|
rossmum posted:Jesus man I know being wrong about everything is like, your gimmick and all, but this is a bit much. Yes, two launchers a side, fantastic, pity the weapons inside the tubes are crap. 11k damage, 56kts and a paltry 5.5km range puts you inside secondary battery range of anything worth shooting at, so at least being that close means you're likely to actually connect with enough of them to sink what you're shooting at, sometimes even before the Clemson sinks. Same tier Isokaze gets a workable 7km and 68kts with 14.4k damage, even if you get to fire less per salvo NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Mar 17, 2015 |
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
hopterque posted:vomit massive double torp salvos at anything larger I refer you to the above, where the torpedoes the Clemson carries are bad and cause you to take massive damage just in the act of firing them at a target inside their range. The only thing the Clemson is good at is shooting gun at destroyers and light cruisers which, shockingly, is the only thing to like about the ship. This is simple reading comprehension.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
hopterque posted:You know you can like, fire torpedoes at where people are travelling, right? You don't actually have to fire them from within 5.5 km of where they are when you fire. Also, not even battleship secondaries have a enough range to start hitting people more than like 4 -4.5 km away until t7, and by then the american cruisers have better torpedoes! With the skill the Kongo at tier 5 reaches 4.8km, which is close enough given the speed and rate of turn of vehicles this large. You're right, American torpedoes do get better - at tier 7, where they push out to 6.8km, matched by the 6km secondary range on the Nagato. Only the American tier 8-10 destroyers can actually safely launch torpedoes outside battleship secondary range and still reliably hit. At tier 4-6 their torpedoes are dregs, and if not for the good guns they'd be completely useless.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Hagop posted:How do you DD drivers even get hit by secondaries How do you not? I've seen a DD explode in three seconday salvos from a Kongo, and my Clemson will routinely take 1/3 to 1/2 hp damage in a single pass on a Kongo or Fuso
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
hopterque posted:"I watched a destroyer drive up to a battleship's broadside and try and fight him there for like 15 seconds and he got owned by secondaries, therefore they are really good and destroyers suck!" No, reading comprehension, try again. I watched a destroyer come out of smoke from behind an island, approach a Kongo from the front quarter at full speed, and in the process of of reaching a favourable torp angle, turning, aiming and firing, the destroyer - a tier 3 - took 3 secondary salvos and died shortly after firing the torpedoes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Prav posted:Are you sure that none of those were from a primary? Because at that range primaries absolutely annihilate DDs and are pretty easy to hit with since the shell travel time is basically instant. Primaries from a Kongo one shot a destroyer and no, the Kongo was aiming the other side dueling I think a Myogi. The only other red ship nearby was a carrier visible in the distance trying to recover planes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
hopterque posted:I did this to someone and my primary shell impacted at the same time as my secondaries and he was like "ONE SHOT BY SECONDARIES WTF". Actually, I wonder if that was NTrabbit. The Kongo guns were pointing in the absolute opposite direction
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
It was 3 shots, not one, and sure it's an outlier but secondaries still routinely chew up a lot of hp on a destroyer, and the very short range torpedoes on the Clemson mean that you have to take that damage if you want to hit a Japanese tier 5 or higher battleship with torpedoes - hence the Clemson has poo poo torpedoes, and the best thing about the ship is the firepower the upgraded twin turrets can put out. Simple stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
hopterque posted:Seriously, bad RNG happens, that's how things go. That doesn't mean poo poo about how good or bad the ships involved are. The Clemson has poo poo, short range torpedoes. It's not even a debate, it's facts listed down the right hand side of your harbor screen. OhsH posted:This should be fun. According to you thread goers which type of ship is the most op?? Battleships are the undisputed king of the current patch
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
OhsH posted:All focused on getting close. Clearly you've not read a single thing
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:Torpedeos on the American destroyers including the clemesen are secondary weapons to be used when the opportunity presents itself don't try to force a torpedo run in those ships. Yes, the guns on the Clemson are the best feature, which was my point. Some people apparently incapable of grasping the simple fact that slow, short range torpedoes are poo poo torpedoes, and no amount of hand waving makes them otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Nordick posted:You didn't just say they're the best feature, you said they're the only good feature. And we were trying to tell you that no, that's not true, because while the torps might be worse than the jap ones on a tube-by-tube basis, they are still a shitload of torps, which in fact is a good feature to have. I very much prefer less good torps than more poo poo torps
