|
Lord Koth posted:What the gently caress is with this sudden deluge of poo poo teams I'm having to deal with? Just had a team that agreed to go for caps B and C; when the battle started the 3 of us who spawned out at C went there, while the other 12 members of the team all drove straight to A, where they were defeated by 6 ships. Top drawer stuff 
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
kaesarsosei posted:I find it interesting that the Bismarck gets the most grief for being pointless despite it being literally the only one of the 3 that actually sank anything, and that being the flagship of the enemy. Lets not get into lucky shots or anything because the Bismarck itself was quite unlucky in the manner of its demise. Also the Bismarck was launched a year before Yamato, and 3 years before Iowa, so it has the most 'excuse' of being launched at time when BBs were still considered useful. Bismarck was useless in a way the others weren't, since from the moment it was launched it was literally guaranteed either to die the way it did or to sit in harbor doing nothing. Germany versus the entire Royal Navy was a worse matchup than Japan versus the US. There's also the difference in ship design - Iowa is a really good battleship that happened to enter service after battleships were already useless, and Yamato is still pretty good even for its ridiculous size, but Bismarck is a ship that violates treaty limits by 7000 tons and yet is worse than the final treaty battleships. Germany didn't have time to train ship designers after they started rearming, and it shows. (Also Iowa sank a few things, and Yamato might have sunk a destroyer depending on how you count)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
I haven't played warships in a while so for shits and giggles I logged in and played a game in my Clemson...got my first Kraken unleashed on the first game. I exited the game knowing it was all downhill from there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Bismarck was useless in a way the others weren't, since from the moment it was launched it was literally guaranteed either to die the way it did or to sit in harbor doing nothing. Germany versus the entire Royal Navy was a worse matchup than Japan versus the US. Well the plan supposed to have a lot more battleships than just the 2 Bismarck and 2 Scharnhorst ships but the arms industry basically went "lol, no" and the rest was scrapped. You might reasonably argue that the whole of "Z-Plan" was insane but then again it was Nazi-Germany so that kinda comes with the territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Could Germany have ever managed to fight the Royal Navy on an equal footing? Even if a time traveler had gone back to 1933 and handed Hitler a book called "The Importance of Carriers in the Second World War: Their Construction and Usage"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:Could Germany have ever managed to fight the Royal Navy on an equal footing? Even if a time traveler had gone back to 1933 and handed Hitler a book called "The Importance of Carriers in the Second World War: Their Construction and Usage"? It was never a possibility. As well as their immense advantage in tonnage and design, they also had a long standing institutional advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
japan suffered a similar problem. The US kept recycling vets back to be instructors for the new recruits. Meanwhile, japan just kept sending their vets back into the fray and had some guy looking at a book and teaching the new recruits how it should go instead of how it really is. You knew germany wasn't going to win when they specifically looked at their just launched scharnhorst and go "yup, avoid all british battleships, gg." Commerce raiding would work fine, but what they didn't do is invest in more smaller fast attack ships. Instead, they poured their money into the biggest ships they could afford and then claimed commerce raiding. Which thinking about it, is the same story with their tanks program. Too invested in the tiger/king tiger/maus programs instead of many of smaller vehicles. The idea of the maus was supposed to be a wall to stop russia and force a truce. Except, russia would have just went around them and moved on. Edit: The only real way for germany to have succeeded would have been to make the land rush on britain either through sticking to their military targets only runs originally done or not invaded russia for his oil. JuffoWup fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jul 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:Could Germany have ever managed to fight the Royal Navy on an equal footing? Even if a time traveler had gone back to 1933 and handed Hitler a book called "The Importance of Carriers in the Second World War: Their Construction and Usage"? Germany didn't really need carriers; any major altercation with the Royal Navy would've been well within range of land-based bombers. If I remember correctly, after France's surrender, the Royal Navy was the main obstacle that gave Germany pause with regards to invading/defeating the UK as it had overwhelming firepower that could easily stop any crossing attempt. I believe the original plan was to use the luftwaffe to destroy or cow the Royal Navy so the army could invade the (essentially defenceless after Dunkirk) UK. The only problem is that the Royal Navy also sailed within range of RAF airbases which could cover them from any air attacks, therefore the whole reason behind the Battle of Britain was for the the Luftwaffe to destroy these RAF airbases and then sink the Royal Navy/protect any German invasion. That said, I don't think the Kriegsmarine was ever meant to take on the Royal Navy, just be a threat; you can't defend the channel with every ship you have if you leave a wide open passage between Scotland and Norway for Germany to decimate your convoys. I think Germany saw the Royal Navy as a temporary obstacle to overcome rather than an entrenched opponent to defeat. After all, think of it this way: Germany couldn't take on the French Navy, nevermind the Royal Navy, on an equal footing, but the French Navy ceased to be an issue once France surrendered. Anyway, I just saw that vid of the Scharnhorst in action and goddamn  . I really want to play the German BBs now, they seem right up my alley.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
