|
Never saw this before, but I'm new at this. Sent a torpedo bomber squadron after a cruiser, and did a manual drop at close range. Two out of the 5 torpedoes intercepted the cruiser and disappeared, but there were no hits and it suffered no damage. Is there a minimum range for them?
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
Main Battery Modification 2 says: Increases the traverse speed of the main turrets: +10% to main battery loading time +15% to the main battery traverse speed Is that just Russian for "10% improvement in loading time" or does this actually mean that if I'm in a slugging match with another BB he's just going to outdamage me because I'm taking 10% longer to load each salvo?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
PirateBob posted:You've made quite a few posts that basically say "I really suck at this game". Why not watch some videos on how to play better, or play something else? I'm okay with destroyers and cruisers, but I guess I don't get battleships either. Just had a game in my New York-class. Game starts out with me just about already in range of cruisers who are firing from beyond my range. I'm set on fire instantly. If I wait to hit my repair party, I take a lot of burning damage. If I use the repair party, I put the fire out and then 30 seconds later another HE round sets me on fire again. I take a few long-range shots at enemy battleships, firing AP, but the dispersion of a full salvo is *huge*, it's accurate enough to bracket the target but so imprecise that only two rounds hit (I'd swear that multiple rounds fired from the same turret diverge in azimuth), they appear to hit dead-center of the citadel but they fail to penetrate and do only a couple of thousand points of damage. Eventually I'm a burned out hulk, a couple of thousand of HP remaining, and a cruiser emerges from around the edge of an island, he's only 5 km away, I lay a full salvo against his starboard side, he's 90 degrees on to me, I barely even have to lead. Again, the dispersion of my rounds is so wide that half sail over him, most of the rest splash into the water, and the remaining two smack him right dead-center of the citadel and fail to penetrate (note: no overpenetration warning),and do only a couple of thousand points of damage. He returns a few rounds of HE and I blow up. Maybe that's me sucking, but I don't suck like that with every ship. My Konigsberg places nice tight salvos of 9 rounds at ranges further than my BB can currently shoot. What exactly do I do to give me a reasonable chance of hitting my target with more than one or two rounds out of a salvo and doing significant damage when I do?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:Overpens don't give a warning, just a specific sound effect and the very specific damage they deal. Overpenetrations -always- deal 10% of the shell's max damage. For a New York, this is about 1k damage. If you get 2 hits for 2k damage, that means both shells overpenned. At point blank, you shouldn't be just aiming at the waterline, you should be aiming BELOW it. Not too much, of course. But waterline shots at a flat angle often will simply pass over the citadel and not drop low enough to pen it, instead overpenning through the thin Omaha armor of the ship (instead of, say, bouncing off the far side armor and then traveling downwards into the citadel were it a longer ranged shot). Aiming lower means the higher shots will angle down more, and shots that hit the water can still travel, pen the ship, and are hitting below the waterline, where the citadel is. At worst, they'll already have armed from hitting the water and stand a chance of exploding inside for a normal penetration. Cool, thanks. I *swore* I saw an overpen warning on my screen when I was shooting at a destroyer with a cruiser, but I guess that was just the drink talking.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Asehujiko posted:At that range, yes, you very much can, especially if you actually use the aiming camera The what now?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:Shells that strike armor at a 30 degree angle or lower will always bounce...Another shell property is break-through, where a shell automatically pens, no matter the angle of impact, if the steel thickness it faces is 1/14.3th the caliber of the AP shell. Which of these two things is true?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Is there any way to lock different turrents to different azimuths/targets? Would be nice to, say, have my bow guns aimed at a cruiser and my aft turret which doesn't have a firing angle to the cruiser trained off in the direction of that destroyer who's ducking in and out of his smoke in case he shows himself. Also, I know you can hit the 'switch shells' key once to queue up AP to be loaded after you fire your HE, but this does it for all guns which can be inconvenient. I mean, let's say turrets A, B, C, and D all have HE loaded, and I want to switch them to AP after they fire, but only turrets A and B can fire on my current target. If I hit the hotkey, and then fire A and B, all 4 turrets start reloading even though C and D had shells ready to go. Is there a "wait until you fire your current round, and *then* load a different shell type" key?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
What was bad about WoWP? I never bothered to download it, because War Thunder was good enough for me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:
