|
Lord Koth posted:
I always get a kick out of the fact that not only did Kaga have 8" guns, but that they were in casemates that were added after 1934.
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:The USS West Virginia was armed with The Yamamoto? Also, I already gave the official estimates on range. The Yamato had a technical range of about 42km, but estimated they could get a firing solution based on the optical control at 27km. At Samar, it opened fire at a range of 31km, but did not score any hits at this range. It reported later hits on carriers (though these are ambiguous), and it was confirmed to have hit a destroyer at 19km. The West Virginia was able to get a firing solution on the Yamashiro at 30km (maximum range was 37km). So while yes, the Yamato had longer range on its guns, it couldn't really make use of that range. In any case, RCF, and specifically US RCF, was consistently superior to Japanese fire control after 1942. Second the lack of stable vertical elements in Japanese fire control (and presence in American) meant that the West Virginia would be able to take evasive maneuvers while firing, whereas the Yamato would have to keep a steady course to maintain its solution. A battle between the Yamato and West Virginia would've probably come down to which ship would score the first "crippling" hit, which means luck is involved. The Yamato's shells would have had a better chance of penetrating the West Virginia's citadel and damaging something essential, whereas the West Virginia would be landing more hits. The Yamato's big advantage is that it could penetrate the belt and deck of the West Virginia at any range, whereas the West Virginia would be unable to penetrate the deck and could only penetrate the belt at 20,000 yards or less. That being said, a 16", and even a smaller shell can cause problems without penetrating the citadel. Directors, turret rings, the superstructure, the shafts/propellers, the rudder, and other essential components are vulnerable. Hits outside the citadel can still cause fires and flooding, reducing accuracy. Anyways, a note on British vs German weapons: There're several factors in British vs German gun directors during WW1 and WW2. I won't go into WW1, suffice to say that much of the German advantage was due to the fact that British fire control was vastly inferior rather than their optics. Also, much of the engagement at Jutland was at ranges significantly below 20km. Second, the British fire control in WW2 was poor due to two factors. First, they did not really implement radar fire control until late in the war, well after the channel dash. Second, the primary fire control on their modern battleships was located in the turrets themselves rather than the main director that US ships. In the Duke of York vs the Scharnhorst, the Duke of York was not able to score hits until it was 16,000 yards away and had turned to give a broadside, because sea spray was blinding the optics on the turrets. The performance of British fire control in WW2 is not comparable to US. It is not worth using British fire control as a reason to argue US fire control was inferior for this reason, especially since we know exactly how well US fire control could perform from multiple battles (hint: it was good).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Well, that was kind of what I was getting at, I just didn't mention Japanese AA since the gun range setup is more similar between US and German ones than Japanese ones. The Japanese cruisers, after upgrades, seem to generally only have 2 range bands, the 5 km guns, and 3.0/3.1 km guns, so their high damage output falls into that lower one. The US and German ones generally have three though, getting the 5 km guns, ?? km guns, and 2.1 km guns. US tends to get high damage output in both the lower range bands, while Germans only get high damage in the lowest one. That middle band's range seems to heavily depend on tier though, varying between ~3 km and up to 4.5 on Hindenburg. Des Moines drops the middle range band as well of course, and I'm not sure how DF interacts with the fact that it has two sets of guns shooting at its max band of 5.7 km. Do they both get the boost, or only the last listed one? The Russian tier 10 battleship's AA will be a group of angry, drunk sailors on the deck throwing things at passing airplanes. Friend and foe.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
So what's this about stock hulls affecting AP shell quality? Does AP penetration and gun accuracy increase as you upgrade Japanese battleship hulls?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
I'm playing this again and applied to the clan. Quick, stupid question though. I kinda want to get a destroyer and carrier again, but there've been some changes since I last looked into things. What's the current meta?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm having a hell of a time with the Ryujo so far. Is it better to go with the air superiority or strike loadout? Because superiority isn't working too well for me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
s1ppycup posted:Trying to remember, what else did they change besides the HP? The number of launchers, too. It used to have 4 quad torpedo launchers per side. I think the torpedoes had better range, too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
So now that I'm in my Amagi, I'm occasionally getting tier 10 battles. It seems like every tier 10 battle I get into is undersized, and if there's a tier 10 carrier it's just basically moving around and getting annihilated by planes or torpedoes launched by invisible destroyers, usually before the shooting even starts. Is this how the endgame is at the moment or was this unusual?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Pacra posted:
This is really terrible because for some reason I can't turn the music off in my game. For some reason in windowed the options screen won't let me make changes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
