|
I really want to see the six-gun 16 inch turrets for Tillman II and IV.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
If the developers are so sure to overpower the Russian cruiser line, then why do the Russian destroyers mostly stink? In the last season of ranked I almost never saw any. I think I saw a single Tashkent over dozens of Tier 7-8 matches. In comparison, I saw the Sims far more than any Russian DDs and those havent been purchasable since before launch or whatever. The line was harshly nerfed just before release, and the higher tier ships had their HE shells tuned down quite significantly after that. In normal tier 8+ random play I see at least 10 IJN or USN DDs for every Tash, Udaloi, or Khabby. Maybe its an unpopular opinion, but I dont think it would unbalance the game if Expert Marksman once again gave the bigger bonus to 6" guns. Or maybe have a value between 2.5 and 0.7 degrees per second for 6" and 8" guns. Likewise, AFT could maybe give a token bonus (like 5%) to cruiser guns, and keep the 20% buff for DD guns and secondaries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Save for the fact that the entire thing looks like one huge citadel, sure. I think the only thing that *wouldn't* be a citadel hitbox would be the fo'c'sle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Lakedaimon posted:If the developers are so sure to overpower the Russian cruiser line, then why do the Russian destroyers mostly stink? In the last season of ranked I almost never saw any. I think I saw a single Tashkent over dozens of Tier 7-8 matches. In comparison, I saw the Sims far more than any Russian DDs and those havent been purchasable since before launch or whatever. The line was harshly nerfed just before release, and the higher tier ships had their HE shells tuned down quite significantly after that. In normal tier 8+ random play I see at least 10 IJN or USN DDs for every Tash, Udaloi, or Khabby. If I remember correctly, the only Russian/USSR ships that have been really "OP" are the Murmansk (which at one point was better than the Omaha in pretty much every way, and still is a bit better I think) and the Imperator Nikolai (which is mostly just better against HE spam, which it will admittedly see a lot of).
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
El Disco posted:Do you have Microsoft Security Essentials installed? If so, add the WoWS folder to the exception list. I don't have Security Essentials installed, just Avast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:If I remember correctly, the only Russian/USSR ships that have been really "OP" are the Murmansk (which at one point was better than the Omaha in pretty much every way, and still is a bit better I think) and the Imperator Nikolai (which is mostly just better against HE spam, which it will admittedly see a lot of). Gremyaschiy is pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Lakedaimon posted:If the developers are so sure to overpower the Russian cruiser line, then why do the Russian destroyers mostly stink? In the last season of ranked I almost never saw any. I think I saw a single Tashkent over dozens of Tier 7-8 matches. In comparison, I saw the Sims far more than any Russian DDs and those havent been purchasable since before launch or whatever. The line was harshly nerfed just before release, and the higher tier ships had their HE shells tuned down quite significantly after that. In normal tier 8+ random play I see at least 10 IJN or USN DDs for every Tash, Udaloi, or Khabby. They aren't Russian biased at all, just hilariously bad at balancing ships (I haven't played in six months and it's still obvious) and the Russian ships are newer. Anything that starts out really strong at release is dangerous, since the official Wargaming balance method is to radically change every parameter at once and they haven't shown much history of caring about bad ships/tanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Pacra posted:ALSO it's enjoyable to see everyone pine for RN battleships since the easiest retort is that most of their line was known for getting their poo poo pushed in across the globe in the latter century. So somewhat like the German navy, Japanese navy and Russian navy who were wiped info irrelevance far harder, earlier and more permanently than the RN. Give me my Tribal destroyers is all I'm asking. (4 dual 5 inches on my DD  )
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:Give me my Tribal destroyers is all I'm asking. (4 dual 5 inches on my DD Ummm Clemson got those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Lady Morgaga posted:Ummm Clemson got those. And the clemson is a loving murder machine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Lady Morgaga posted:Ummm Clemson got those. Clemson gets 4x twin 4" guns with two wing mounted, Tribal gets 4x twin 4.7" centreline guns Also, Tokyo Sexwhale posted:And the clemson is a loving murder machine. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Pacra posted:ALSO it's enjoyable to see everyone pine for RN battleships since the easiest retort is that most of their line was known for getting their poo poo pushed in across the globe in the latter century. I too find history difficult if there isn't a movie about it. Please tell me more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
