satisfying kill in the end but he lasted long enough for me to find out he had Superintendent because I definitely watched his HP tick up four times. Quite a ship 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
I am officially not a fan of the Dresden.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:3x3 is much better at blanketing an area than 2x4 to begin with, along with giving you more flexibility at staggering them, and Fubuki has access to 15 km torpedoes if you want them as well(You're probably thinking of the fact that Kagero gets access to 20 km torps). And shooting torpedoes over 10 km, and especially over 15 km, tends to be a crapshoot to begin with, more relying on luck someone will blunder into one rather than any skill besides knowing where people tend to go. Fubuki also has better gun rotation, speed, and rudder shift, along with the same AA(for all that AA on a destroyer matters). It does have fractionally worse concealment(7 vs. 6.8), but once skills, modules, and paint come into play that's virtually irrelevant. 3x3 tubes is better than 2x4, yes. Quad tubes are also a bit annoying in that their spread is an even number, when you've been using odd numbered launchers since T6. It takes some getting used to for you to get back into the groove of having your torps start their spread without one down the middle. The Type 93s, though, are unquestionably better torpedoes than the Fubuki's 15kms. While this only realistically increases your range by 1-2km, as you hit view range limits beyond 16ish KM, it nullifies the threat of targets moving out of range of your shots if fired at the edge of 14km. Torpedoes also arrive at target significantly faster, meaning you don't need to be further in front of your target to reach the highly desired 90 degree angle of attack for a torpedo run, and your target has less time to relax and forget to do anything before the torps are bearing down on him. Gunwise, the Fubuki has more range than the Kagero. There are no other differences since the recent patch. The Fubuki only deals with the T8 Benson as its tier counterpart, though, so its not quite as heavily outmatched in a gun battle as the Kagero is versus the mighty Fletcher. The other main difference is... well, the Tier. The Fubuki sees Essexes and Midways less often, and the IJN CVs at this tier recently got some nerfs. The Kagero will see the Taiho and Essex regularly, and the Essex in particular is the beginning of the US CV hellhole. Once again, the primary issue of both ships is the HP bloat on hostile ships making you need a LOT of torp hits to drown somebody, coupled with increasing torpedo defense values. CVs that would die to 3 torps now take 6+. BB's require a full spread to go down, except now you need to be landing those shots at twice the distance with more reaction time to your torpedo attack. Oh, and you've got slower reloading torps to complicate matters, with more and more planes buzzing overhead. It is VERY fun to get those torpedo hits, but I can see how people without the patience or interest in DD gunplay can get turned off on the Type 93 DDs and the bullshit that occurs at top tier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:3x3 tubes is better than 2x4, yes. Quad tubes are also a bit annoying in that their spread is an even number, when you've been using odd numbered launchers since T6. It takes some getting used to for you to get back into the groove of having your torps start their spread without one down the middle. The Type 93s, though, are unquestionably better torpedoes than the Fubuki's 15kms. While this only realistically increases your range by 1-2km, as you hit view range limits beyond 16ish KM, it nullifies the threat of targets moving out of range of your shots if fired at the edge of 14km. Torpedoes also arrive at target significantly faster, meaning you don't need to be further in front of your target to reach the highly desired 90 degree angle of attack for a torpedo run, and your target has less time to relax and forget to do anything before the torps are bearing down on him. They start with the same base turret rotation speed, but Fubuki has an additional gun upgrade available that boosts it by >4 seconds that Kagero lacks. Admittedly not a huge difference, but it's just another thing Fubuki has over its supposedly higher tier counterpart - I hadn't even noticed the higher range. As for torpedoes, the Type 93s are definitely better, with more speed, range and damage, but I'd argue not that much better until WG hopefully completely reworks torpedo detection in general. While they travel faster, at those ranges you're still looking at a huge travel time in which who knows what the ship(s) you were aiming at has done, and they still give ships 12 seconds to react to them being spotted, even if nothing spotted them before the ship actually in danger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Oldstench posted:Does this game take a supercomputer to run decently? I'm trying to find something to play on my scrub-tier PC. Confirming this game runs decently on my old AMD A-6 2ghz APU with no dedicated graphics card and 6GB of RAM laptop. Decently is the word - I have to set everything to low or medium or off depending on what those graphics settings are. In fact, it's one of the few recent games I can run on it, which makes me happy and prevents me from doing the sensible thing of buying a new laptop for better road trip fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Oh right, the gun upgrade. Its still not enough to have the turrets turn faster than the boat can turn, unfortunately. Torpedo detection is crazy, reload time is crazy, torpedo defense is crazy, CVs are still crazy at the top tiers (seriously, why haven't they taken an axe to the Midway yet?). Chances of being fixed? HA. The Fletcher/Gearing will get NERFED before anything changes with high tier DDs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:Oh right, the gun upgrade. Its still not enough to have the turrets turn faster than the boat can turn, unfortunately. Yeah, it's not a particularly serious difference, I'm just annoyed that it's yet another way Fubuki is superior to its "upgrade." The only things Kagero has over Fubuki are slightly better health, better torpedoes - which are mitigated by worse launchers, and a 0.1 km difference in detection - which is basically neutralized once the skill/module/paint modifiers come into play. In every other category, the T8 matches or exceeds the T9, including in the speed and rudder departments - which are of of critical import for that ship class. As for fixing ship torpedoes, I can hope, right?  