I think Ocean's worse, it's this game's equivalent of Malinovka.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:What is the Habbuki and why should I be interested? Project Habakkuk was a plan for a 1200-meter-long aircraft carrier displacing 2.2 million tons, made out of ice reinforced with sawdust. Why would you *not* be interested?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
I feel like I must be missing something basic. Logged on, was informed that I was awarded the ARP Kongo and the free fire control mod, but it doesn't show up in my ship list. Do I need to go somewhere to actually activate this?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Starblazers MMO!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
MoraleHazard posted:Everyone should read Shattered Sword. The planes on the flight deck is one persistent myth that didn't really happen because the IJN hadn't enough time to get them there. Also, the Japanese CV's enclosed flight decks made it impossible to push burning aircraft and ordinance over the side the way open sided USA CV's could. Additionally, Japanese damage control abilities were much worse than their US counterparts and neither side had a solid idea of the shock and concussive damage caused to shaft seals, steam piping etc. The USA managed to get a handle on that over the course of the war while the IJN didn't. Funnest one was the Taiho. Took a single torpedo hit in the Philippine sea, which broke open some of its aviation fuel tankage. The leaking gas started accumulating in the forward flight deck elevator pit, since the flooding gave the ship a bow-down attitude, and the vapors started filling the hangar decks. Since the decks were enclosed like you mention, they decided to crank the ship's ventilation systems to the max and open all doors and hatches, and turned the entire ship into a huge floating fuel-air bomb. Which then blew the gently caress up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
What the gently caress is this 1GB patch that I have to download over hotel internet supposed to do?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Anyone else's guns sound like poo poo since the patch? Just played my Svetlana, they're all clipped and it sounds like each shot stops the sound from the previous shot so when you ripple-fire it sounds awful.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Genaro posted:American CVs are, on the whole, worse than their IJN counterparts (Langley excepted). Oh. So trying to turn and dodge when they're coming to drop on you does nothing?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
How's the Texas?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Hey, a ship that could go on land would be an interesting addition to the game.  
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:Wasn't that the point of reactivating the Missouri during the Gulf War? I'd imagine that a Missouri could take a beating from missiles. No, the Missouri wasn't reactivated during the Gulf War. The Iowas were reactivated during Reagan's and Lehman's push for a 600-ship navy. She'd already been reactivated when the Gulf War happened. JuffoWup posted:Nope. She was converted into an over sized missile ship. I think she did do some shore bombardment, but her main reason there was for the amount of cruise missiles she could launch. The reactivated Iowas carried 32 in box launchers, that's not a huge amount. 116 Tomahawks were fired in the first day, and 288 total. Missouri fired a total of 28. Lord Koth posted:Technically big guns do provide one advantage over missiles, and that's saturating an area with fire to keep the enemy's head down. The trouble is that battleship guns aren't really good for *that*, either. There's barely any explosive fill, and the flat trajectory you get from such high velocities means that even small terrain features can provide very effective cover. That's what was found during WWII in the Pacific: once the battle's going and you had people on the beach to direct fires, they were useful to interdicting troop movements. But for preliminary bombardments, they didn't do anywhere near what was expected. Something like the Des Moines, with all those rapid-firing 8" guns, would be a much better NGFS ship than an Iowa. Magni posted:Depeds on the missile. A weedy little Harpoon? Yeah, no gonna do much. Some soviet-vintage monster missile that's almost the size of an F-16 and was designed to overkill 100k+-ton supercarriers? That's gonna hurt a hell of a lot. Agreed that a subsonic sea-skimmer like a Harpoon, Exocet, Silkwork, etc isn't going to do much if it hits the belt. But even those could scrub the topside of the gun directors, radars, communications gear, etc., and that's effectively a mission kill. And yeah, something like an AS-4 or SS-N-19 is can just kill it, those missiles are coming in with a lot more velocity and a lot more^2 kinetic energy than the 16"x45 shells the Iowas were armored against. Velius posted:God drat battleship rifles are enormous. I wish someone would experiment with a modernized, survivable gunship, rather than galvanically unstable aluminum cans. Modern warships are extremely survivable, they just don't mount a lot of armor worn. Modern ships are armored in other ways, like armor of form. Take a look at the USS Princeton. In Gulf War 1, she struck a mine in 16 meters of