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Are you familiar with the meanings of words? Like holy hell dude, it's a semantics battle with somebody who doesn't actually care what he says as long as it's vaguely similar to what he means. I prefer smaller numbers of good torps as found on Japanese ships to larger numbers of poo poo torps as found on American ships. Do you want me to switch to proper English for the whole sentence fragment now as well?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
BadLlama posted:Hey is there any way I can get that Japanese premium cruiser that has like 8 torpedo bays? I am sure its nothing beyond a gimmick but that gimmick looks hilarious. Not until they give us a piaster stipend, only alpha testers got a small amount of them to spend
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Well, Diagansui has already shown up on the WoWS forums, so who knows, maybe we'll see an H-45 be put into the game and wehraboo dreams will be fulfilled. The Kriegsmarine is going to need at least one of the H ships, probably 41, because the Bismarck isn't remotely feasible as a tier 10. The gently caress is a H-45 though?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Yeah well that's one of your precious Clevelands being sunk by a Nagato on the login screen  SuperSix posted:Frigates teheee 2km detection range, 2 torpedoes, can scout, super small profile etc There's even less of a place in the game for Frigates than there is for Destroyers, without putting Submarines in as well - Frigates didn't have torpedoes, just very light artillery, some useful AA and depth charges. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
I had a bug today while switching between ships on the module screen, suddenly the fire control upgrade on my new tier 4 IJN Destroyer only cost 1xp to research and when fit would upgrade my fire control, and replace my torpedo launcher with the launcher from the Phoenix cruiser, giving all the rating + and - for both.
NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
The best friendly torpedo hits are the ones that happen just as you finish successfully dodging two torpedo bomber squadrons who put down a good pattern. "Why did you turn into my torps that was your fault"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Historically accurate 10/10 Wargaming research team
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:Wargaming likes having a million different trees if WoT is any indication. The USN has the capacity to create two distinct battleship trees from tier 3, two destroyer trees from tier 2, probably two cruiser trees from tier 2 and two carrier trees from tier 4, such was the volume of different designs constructed or at least proposed. Overwhelmingly more than any of the other nations, for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Delorence Fickle posted:Is the Alaska going to be on the BB line or CA line? Pretty sure I've read them saying somewhere the Alaska is in the battleship branch, and at a guess somewhere around tier 7 between the dreadnoughts and the treaty battleships. Ideally it would be in a distinct fast battleship branch headed by the Iowa class at 10. If you fudge out the fastest of the dreadnoughts and lead them into the original Lexington, you can make an entire fast battleship branch that uses only three paper warships and still have a standard battleship branch that has not a single paper ship in it. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:God I hope not. That'd mean filing off all that makes it different and cool. There may be a need for anything fast and battleship like other than the Iowas and Lexes. As a one of a kind class well after the demise of the battlecruiser, the Alaska was always going to be difficult to fit into a tree. It's too powerful to be a cruiser, not armoured or armed like a battleship, and lacks enough brethren to make a distinct line. German and French trees will face the same issue with the Deutschland, Scharnhorst and Dunkerque class ships
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
JuffoWup posted:Umm, did you watch the video? Because if you had, you would see the iowa class is already penned for t9 in the upcoming bship line. I mean, they oculd in the future fudge it to 10 like they did with the is-4, but it is penned to be a tier 9 currently. No I didn't, but I said it was a hope rather than an actual plan. In a world where Wargaming did anything right Iowa and Montana would be the only options for the tier 10s in distinct standard and fast battleship trees. Instead they'll make the Iowa 9 to the Montana 10, miss half of the battleship classes the USN fielded, and then in 3 years time find themselves wanting to add a second branch and having no idea how to do it because they hosed it up in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Does the Mogami have its original configuration of 15 6-inchers in this game? Yes, and it upgrades to 10 8 inchers