The Luftwaffe did really badly against ships for a long time. I guess that wouldn't necessarily carry over though. The Nazi plans to invade Britain are pretty funny. There's such a long list of things that you have to do perfectly for it to have a chance of working, and the Nazis would have hosed up every one of them. I don't know if invading Russia really counts as a mistake, obviously they weren't going to win but they kind of did need the resources. I don't know if the "ignore Russia and invade the Middle East instead" plan is that realistic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Realistically the USSR would likely have invaded at some point even if Germany hadn't. There are many reasons people were so incredulous about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the expansionistic bent of both of them was certainly one of the big ones. Not like they would have fared any better in that case. The hilarious thing about the adventure in North Africa - and presumably later into the Middle East - is that Germany never planned to do that. It was purely about Italy's own idiotic adventures, and Hitler's completely unwarranted respect for Mussolini and coming to his aid. Not that it really affected anything in the long run, as the forces used there would have just caused the main theaters to possibly last a bit longer if they hadn't been.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The Luftwaffe did really badly against ships for a long time. Yeah, that said though, the Pacific theatre may have proved the idea of suppressing a navy by air power. On the other hand, maybe the idea was unworkable with North Atlantic weather, or maybe the Luftwaffe didn't have the training/technology/resources to combat the Royal Navy. we'll never know, however, because that plan went out of the window once the Luftwaffe's objective shifted from destroying RAF bases to psychological warfare (which had the opposite effect). I don't think the Nazi's plans for invading the UK were realistic, and they almost certainly would have failed, but my point is that I can sort of understand the mentality behind not trying to match the Royal Navy but rather trying to neutralise it enough for an invasion to succeed. Having a small but powerful group of surface commerce raiders ready to launch the moment an opening was spotted, even as a threat alone, would play into that mentality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:It was never a possibility. As well as their immense advantage in tonnage and design, they also had a long standing institutional advantage. In WWI the Germany navy usually gave a good account of themselves in all engagements. Although there was no way they could ever overcome the difference in quantity. After 1918 there was a 15 year pause in German naval tradition and 1933 when Germany started to rearm a lot of the positions in the Kriegsmarine (but also in construction and at the academies) were filled with people picked for their political reliability instead of actual merit. Ultimately there are a lot of "what ifs" and the progress of the war made any realization of Plan Z impossible. Would have been smarter to put the resources available to the Kriegsmarine into subs and long-range naval bombers/recon (naval aviation in Germany was also woefully inadequate, thanks to Göring, who didn't want the navy to have a separate air arm). Hammerstein fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Jul 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
what exactly am i supposed to do if i'm in a battleship and i see a torpedo squadron flying my way from 2kms out? because no matter what i do they will always garantee at least two trop hits on me. Specially since they turn on a dime like they're torpedo throwing flying saucers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Latin Pheonix posted:Yeah, that said though, the Pacific theatre may have proved the idea of suppressing a navy by air power. On the other hand, maybe the idea was unworkable with North Atlantic weather, or maybe the Luftwaffe didn't have the training/technology/resources to combat the Royal Navy. we'll never know, however, because that plan went out of the window once the Luftwaffe's objective shifted from destroying RAF bases to psychological warfare (which had the opposite effect). Neither navy was 'suppressed by air power' in the Pacific War in any meaningful sense. Both were able to operate under opposing air umbrellas without catastrophic losses from said aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Mans posted:what exactly am i supposed to do if i'm in a battleship and i see a torpedo squadron flying my way from 2kms out? Immediately turn your nose towards the TB's. If they're that close, they're likely locked into their run already. It's a skill it took me a while to learn, but now I almost never get hit by air dropped torpedoes unless a good player simo drops me from multiple directions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Devorum posted:Immediately turn your nose towards the TB's. If they're that close, they're likely locked into their run already. This. You turn nose in to them because it forces the carrier driver to adjust their drop. In that time the full force of your AA (depending on the tier) might take out 1-2 of them, which lessens the amount of torps you'll get tossed your way. What you don't do is try to turn again after that first run-spoiling turn and waste what little is left of your momentum. Also, looking at saved replays of the Scharnhorst, its nickname should honestly be the Schotgun, because I've seen shells from both its primary and secondary battery spiral off like 10-15 degrees off centerline. Just in case no one's seen it yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7TZGZYc5XE There are some enjoyable "I'm quitting the game" tears from the opposing team - especially when they learn the Schotgun has torps. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jul 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Also, looking at saved replays of the Scharnhorst, its nickname should honestly be the Schotgun, because I've seen shells from both its primary and secondary battery spiral off like 10-15 degrees off centerline. It's interesting because looking at the stats, the dispersion should be almost identical to NC's (which is good now).
