|
Cruisers, at least Japanese cruisers, do surprisingly well against battleships. Cruiser gunnery can do decent damage, especially against battlecruisers, which can have their armor penetrated even by 6" shells. In addition, they get shitloads of torpedoes, usually even more than the equivalent destroyer. The tier 10 Japanese cruiser can dump up to 20 torpedoes from each side, which means you can instantly kill a battleship that gets close or just dump a ton of torpedoes where you know the enemy is coming and watch the mayhem. American cruisers lack the torpedoes, but have better AA. They don't really have more hp or much better firepower until the tier 10 US cruiser, which has nearly twice as many hps as its Japanese counterpart. I'll probably go both Japanese and US cruisers come tomorrow. They have a lot of versatility and play similarly to fast medium tanks in WoT. You zip around, catch enemies off guard, and do a ton of damage to them before they realize something is wrong.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
Vengarr posted:There will probably be paper planes for some of the carriers too. They could probably either make it so non-carrier planes like the Frank suddenly become carrier planes or carrier-capable planes that were just beginning to be introduced at the end of the war like the Shinden suddenly appear earlier. Japan developed an ungodly number of planes, mostly because the navy and army had separate design programs that were often somewhat redundant, it's just that most of them were never produced in significant numbers. I don't care how the Russian tree looks as long as we get that retard spinning plate battleship. Preferably at tier 10.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
If we were in the beta weekends, we're automatically in this, right? Or do we have to apply again?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
So do they expect you to buy gold if you want to get premium/try out premium ships? Or is there another way?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
demonR6 posted:More sweet sweet citadel hits, ships bursting into flames and my favorite.. racking someone and obliterating their ship then being called a hacker using Warpack like that tool did to me last night. I loved the St Louis back on the beta weekends. I'm interested in getting the kitakami and grinding for the Baltimore/Des Moines, which means getting premium would help a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
These kancolle creeps are going to end up being the new wehraboos.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
There're plenty of paper designs that were made before the Washington Naval Treaty that could fill in 9/10. Maybe use one of the Tillman designs for a tier 10.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Get the crew's gun rotation skill for IJN destroyers or don't bother using the guns at all. It increases the rotation speed by 2.5 degrees, or well over 50% for most lower tier destroyers. My current plan in the game is to go for the Des Moines, but goddamn if playing Japanese destroyers while getting rocked every time a battleship farts at my Pensacola isn't making me rethink that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Remember that you can hammer and anvil your torpedoes with a destroyer, the same way you would with a carrier. That seems to be the best way to ensure that enemy destroyers die. Also, dive bombers are effective against destroyers if you can hit them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
SuperSix posted:That's why I hate the fact that high tier DD's only have 2 launchers instead of 3. Yeah, I'm not looking forward to the tier 6 Japanese destroyer. Ah well, once I get to the high tiers I'll make the most beautiful patterns with my horrific torpedo swarms.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:Any reason for this ? Out of respect for the dead ? They seem to prefer class names rather than the names of individual ships.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
I've played a decent amount of both American and Japanese destroyers, and I've started leaning towards American. Lower tier Japanese destroyers' guns are serviceable if you get the rotation speed skill. It's a >50% boost, and if you have it you're basically competitive in a gunfight. At high tiers, you're screwed though. The Fletcher and Gearing are putting out 15 and 20 rounds per minute, respectively, and can turn their guns on a dime. The Shimikaze has the lowest gun rotation speed of any destroyer and puts out a shot every 12 seconds. Basically, the tradeoff for being completely helpless in a destroyer duel is either 2 or 5 more torpedoes, a bit more damage on the torpedoes, slightly higher top speed, and a bit more stealth. The top torpedoes on the Gearing and the Shimikaze have about the same speed and range. Regarding the Pensacola, it's not really that great, but it's not bad. I enjoyed the Mogami with the 6" guns a lot more, but you can still put out a lot of damage if you get the drop on someone. I think the Baltimore and Des Moines will redeem that line, though. 6 second cruiser shots and >50k hp is battleship firepower and health on an agile cruiser frame.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
SuperSix posted:I don't know if destroyers were ever suppose to counter battleships. Ship classes aren't suppose to be balanced 1v1v1, and you should never be expecting to 1v1 a battleship unless his turret is facing away from you or you got the jump on him. They were supposed to on paper. The problem is, if destroyers don't counter battleships, then what does? Carriers don't do so well, especially if you're in a match with a higher tier carrier. Plus, you only get 2 carriers per side per match. Cruisers are countered by battleships. Battleships do?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