quote:(15) 18-inch (457 mm), 50-caliber guns in five triple turrets Looks like the setup would have been 3 aft 2 fore, with the middle of the 3 aft turrets being raised above the other two. Seems like a design that was outdated before the first drawing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
What would a 6 gun turret even look like? Just a giant row of guns next to each other or a triple turret with another triple turret on top?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Desiderata posted:I too find history difficult if there isn't a movie about it. Please tell me more. They got two ships sunk in 1941 (you know, three days after the USN lost like 6) and traded one for one with the Bismark so clearly they are trash-tier garbage. Meanwhile, here is the full list of capital ships sunk by Soviet surface forces:
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:If I remember correctly, the only Russian/USSR ships that have been really "OP" are the Murmansk (which at one point was better than the Omaha in pretty much every way, and still is a bit better I think) and the Imperator Nikolai (which is mostly just better against HE spam, which it will admittedly see a lot of). With the AFT changes, the Murmansk is objectively better, 14.8 range vs Omaha's 12.7 at tier 5. Allow Murmansk comrades for to dictate terms of engagement, very stronk. Desiderata posted:I too find history difficult if there isn't a movie about it. Please tell me more. I'm actually excited for the eventual RN and KM battleship lines and am just getting revved up by trolling Finally made my WoWS forum avatar - 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Asehujiko posted:What would a 6 gun turret even look like? Just a giant row of guns next to each other or a triple turret with another triple turret on top? 6 guns all next to each other, in a wide turret. A bit like the 4 gun turret on a KGV, but even fatter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:They got two ships sunk in 1941 (you know, three days after the USN lost like 6) and traded one for one with the Bismark so clearly they are trash-tier garbage. Meanwhile, here is the full list of capital ships sunk by Soviet surface forces: Ha losing capital ships to air attack, what kinda loser nation manages that? Yeah this "Royal Navy" sound awful, 3/4 of my friends named Zara agree. Hmm your name ArchangeI, reminds me of something... Nope, seems my convoy of thought has been interrupted. If it wasn't in an American movie I guess it dosnt matter. I've got too much on my Plate to go around learning the history of this loser so called "Royal Navy" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
I think I've fallen in love with the Furutaki: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Looks like the setup would have been 3 aft 2 fore, with the middle of the 3 aft turrets being raised above the other two. Seems like a design that was outdated before the first drawing. Trying to get three turrets on an end with all superfiring is a great way to burn a lot of topweight on something that isn't likely to be particularly useful, especially off the stern on a slow ship. Desiderata posted:Ha losing capital ships to air attack, what kinda loser nation manages that? Yes let's compare getting caught off guard to looking at that, thinking it's a good idea and willingly sailing two underprotected ships out into the teeth of air attack. Plate wasn't that impressive on the RN end, it was the inevitable consequence of surface raiding where any damage is fatal. Don't forget losing a carrier to a surface ship! Hardly a Glorious chapter. (Overall the RN turned in a reasonable performance but had some serious failures as well. Still better than most, although I'd want other navies just because their ships weren't particularly exciting.) Asehujiko posted:What would a 6 gun turret even look like? Just a giant row of guns next to each other or a triple turret with another triple turret on top? Failures of drill and missed salvoes forever. xthetenth fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Yes let's compare getting caught off guard to looking at that, thinking it's a good idea and willingly sailing two underprotected ships out into the teeth of air attack. I know, it is as if war is but a series of mistakes and the best you can do it hope your opponent makes more and sooner. Perhaps, in that light, I'd be a drat fool to smugly dismiss the efforts of a such a large fighting force spread across the world. Hmm, something for me to think about and no-mistake :/