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Enough shots are accurate enough that I think that's something acting up with the replay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Latin Pheonix posted:I don't think the Nazi's plans for invading the UK were realistic, and they almost certainly would have failed, but my point is that I can sort of understand the mentality behind not trying to match the Royal Navy but rather trying to neutralise it enough for an invasion to succeed. Having a small but powerful group of surface commerce raiders ready to launch the moment an opening was spotted, even as a threat alone, would play into that mentality. They weren't realistic at all. A lot of what happened in Western Europe after 1940 was basically the Germans going "holy poo poo this worked now what guys?!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
The only counterfactual that matters in regards to WW2 is "what if the Nazis hadn't been led by a plutocratic group of last-picked-for-kickball sociopaths all falling over one another to cozy up to a delusional meth-addicted narcissist?"
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jul 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:The only counterfactual that matters in regards to WW2 is "what if the Nazis hadn't been led by a plutocratic group of last-picked-for-kickball sociopaths all falling over one another to cozy up to a delusional meth-addicted narcissist?" The EU.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
One has to be really lucky though, that the guys who just kicked your land army off the continent would be dumb enough to attack the world's largest nation and a few months later also declare war on the US, because they are buddies with the mecha-anime people at the other side of the world, who provide zero aid to your war effort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Good game tonight guys, especially getting the "gently caress goons" out of our enemies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
MrKatharsis posted:Good game tonight guys, especially getting the "gently caress goons" out of our enemies. Nah, man. "gently caress Goons" is the agreed-upon greeting in World of * games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Ok if there was anyone that was still wondering Lo Yang is really good and hydro on a DD is loving hilarious well that's my review hope you enjoyed
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:Ok if there was anyone that was still wondering Lo Yang is really good and hydro on a DD is loving hilarious well that's my review hope you enjoyed Tell me how to hydro as I have gently caress all luck with it. I watched the video with the guy smoking up and then pinging hydro but I think he may be a magician.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
I only run Hydro on German cruisers (German Hydro is better than other nations), and I also run the Premium version and use Superintendent on these ships instead of Vigilance. I think off the top of my head it has 4 charges, lasts for 90 secs with a 90sec cooldown on my Roon, and detects everything within 5 or 6 km during that time so its basically God-mode vs DDs as long as you are aware of the right time to hit it. Speaking of which, I'm liking the Roon more and more. It feels by far the toughest cruiser I've played, the torp angles are great (although for some reason it gets half the launchers of the HIpper or Hindy), the gun arcs are up there with the Russian CAs, the AA is passable even without Def Fire, and with its RoF its as good a fire starter as any <T10 USN or IJN DD (I think the Russian line is the best overall for fire starting). The only downside is the turret arrangement, if one or both those rear turrets could rotate 360 degrees like the Koenigsberg it would be the perfect cruiser IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Another fine example of public team mates:
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
You just didn't carry hard enough, scrub.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
I'm pretty close to getting my Montana, am I going to regret selling my Iowa to fund it? I would think they would play similarly enough that having one big US battleship would be all I'd need...