I only had one game in my Sampson. But it was a good game.  No premium, either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Gamesguy posted:Take two sides, one with 6 battleships and 2 destroyers, and one with 8 battleships. I would much rather be on the team with 6 battleships. Why? The DDs provide scouting information, ensuring your own side gets the favorable positioning and first shot. When the BBs start engaging each other, the DDs can sneak in and severely damage or sink enemy BBs. Plus DDs are good at capping, which is very important on at least half the maps. The quality of a ship isn't really decided by exp, further, once the shooting starts ships become pretty visible so scouting isn't as beneficial. Balance was never very good in World of Tanks, except that eventually mediums did find a place, and I kinda see that repeating here on a more severe scale. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Strobe posted:Look at this wrong opinion. No, I'm pretty sure once the shooting starts ships become a lot more visible and scouting isn't as important . There'll be situations, that, with a proper setup you can see them and they can't see you, but they're rare. Usually not enough to justify an extra destroyer versus a battleship. Figuring out where the enemy is going in the beginning is still useful, but carriers can do that. I don't think anyone is arguing cruisers and destroyers are completely bad and useless, people are arguing that battleships are too much better than other classes to justify bringing a decent balance of ships. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
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 Saratoga class was considerably larger than the Shinano and was non-nuclear.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
gwrtheyrn posted:Wikipedia lists its displacement as 20 thousand tons less http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saratoga_%28CV-60%29 Sorry, I'm dumb. I meant the Forrestal class. The Kitty Hawks and Kennedy class were larger too, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
I kinda think they need to swap the Cleveland to a much higher tier or nerf it, because it feels better than the tier 7 and 8 US cruisers by far. Those guns just spray death, and no cruiser has enough armor to avoid crits from them. Come to think of it, a lot of ships seem to be in the wrong tier. This is especially true amongst destroyers where the stupid increasing torpedo reload times and marginal/non existent improvements in gunnery, hp, and armor mean that they generally get worse as you go up. The crazy long range torpedoes that you eventually get are nice, but that's near the end, and in the meantime you have a wide gulf of turds. Battleships have the crazy good Fuso followed by the not so good Nagato. Carriers, I think, are the only class where everything seems to be in the right place, due to the relatively simple aircraft progression? Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
So what ship is best to grind credits in at the moment? A Kongo?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
I decided to uninstall. I had some fun with this for a while, but it started feeling a bit grindy and, frankly, I had enough of that type of game after World of Tanks. I really did enjoy the low tier stuff, though, especially destroyers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Burt posted:https://www.facebook.com/flodbergshipmodels?fref=photo It's crazy how much effort making a model like that takes. You spend hours taping, spray painting, retaping, repainting, blending paints to just the right color, modifying parts by adding some of the special glue that "dissolves" the plastic just a bit, and then start putting everything together. Metal parts add a whole new level of complexity. You spray paint them beforehand, then try to bend them into the right shape. The problem is that bending causes the paint to chip off, so you have to try to repaint them after they're in the right position. I remember getting the catapults right on my model of the Missouri took about seven hours. The metal is so thin that even a stray breath can blow them off the table onto the floor, and if you have something that's a quarter the size of your fingernail, like a hatch, good luck finding it. Finally, after it's put together, putting the rigging and decals on is an enormous pain. Tying string to delicate pieces of plastic just tight enough that it goes taunt, but not so tight the plastic snaps is tricky as hell. Then one day your landlord comes into your apartment without giving the required prior notice, walks right into the table where your ship is being built, and there goes that project down onto the floor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Yeah, the 1920s South Dakota and the Tillman Maximum battleship designs could easily fill out a slow tree. Hell, you could probably make three full trees if you really tried.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Tindahbawx posted:http://aslain.com/index.php?/topic/2020-0305-aslains-wows-modpack-installer-wpicture-preview-v015-07052015/ Is Aslain's mod working on 0.3.1? I just tried installing and I'm getting a black screen, but I have an unusual setup.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
The overhead mod is more than enough aim assistance for me. Especially since it makes it easy to deal with turning ships or ships coming in at a weird angle.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Does the bug occur when you have pyromania at all or is it just if you retrained to it?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
El Disco posted:Some people have unrealistic expecations of destroyers. Am I supposed to go charging straight towards the enemy ships right at the start of the match? I had one dude in a New York who I killed with a massive torpedo strike from my torpedo bombers. He never changed speed or course, just kept plowing forward as I positioned my bombers and had them make their runs. Afterwards he went absolutely berserk about how I was cheating and how there's no way to avoid bombers or torpedoes. Some people will flip out any time the game goes in a way that's not to their liking and that's really funny.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