water, the explosion of which set off a second mine a few hundred meters away. Between the different shock components, the ship was twisted in all 3 axes; the bow, stern, and midships were basically all gyrating in circles but with no common axis. This does very bad things to ships, stuff like cracking 8"x10" steel I-beams, heaving the deck upward 20 degrees, separating 10% of the superstructure from the main deck, things like that. Her chill-water pipes were ruptured, so her combat systems overheated and shut down. Her hull wasn't holed, but she still started to flood through burst seams. Her port rudder was jammed. Damage control efforts got her weapons systems back online within 15 minutes, and she stayed on station for another 30 hours providing air cover for the minesweeping and recovery efforts before she was relieved and put under tow. Only three people were hurt. Or the USS Samuel B. Roberts, a little frigate (okay, about double the displacement of a WWII destroyer). Also struck a mine:  That's a 15-meter hole in the hull, knocked her engines off their mounts, cracked the keel. Only 10 injuries, 6 of which were minor, damage control saved the ship and she was only decommissioned last year. Yeah, the LCS is a shitshow, but that's concurrency for you. I'd like to think all the services have now learned their lessons with that bullshit. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Tokyo Sexwhale posted:The Samuel B. Roberts was literally lashed together with steel cable by the crew to keep her from breaking in half after she struck the mine. Anyone who knows anything about cables under extreme tension can tell you why this is an amazingly terrible idea, but the alternative was the ship breaking in half and sinking probably within minutes. Yep, the D.C. parties did a heroic job. As did this screwdriver:  This is what her main engine room looked like:  Damage control is a variety of armor: mitigant armor. Doesn't prevent you from getting hit, doesn't prevent the damage from the hit, but is mitigates the effects and lets you keep fighting.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:So it was done to pad out the numbers of ships? Mainly. The 600-ship thing was this political commitment during Reagan's campaign, and we weren't going to make it there with new construction. So we reactivated some old ships and started keeping newer ones in operation for longer before sending them to the reserve fleet. The Iowas were a great way to bring us closer to that goal, politically speaking. Big and impressive, hearkened back to the glory days of WWII, reasonable intimidation factor if you park one offshore against some country without modern ASMs, etc. Who cared if they were ridiculously manpower-intensive and hence expensive as hell to operate and also not good for much? They obviously had some utility, but not in proportion to the expense of the modernization program or the operating costs. We never did quite make it to 600 ships, because the funding just wasn't there. quote:By armor of form, do you mean compartmentalization to provide a rugged ship that can take damage without succumbing instantly? That's an example of it. So are things like redundant fire mains, shock qualifications for your shipboard electronics, reduced radar/IR/sound signatures, separating key pieces of equipment throughout the ship so that one hit doesn't take out a vital system and its redundancies, etc. You see the same thing in commercial aircraft. A plane might have 3 to 5 redundancies for its fly-by-wire computers, and they are located in physically different areas of the plane, not all crammed into one avionics closet where one fire would kill all of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Have a new(er) warship getting shot all to poo poo. USS Thach, a Perry-class frigate, gets hit with 4 Harpoons, a few Hellfires, apparently a Standard or two, a Mk 84 2000-lb bomb, a GBU-12 500-lb bomb, and Mk 48 ADCAP to send it to the bottom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzn5L-82GdE
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Was it loaded up with fuel and gun food (or equivalent) or was this just the straight hull taking the beating? "Granted, it wasn't carrying anything explosive or flammable" They don't let you sink ships full of bombs and pollutants anymore. At least, not deliberately.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Do shells follow the same trajectory after striking water, or do they slow down immediately and follow a steeper path down?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:They should actually slow down and nose up, interestingly enough. I should clarify I'm talking about in-game, not real physics. I don't think I've ever seen an underwater hit. I'll aim at or even slightly below the waterline, shells will splash in such a place that if they continued their same trajectory they should hit the ship under the waterline, but nope, nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Ships didn't go bow-on because armor was more effective in real life than in the game, Plus destroyers couldn't set your battleship on fire and burn it down for half of its hit points. Plus ranges were much further, shell travel times were longer, and the difference between hitting a target bow-on to you and hitting one side-on to you was pretty negligible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Truth. It's