For some reason my serverlist is empty. I already tried uninstalling then reinstalling. Anyone know of any other fixes?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Still not seeing any servers on the server list. This is annoying, especially during an exp event. Ah well, maybe it's best to be done with this anyways, since my premium is running out, and I don't want to buy more gold.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Sometimes I really hate the Amagi. I had a Konigsberg 12km away with its broadside to me. I fired right into it, got 3-4 hits, and not one citadel. I think maybe 2500 damage total. The Molotov, however, is a thing of beauty. I think my record is 4 citadels in a single salvo. It eats poorly armored cruisers alive.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:Short range? That boat is great at basically every range it can hit to. I've said it before, but one more time: The Amagi is the 2nd best boat in the game. I want to like the Amagi, but for some reason I have a hell of a time getting any citadels. I can get 4-5 per salvo in a Molotov, and did well in the Fuso and Nagato, but with the Amagi I'll get 5 hits on a Konigsberg with his broadside turned to me and do maybe 2500 damage. Just bad luck I suppose. Oddly enough, my best shot in the Amagi so far was on another Amagi when I got 3 citadels in a single Salvo. Never had gotten more than one before in it. I'm enjoying carriers a lot more than I used to just because there's less RNG with torpedoes than with how shells land.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
CitizenKain posted:I keep trying to like the Ognevoi and its not happening. Its nice beating on other DDs, but they aren't around, it doesn't have the agility or turret rotation to harass other ships. Your goal should basically be to stay at 13-14km and bombard battleships/cruisers. You can still manage to do decent damage and distract them from shooting at your teammates. Even without agility, you're a pain in the rear end to hit at that distance. Also, the Mogami isn't great with 8" guns, but it feels a lot more bearable. At least you can do some maneuvering and keep your guns on target with the 8"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
I got the Izumo recently. It feels more durable than the Amagi, but it completely lacks the Amagi's maneuverability. That wouldn't be so terrible if it wasn't for the accuracy. So far, accuracy has been much worse than I remember the Amagi's being. I have it upgraded to the B hull, and that doesn't seem to have helped much. Hopefully some other upgrade will. I do like the secondaries, though. I also got the Kiev, and on my first game killed two Fletchers and an Essex. It's a murderous little bastard and very fun to play.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Do folks still division regularly? It's been a long time since I've played with anyone else, but I figure it's time to get back into it. I'm not too horrible and have ships from tier 6 to tier 9.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Actually, I think I'll take a break from this for a while. It's been more frustrating than fun lately, especially with the Izumo. To be honest, this game is rarely fun, it just rubs some normally latent autistic part of my brain that keeps going "gotta get the ship"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
After playing the Konig, I think it's the best tier 5 battleship. It's guns handle really well, are easy to angle with while still getting all guns on target, and even if they rarely citadel, will still routinely do 10k+ damage to battleships that're 12km or more away. Its speed and turning are respectable too. What I really like, though, is its armor. It's a very tough ship to kill, and if angled well can even handle higher tier ships.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Hazdoc posted:They nerfed torpedoes, but T10 matches are still campfests. Obviously the problem isn't with torpedoes, right? I really wish they'd change repair prices, since that's what really kills the high tier meta. If they don't want to do a flat reduction, making them scale with credits earned so that if you have a lovely game, you won't lose a few hundred thousand would be nice.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
I saw the Minotaur last night. It seemed pretty small, had a US destroyer rate of fire and reasonable range, was able to pop and hide in its own smoke, and didn't turn too poorly. It also got citadeled while in the smoke and died.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Velius posted:The Konig only has 12" guns I believe. It's WW1 vintage despite the tier V thing. Kongo class have 14" guns, same with New Yorks. They're going to struggle with citadels on equal tier battleships (especially other Konigs, which are practically immune) but AP should still produce reliable damage. I swapped between HE and AP but basically just got used to doing modest damage consistently rather than citadels. Konigs are really good ships, probably the best at tier 5 in my opinion. Yeah, on paper you're not doing as much damage, but your dispersion is good, your angling is great, your speed and maneuverability are decent, and you can take a beating. All that combines to make a very respectable ship.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
On the HE, I wonder how much of a difference only 19mm of penetration will make. Isn't that a good bit smaller than most destroyers? I also thought most battleships and some cruisers have deck/superstructure armor that's higher than that, but I'd have to check when I get home.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