So did the mini patch break Aslain's mod or can I just reinstall it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
The New Mexico is a great battleship. It's reasonably accurate, gets lots of citadel hits, and can take a beating. The only issue with it is speed. It's one of the few ships that can devastate even much higher tier battleships without too much trouble, as long as you get the drop on them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I'm not a fan of carriers, but I do think fighter aircraft should be able to strafe destroyers for semi-decent damage. Historically, fighters could suppress AA by strafing the mounts. Giving them the ability to reduce efficiency or even destroy some mounts might be a nice change.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
So I'm thinking of getting back into this. On the note of best carriers, which nation runs the best destroyers/cruisers/battleships these days?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
PirateBob posted:There are still only 2 full tech trees, IJN and USN. Each line of DD/CA/BB has some bad ships and some good ships. It's not possible to say "IJN is better" or "USN is better" overall. I played this a lot in beta. I'm curious about changes. I remember at the endgame, the US was generally better at destroyers and cruisers, and I don't think there was a consensus in battleships.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
So I'm still curious, how do the various nations/classes stack up against each other at tier 10? I kinda want to play again a bit, but I don't feel like grinding more than one or two lines. Mostly, I'm interested in whether Japanese cruisers tend to be better than US ones. The same with battleships.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
So I noticed that Aslain's doesn't seem to have the overhead view anymore. Has that been removed or are there still mods with it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
How does locking onto a target get more hits? I see the reticle appear, but it only seems to make a difference for torpedo aiming.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:IIRC the US actually did want to battleship fight the Yamato, it's just that the carrier commander (Mitchner I think) decided "lol no" and dunked it. Even if the US had engaged the Yamato with battleships, it would've basically have gone: "There they are on our radar. We have a firing solution on the big thing. Now we push the shoot button until the big thing disappears or breaks up into lots of little things... and there it goes." It would've been no different than the battle with the Fuso and the Yamashiro. The importance and power of good, radar based fire control was ridiculous. US WW1 era dreadnaughts equipped with the latest fire control systems were scoring hits on their first salvos on the Yamashiro. The Yamato's end would've been pretty much the same thing. Shells would be landing on it before it even saw the enemy battleships, much less found a solution, and it would've quickly lost its ability to respond. The only real difference would be that it might last a bit longer. Of course, even if the US sent a single WW1 era battleship to blast the Yamato to bits from a distance, fanboys would still be bitching about how the US dishonorably engaged at long range rather than a point blank slugfest.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Please don't be stupid in return and over-exaggerate. Do you know what the absolute largest advantage RADAR FCS had over sight based ones? It's called during night battles, which you may recall Surigao Straight was. You may also recall that they had a heavy numerical in every category, and the IJN force was already in disarray by the time the battleships actually opened up due to constant destroyer attacks. Given all the time and warning they had to prepare they also crossed Yamashiro's T, and the battleships that engaged her were of the same era - in actual fact they were all newer - with similar gun caliber and armor thickness. Chill. Now, in response to your comments, even a handful of WW1 era battleships probably would've likely beat the Yamato modern fire control. First, we know exactly how the Yamato would've performed in a daylight battle because it was in one. In the battle off Samar it engaged at 31km against escort carriers. It did manage to score a few hits on the Gambier Bay, though this is somewhat unclear. On the other hand, during Guadalcanal, the Washington was able to achieve a hit rate of 12% on the Hiei, and, once again, hits were scored by dreadnaughts using fire control superior to what was available at Guadalcanal on the first shot at Surigao. Part of this difference is due to training. The Yamato rarely did gunnery training because running the 18.1s required massive amounts of oil be constantly poured over them to keep the machinery running, making it extremely resource intensive. Second, the Japanese had grossly inferior fire control for two reasons. First, radar fire control not only reduces human error, but is capable of producing accurate information even under adverse conditions Japanese fire control was entirely optical throughout the war. Second, American fire control had much more stable vertical elements, which allows a solution to be maintained even when a ship was performing high speed maneuvers. Now, would a fight between the Yamato and, lets say, West Virginia been a sure bet? No, the Yamato could always have gotten a lucky hit, or the West Virginia could've failed to disable the Yamato sufficiently before it closed range, but all it takes is a few good hits and suddenly the Yamato has lost turrets, fire control, speed, or bridge function, any of which is effectively a lost battle. The head to head Iowa vs Yamato comparisons tend to focus on a lot of engineering details while ignoring information from actual battles regarding how ships performed. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