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Elmnt80 posted:So uh, can anyone upload a copy of the regular cleveland texture file and post it? I kinda hosed up and made my pink dazzle camo skin on my backup. https://www.dropbox.com/s/gil2xld54ab8loa/ASC007_Cleveland_1945_a.dds?dl=0
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
There are stats? Where are they?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
For some reason my Myogi was thrown into a tier 7 battle last night, the only fun part was
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgQF8Z7mVjY Not a great tech tree, muddled battleships and no South Dakota or Alaska, at 2 minutes. Also that view has the current carrier line, but at 6:30 they have another view which has the Essex punted down to 9 and once again replaced with the Midway at 10, meaning no Yorktown class
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Jaroslav posted:Is there any way to "lock" your guns towards a position, or target? Would like to be able to look around without my guns moving out of position. Right click and hold
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Has anyone else had a problem where if you shoot at a distant target and lead it like normal the shots all land the range you aim at, but if you put the reticle right on the ship the shots all land ~2km short? I was shooting at a stationary cruiser with the reticle right on it, shops kept dropping into the ocean nowhere near the ship, not close enough to even be unlucky RNG. I moved the reticle to the left so it would be leading him if he was actually moving but at exactly the same distance, and every shot landed bang on range. It was bizarre.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Coriolis? I think maybe the reticle is invisibly making GBS threads itself, ala the reticle in tanks snapping up and down if it can't decide whether you're aiming at the hill or the tank sticking its turret over the top of the hill
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Payouts are definitely inflated, I can't imagine a tier 4 in the release game is going to pull in 100k credits in an average win and 200k in a good win like my Langley has been.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:Anyone knows what the future developments are going to be? Tonks almost literally starts where the brand new concept of Tank warfare does, and we get to experience the full gamut of weird and wonderful vehicles as doctrine and technology developed on the fly during war and between wars, right up to where most of the tier 10s are just less computerised versions of the vehicles we have today. Although there was some room for movement, the only new technology we get in Botes is aircraft carriers, and to some extent destroyers; battleships and cruisers are already at the pinnacle of the 400 year old line of battle, where battleships are rated ships of the line, and cruisers are frigates - the scouts, the flankers and the finishers. The only difference they get across our relevant time period is the change to single calibre primary armament due to the Dreadnought era, and changes in speed due to improved powerplants, otherwise they all fought exactly the same as their wooden predecessors - minus boarding actions. I think the best they can do is new game modes, try to make selections that emphasise doctrinal differences in classes - American cruisers became tiny battleships, Japanese cruisers became enlarged destroyers - or as a last resort, add the only two classes they haven't added yet, frigates/corvettes/DEs and submarines, which is the only other new technology. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
The link was active when I looked and I didn't think; next time it's on I'll try and collect as many keys as I can, for the greater goon
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I would tend to imagine that this is simply an optical illusion. It isn't. Shots will definitively fall well short of the reticle position in some circumstances for unexplained reasons, probably a bug in the aim/reticle, and this is ships moving in parallel, not towards each other. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Magni posted:What's the in-game shortcut to make a screenshot? Printscreen
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
It's because they've sacrificed chronology in order to create a steady progression of gun calibre (and by extension armour), or in the case of carriers hangar size. Chronology is just the tie breaker when you have two or three ships in a row with the same guns.
NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
When the issues on NA with Telia moved beyond apparent and into debilitating, instead of finding a new host Wargaming split NA into NA East and NA West and stayed with Telia, giving us two unstable connections and crippling the game by splitting an already small playerbase. This is where we're coming from.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
The Washington and London Naval Treaties were the Nuclear Non-proliferation/ABM/START-I treaties of their day
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:39 |
|
|
I think they'll have more than the what, 4 maps? 5? that they have right now for release. At least we're launching with 3 game modes, Tanks launched with 1 and stayed that way for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 10:43
|
|