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Is there any obvious explanation for why a person might have solidly above average damage/kills/xp in a ship, but have a win rate way below average? I just finished the Farragut, and I'm rocking a 36% win rate on it after ~70 battles despite having good numbers otherwise. The Nicholas was a similar story. I'm starting to think there's something wrong with how I play American DDs or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:Is there any obvious explanation for why a person might have solidly above average damage/kills/xp in a ship, but have a win rate way below average? Large maps, capture points vs kill everything, it is significantly harder for one good player to carry the team than in WoT. Despite your best efforts, the pub's you get saddled with manage to consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
I haven't played CVs for a while after rage-selling my Lexington. What are the strongest CVs for their tier now that Essex and Midway are nerfed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Had a pretty good game with a Cleveland: rounded the corner and found myself face to face with a BB (I think tier V): was close enough to use AP and he though I was at half health and the BB was at here quarters, because he was firing HE I won the damage race easily. Is there any reason not to fire AP at CAs if you are in a BB? I'm pretty that the dude could have killed me if he penned me at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
I thought BBs should never be firing AP unless it's just them and DDs
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:They got two ships sunk in 1941 (you know, three days after the USN lost like 6) and traded one for one with the Bismark so clearly they are trash-tier garbage. Meanwhile, here is the full list of capital ships sunk by Soviet surface forces: The US only lost two battleships during ww2 tho? To be fair, comparing the two is kinda weird because they're so different. the UK mainly was chasing around like a thousand submarines and protecting convoys, while the US had to fight against an actual surface navy. Plus the UK had a relatively small navy compared to the US by the end of the war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
The battleships at Pearl Harbor were mostly refloated and fixed up because "why not" and then went to get a shitload of revenge at Surigao Strait. EDIT: Nevada was apparently the only BB at Pearl Harbor that day that wasn't a total loss or part of the battle line at Surigao.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
where you been wdarkk
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Pacra posted:where you been wdarkk Feeling awful, oak pollen has started like a month early.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Double post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Don't forget losing a carrier to a surface ship! Hardly a Glorious chapter. The USN lost a carrier to a surface ship in a battle that was in some respects a glorious chapter. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Feeling awful, oak pollen has started like a month early. Yeah, it's been a pretty awful March. Hell, for someone that enjoys the cold and snow, it's been an awful winter here in the Northeastern US. So, when are we getting the Russian cruisers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
El Disco posted:The USN lost a carrier to a surface ship in a battle that was in some respects a glorious chapter. Not for Halsey EDIT: The Japanese lost a heavy cruiser to a carrier's 5" gun, so they clearly had the wrong end of the glory stick there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Archenteron posted:I thought BBs should never be firing AP unless it's just them and DDs
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
I'm much more interested in seeing some Royal Navy ships as opposed to Russian DD's or Cruisers... wanna drop a quad on someone... forget dropping deuces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Since the update, has anyone else's client caused their PC to hard lock requiring power cycle upon exiting WoWs EVERY SINGLE TIME?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:You mean HE? Never not be firing AP, whoops
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
ranbo das posted:The US only lost two battleships during ww2 tho? The entire planet combined had a relatively small navy compared to the US by the end of the war
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:I just finished the Farragut, and I'm rocking a 36% win rate on it after ~70 battles despite having good numbers otherwise. The Nicholas was a similar story. I'm starting to think there's something wrong with how I play American DDs or something. I just started the Farragut and I'm doing much worse than I did in the earlier DDs. I can't imagine an extra km of torpedo range will turn my numbers around, so I guess I just need to play smarter and lean on my guns more. Also, what Archenteron said. I just had the last pubbie left on my team run aground and get sunk about 10 seconds before we would have won on points. Sometimes you aren't lucky with your team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:10
|
|