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
The Third Man posted:I'm pretty close to getting my Montana, am I going to regret selling my Iowa to fund it? I would think they would play similarly enough that having one big US battleship would be all I'd need... The Iowa is the best Tier 9 BB. The Montana is the worst tier 10 BB. Make of that what you will.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
I would emphatically recommend not getting the montana at this time due to yamato overmatching you at any angle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
I just had what is probably my single best match to date. I only died because I got greedy and let a ship sneak up on me as I was headed towards a wounded Wyoming when I should have known better. 3 of my 4 kills were solo, and I got a High Caliber out of it, which is pretty rare for me. I also set a new personal record for damage. Not too bad for a T4 DD.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
I keep seeing the Arizona around and people online raving about it. Did I miss out on something? It didn't look much better than a New Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Devorum posted:Immediately turn your nose towards the TB's. If they're that close, they're likely locked into their run already. i'll keep this in mind thanks! what are the "keepers" of the Japanese line? The Kawachi is fun to brawl with but the short range is killing me way too much, is this the regular MO of their battleships? The destroyers are all super fun and i'm currently on tier IV, not surewhat i think of the cruisers, decent speed and tons of torpedos but they're very fragile for their size. Still, the Japanese line has been my favorite by far. although the Wickes is cool as hell too. Do the next US DDs follow the same go fast, short range torps everywhere logic?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Burt posted:Tell me how to hydro as I have gently caress all luck with it. I watched the video with the guy smoking up and then pinging hydro but I think he may be a magician. Mans posted:Still, the Japanese line has been my favorite by far. although the Wickes is cool as hell too. Do the next US DDs follow the same go fast, short range torps everywhere logic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Mans posted:i'll keep this in mind thanks! Japanese BBs suffer a lot with the kawachi and the myogi. The ships get really good afterwards however. Very good range, but not the strongest in armor so keep some range but don't be afraid to nose in if you are top tier against enemy cruisers either. The myogi has the range you'll be seeing for the rest of the line, but the turret layout is terrible combined with terrible accuracy. Japanese cruisers will stay in the lightly armored catagory throughout. However, they got the 203mm guns the earliest so everyone else is left catching up as the tiers get higher. On the other hand, ijn torpedos also go up in range to a functional enough range to snipe enemy ships some times with them. IJN DDs pretty much end at tier 5. The following two ships just suffer a lot with the torp changes that has happened since launch. US DDs are gun boats first, torpedo boats second. Their role is to set lots of fires. If you are enjoying the wickes, make sure you try out the clemson. No one will look down on you if you stop at the clemson either. It is one hell of a gun boat. Their torpedo range is lack luster till around tier 6 when the range starts to slowly creep up. However, it takes to tier 7 or 8 (I forget off the top of my head) before you break 10km range. On the other hand, the gearing's (t10) torpedos have a 16km range, as fast if not faster than the shimakaze, and doesn't have the visual penalty the ijn torps do (you can spot ijn torpedos earlier even without vigilance or target acquisition module). Minenfeld! posted:I keep seeing the Arizona around and people online raving about it. Did I miss out on something? It didn't look much better than a New Mexico. I saw nothing special about it either. And I still don't. I think the only thing it held over a new mex was a very slight improvement to accuracy. However, it fires slower than the new mex. I still see no reason to get it or the texas personally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
IJN destroyers are still somewhat workable at high tiers, it's just the 20km Type 93 Long Lance torpedo choice that has become completely worthless. Kagero needs to stick with either its stock Type 93 mod.2 10km torpedoes, or live dangerously and use the 8km F3s. Similarly, Shimakaze probably wants to use the 12km Type 93 mod.3. It also has the option of F3s, but it's a tad more dangerous for Shimakaze due to its higher innate detection as opposed to Kagero. Not that the situation isn't still farcical poo poo, as the Fletcher gets a 10.5 km torpedo that has significantly lower detection that Kagero's stock one, along with only being a kt slower AND putting 2 more fish in the water at a time, along with all the other advantages it has over Kagero. And the Gearing gets a 16.5 km torpedo that has significantly lower detection than Shimakaze's 12 km one, again only being a kt slower. Just that the high tier IJN destroyers are still workable, if only because you can still do your job if careful, and you're more used to playing a torpedo boat than most US skippers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
https://github.com/BlindNImpotent/WoWS-Ship-Stats-Calculator/releases/tag/v0.19-alpha Updated data to 0.5.9.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
JuffoWup posted:I saw nothing special about it either. And I still don't. I think the only thing it held over a new mex was a very slight improvement to accuracy. However, it fires slower than the new mex. I still see no reason to get it or the texas personally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 00:48
|
|