not melting anything, it's just plastic deformation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Maybe. However, I imagine the friction of a 2,048 pound shell, moving at approximately 2,586 feet per second, passing through the metal superstructure of a ship, would generate quite a bit of heat. It'll warm up a *bit*, but nowhere near that much, and not really due to friction. The frictional coefficient between the shell and the target probably isn't all that high, and the shell's passing through it in a fraction of a second so doesn't have that much time to heat it. It'll heat it by deforming it, like how you can heat a metal rod to a pretty high temperature if you sit there and bang on it with a hammer for long enough, but consider that the superstructure, being metal, is effectively a superconductor of heat; you've got a huge thermal mass to wick away what small amount of heat the shell manages to impart to the hull. Equally, consider a HEAT round, where you're using a block of explosive to deform a metal liner into a projectile that gets explosively propelled to some tens of thousands of mph. In that process, that little bit of metal heats up to, at most, a few hundred degrees. Edit: Jesus, I love the Nassau. Just sail into the thick of poo poo shrugging off fire and blasting the hell out of people. This is the first time I've felt like I've been playing a *battleship* instead of a floating lump of tinder and beer cans. Does the rest of the German line play like this? Phanatic fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:It's largely irrelevant though just because those two were vastly beyond everyone else. I really want them to implement beehive rounds for the big Japanese guns. Even if people never actually fire them because they're useless.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Applying to DONGS as Phanatic1a.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Trying to figure out skills for a 15-point Bismarck secondary build. 1: Direction Center (everything else at T1 seems useless) 2: High Alert 3: BFT 4. Manual Fire Control, AFT Seem about right? Or should I be ditching BFT in favor of Basics of Survivability? Is Adrenaline Rush enough of an increase to be worth it over something else?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Hrm. I was in DONGS but now I'm not. Applied to 4SKIN as Phanatic1a.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Finally had a good game in the Bismarck, I think my first since the patch with makes every single HE shell that hits me set me on fire.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Either that or giving those BBs the "super heavy" 16 inch shells they actually had so they can also compete equally in the guns department. That'd be nice. Give US BBs better damage control and a smaller chance to catch fire. Fundamentally I really don't like the damage model. It should not be possible to burn a ship as easily as it is, and it's silly for ships cruising around at 5% of their hit points to be sailing and turning and firing as fast as a 100% ship. Module damage should not be an all-or-nothing thing, where your engines either work perfectly or don't work at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
If I take my Gneisenau captain, stick him into my Bismarck, train him up on that ship, and then put him back into a Gneisenau, does he retain his skills or is he a Bismarck captain now and forgets everything he used to know and I need to retrain him on the lower-tier ship again?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
How are the secondaries on the FDG? If I have a secondary-specced Bismarck is it worth it to move up a tier?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Okay, this is loving odd. The game just decided that it wants to run on my secondary display, not the primary one. It has never done this before, and I have changed nothing. If I tell it to run in a window, and drag the window over to my primary display, and then maximize it, it snaps back to the secondary one again. Same thing if I drag it onto my primary display, and then change the option to full-screen: it snaps back to running full-screen on my secondary monitor. And under the dropdown menu for Monitor, it only shows one option: Generic PnP Monitor. Edit: Ah. Windows 10 pushed an update and rebooted while I was cooking dinner, and now it seems all games only want to run in the second monitor. Jesus christ. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 02:12 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Started playing carriers because I was bored. Langley was fine, I free xped my way past the Bogue, and now I keep winding up in T8 matches with a T6 carrier and my planes just melt. What am I supposed to do about T8 AAA with T6 planes?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Preechr posted:I doubt it was optimal play, but I would always take the air supremacy loadout on the bogue and independence. I figured the best way I could help my team was to nullify the enemy carrier ASAP so the rest of the team could play as if it didn’t exist. RIP that, though. There's an air supremacy loadout on the Independence?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
Started again after a few months' hiatus. Did they bump the difficulty of scenarios or did people just get a lot dumber?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2018 01:50
|
|