TheDemon posted:True or not, it is historical fact that Spruance intended the Fifth Fleet to engage Yamato with remodeled WW1 battleships and their escorts, at a considerable numbers advantage. I presume that he wasn't crazy and believed that they would in fact sink Yamato without disproportionate casualties. Yeah, the bit about range is entirely wrong. The 16"/45 gun had a range of 35km, and at Surigao the West Virginia achieved a firing solution at 30,000 yards. The Yamato's main guns had a technical max range of 42km, but the Japanese didn't believe they'd be able to effectively engage until the range was below 27km. So even by the Japanese estimate, the Yamato actually had a shorter engagement range than the American battleships. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Junkozeyne posted:They wouldn't hit at 35km either though. While automated fire control and radar gave them an advantage it wouldn't make shells magically hit their target. USS Washington vs. Kirishima was at 7.7km range for example. The US Navy pre-war wasn't really better at their naval warfare expectations than the japanese really. Both sides built a lot of Battleships and intended for great battles between battlelines. The war proved that air force reigned surpreme though and the USA had a lot more resources, manpower and technology to press their carrier advantage. Yeah, it probably wouldn't have hit at 35km, but a firing solution at 30km implies they were confident in a hit. They did manage to score a hit at 22km on the first salvo, though. I agree wholeheartedly, air power makes all of this pointless. It's a neverending internet argument, though. I'm mostly just mocking the wehraboo idea that the Yamato was the ultimate battleship. The popular way of comparing the Yamato to any other battleship is by listing their stats one by one, counting up the number where the Yamato is best (guns, armor, stability, sometimes speed), and then declaring a winner based on the final score with no appreciation for how much each factor actually matters. I've seen people point out that the Iowa might've had better radar fire control, but the Yamato had better optical fire control, therefore they cancel each other out. The only way to get some idea about which would win is to look at actual battles and see what factors played into them, but even then that's not reliable. Conditions change and so does luck.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Technically, half of TF 54 were Colorado-class, which were post-WW1 designs, incorporated lessons learned during wartime, and mounted 16" guns rather than the 14" ones found on all prior designs. While 1-on-1 I'd still bet on Yamato over them, multiple of them with support is a different matter. Their guns may not be the Mark 7 version and its super-heavy shells, but they're still decent 16" guns and would perform far better than a lower caliber. It's the remodeled WW1 battleships, aka the ones with 14" guns, that I was calling out. Could 14" guns deal damage? Of course, but barring rather lucky hits it would have taken a while to render it combat ineffective, and you weren't likely to get any relevant penetrations before Yamato got in effective range herself. In tandem with ships that actually can penetrate the armor they help add weight of fire and damage to what they can, but that's not what the initial comment was. Alright, my comment about them blasting it into oblivion was hyperbolic. That being said, I did not say that axis designs were helpless showcases at any point. I can see where you might get the idea I'm going in that direction, so I'll be clear about it. My opinion is that Japanese battleships were bad because evidence supports their fire control being vastly inferior to American ships. They were also (mostly) updated World War 1 ships and had generally inferior armor to American dreadnaughts due to their excessive number of turrets (Fuso and Ise classes) and greater emphasis on speed. Japanese destroyers were very good. Later Japanese cruisers were also good, though their torpedoes were both a blessing and a curse. Japanese carriers were a mixed bag. They had good aircraft capacity and some were economical and fast, but damage control was poor and their AA capacity was mediocre (since Japanese doctrine declared fighters would be the primary protection against aircraft). Most of their success was due to pilot training and their early war numbers advantage. An actual battle with the Yamato versus a handful of dreadnaughts probably would've gone something like the last battle of the Bismarck, where it was completely disabled by gunfire but not sunk. 14" and 16" shells might not be able to penetrate the citadel, but they could severely damage the bridge, cause secondary explosions and fires, knock out turrets, cause flooding, knock out steering, and disable fire control. It does come down to luck, there's always a chance that the American ship(s) might miss or just not hit anything vital, or the Yamato could get a good hit or two in, but 1) the US battleship would likely get a firing solution first, due to the over-the-horizon capacity of radar 2) Its fire would likely be more accurate at range and 3) It would be able to fire accurately while taking evasive action, due to the stable vertical elements. The question is which ship gets the first crippling hit, and that's always going to be an unknown. The Yamato would have a better chance of any one hit being devastating (though Japanese ammunition had a high dud rate, up to 75% in some battles), whereas the American battleship would be more likely to score hits, especially before the Yamato could. Also, regarding Japanese damage control. The Akagi was lost in part because all of its damage control stations were knocked out by a single bomb. There were systemic design flaws.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 17:26
|
|