I think part of the problem with carriers especially is you have a lot of people not bothering to actually look at the stats and just whine about IJN carriers, as putting all those squadrons in the air looks visually impressive, while complaining US carriers are completely outmatched. While it's true to an extent at the lowest tiers, actually comparing the numbers and soft stats(torpedo spread primarily, though squadron size has a something of an exponential effect with dive bombers too, even disregarding the fact that US ones also do double the damage of their counterparts) shows there's not nearly the difference most people complain there is - especially outside T4 & T5. One big reason is that the "Oh, but the larger number of squadrons can cover the map better" argument basically falls flat on its face once there's a decent amount of AA sailing around. But that's why you keep getting nerfs to the IJN carriers and buffs to the US ones, when at the highest tiers US carriers are already outperforming their counterparts. WG just keeps doing blanket buffs and nerfs with very little regard for how it affects everything in general. Lord Koth fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Hiryu is much better than Ranger in every way that matters, otherwise carrier balance isn't too bad outside of US tier 9 and 10.wdarkk posted:I am officially not a fan of the Dresden. You'll love Kolberg then, with exactly identical guns (except you can fire four directly ahead instead of two  ), two extra knots of speed and matchmaking up to tier five.I've shot a Phoenix 170 times in the flat citadel from 3-5 km, without killing it. And HE is worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
From the chatter I hear the German tier 5 cruiser (Konigsberg) is good, and the tier 10 is good, but the rest are pretty underwhelming or downright bad. I think ill probably get my 1.5 on that line and stop at the Konigsberg. It sounds like the Russian DDs got a huge nerf and instead of firing adding just under 3km to visibility, its now more like 5km, so the band of range from which they can shoot while stealthed is now extremely narrow or non-existent on most hulls. Game patched just now when I booted it up, anyone know what else changed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Hiryu is much better than Ranger in every way that matters, otherwise carrier balance isn't too bad outside of US tier 9 and 10. Good thing I have plenty of free xp then! I kind of want to try out the Roon but I'm not willing to spend THAT much gold. Another tier 5 ship for the tier 5 throne I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Hiryu is much better than Ranger in every way that matters, otherwise carrier balance isn't too bad outside of US tier 9 and 10. To be fair, I was including the changes the devlog mentioned were coming in 5.1, where US carriers are getting a buff that makes their dive bombers more accurate even when disrupted, whereas IJN ones are getting a nerf at lower tiers(though how many was not specified) to torpedo damage, supposedly counterbalanced by making getting a smaller reticule when manual dive bombing - which is worth very little for them even at high tiers and effectively worthless at the lower tiers where they're losing damage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
I've got to say I really wanted the Dresden to be good, the Emden was a seriously awesome ship and deserves to be non-terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Wow, the HE on german cruisers is anemic. And the AP can't pen. Can't even pen a YUBARI. What the actual gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:Wow, the HE on german cruisers is anemic. And the AP can't pen. Can't even pen a YUBARI. What the actual gently caress. The 4" guns are the worst main guns, shot for shot, in the game, including 4" destroyer guns. It's not close. 15 rounds per minute doesn't count for much when they don't deal damage. I think I'd rather have six Umikaze guns a side than what Dresden and Kolberg have. The tier 4 6" guns are apparently the second lowest penetration of all 6" guns in the game, above only Aurora. The only advantage of the tier 2-4 guns is that they have so little penetration that you won't over penetrate cruiser bow/stern, battleship superstructure or (I think) destroyer midsection. edit: as far as I remember I've scored three citadel hits with them, all in the tier 2. One citadel hit on a German tier 1 with AP, two citadel hits on a German tier 1 with HE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Teaming up with Hazdoc last night, he set me straight on captain's skills. I hadn't noticed his recommendations were added to the OP and some of my captains needed retraining. Yeah, I agree the ROF on the low tier German cruisers cannot make up for their anemic pen and damage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Does the setting "Limit camera view angles on torpedo tubes" even do anything?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
PirateBob posted:Does the setting "Limit camera view angles on torpedo tubes" even do anything? I presume it prevents you from turning your camera beyond the angle your torpedo launchers can turn while in the torpedo interface.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Hey, are you guys on the Warships EU server?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
It's amazing how I can play one game in the Kolberg and instantly don't want to play anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Karlsruhe is the same if you were hoping for something to look forward to
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Meanwhile, Izyaslav is where the Russian destroyers stop being bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
I would hate this game much less if all the BBs would stop being such back of the map sniper bitches. So when I play a BB I need to either hang back hoping for lucky hits at 20km, or sail in for a few moments of actually fun brawling before exploding due to being in range of their entire team 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
The trick, assuming you're not on Ocean, is to pick where you brawl. When teams have a bunch of pubbies sniping in battleships, the majority of them will generally congregate together in a group, so the trick is to figure out where that is and then push hard up the opposite side. Even if you die, you'll likely cause them to get disorganized enough that your own team of lovely groupers eventually get it in their heads to push and run into the now strung out enemy and sometimes even win. edit: Until the very top tiers, this is obviously much easier to do with Japanese battleships than US ones due to significantly higher speed to shift location, of course. Lord Koth fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Oct 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:05 |
|
|
A_Raving_Loon posted:Meanwhile, Izyaslav is where the Russian destroyers stop being bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:05
|
|