So apparently some changes are going through on the PTR. quote:This change focuses on high tier battleship's armor, and the balance on the Russian Destroyer, which now has a more shinning performance. In addition, we'll receive a new accessories. Khabarovsk is getting hit with a nerf. Is that change to bow and stern armor significant enough that they can be overpenned by 16" guns now?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:As for the other change... short answer is yes, 28mm of bow armor can be penned by 16" guns (so long as you don't have the magical fairy dusted bow of the Moskva). More in-depth answer, this is not so much a buff to Montana, but a totally unneeded buff to the German T9-10 battleships. Don't believe me? Go look at how the bow armor between the three nations is structured. Both the US and IJN have a contiguous value of 32mm across their entire bow, whereas the German ones only have a very thin strip of that value at the very tip (slightly larger for the T9, barely even there for the T10. Bismarck and Tirpitz do this too, but the previously 32mm area is much larger on them), with everything below getting far heavier 60mm armor. So you'll still get huge numbers of bounces with those, while everything else is vulnerable to everything. So basically, this will be a buff to the Kurfurst?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Phanatic posted: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. They could do a number on superstructure and really mess with the functioning of a ship, though. I kinda wish had a sort of panic mechanic in game rather than the endless "I hope I make fire on battleship"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:They've gone on record as saying that US stuff is qualitatively worse in game purposefully. Their reasoning is that the only advantage the US had was mass production of inferior or unremarkable equipment. People make Russian bias jokes, but that's pretty much Russian bias. They've intentionally minimized or ignored many of the ways in which American ships were superior, especially in terms of fire control. If they even tried to make it realistic, American ships would be raining death down on their enemies from outside visual range while taking whatever evasive maneuvers they felt like, whereas the ships of other nations would have to travel in a straight line, be unable to reliably hit enemy ships unless within visual range, and especially in the case of the Germans, have to hope that their FC stations wouldn't be disabled by a stray shot. Historically, US torpedoes were inferior to the Japanese, US carriers were arguably inferior to the British due to the armored flight deck, and US AA was, in some cases, inferior to that of the British, but pretty much everything else was top notch.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Lord Koth posted:Armored flight decks were a double-edged sword, with any damage taken by them requiring a longer and lengthier repair process. Yorktown, for example, was able to be quickly turned around with after Coral Sea to get it operational enough in time for Midway. She likely would have been disabled during Coral Sea even with an armored flight deck, and that would have made repairing her enough to participate in another battle less than a month later nearly impossible. This is also not getting into the British CVs having significantly smaller plane complements - partly due to overall design, but also because the space needed for armoring the carrier obviously comes from somewhere, and that's usually the aircraft complement. So no, British CVs were never "arguably" superior to US CVs. And AA superiority may have been somewhat true earlier in the war, but by the end the US had the best systems and tactics in that regard. The bit about the armored flight decks taking more time to repair is true, but it also made them less likely to take significant damage from light hits. The Formidable was able to resume operations less than an hour after a kamikaze hit. The Illustrious was famous for taking a good number of bomb hits in the Mediterranean as well. In the end, I'd agree that the armored flight decks had some tradeoffs, British carriers generally had excellent endurance (except from submarine attacks). British CVs having significantly smaller plane complements entirely due to armored decks is a common misunderstanding. The major cause of British carriers having a smaller complement was that they didn't use a deck park. British carriers, especially earlier in the war, served in the North Atlantic, where planes were not kept on the flight deck except during operations. US carriers in the Pacific, however, were able to maintain a permanent deck park. When British carriers moved into the Pacific and they began to store planes on the flight deck, their complements, while smaller, were much more comparable to those of US carriers. The final British carrier class, the Implacable class, had 81 aircraft, vs the Essex with 90-110. Regarding AA, that is a little tough since so many weapons were shared. The British were the first to develop proximity fuses for AA. The 40mm bofors was shared between the two. I remember hearing that British had better radar directed AA, at least early in the war, but I can't find my source for that so I'll try to come up with it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I'll point out that at least one of the bombs that hit the Franklin penetrated enough armor thickness that it would've gone through a British deck. Also if you're using a deck park you've got a giant pile of flammables on your deck. Planes are an absolute horror show to have on deck and the real advantage of the US ships (other than a much better suited hangar for ops and better elevator setup of course) is that they could open up the sides of their hangar to push planes out and let other ships shoot water in rather than have flaming planes trapped making a ton of heat inside the ship's girder, potentially heating it to the point that the ship bends. An armored deck comes in pretty handy with a deck park, since even if the planes get damaged and start exploding, they're unlikely to do destroy the flight deck. In that example with the Formidable that I gave, secondary explosions took out eighteen aircraft on the deck, but it was able to resume operations less than an hour later. In and of itself, an armored flight deck is going to be an advantage. The US started using them with the Midway class, so clearly the architects saw some value. The problem with them is that when you have a strict treaty weight limit, you end up making some compromises that result in inferior hangar and overall structural quality. Even with these issues, comparing the performance of the British carriers to their contemporaries, the Ark Royal and Illustrious classes to the Yorktown and Lexingtons, and the Implacable to the Essexes, they stack up reasonably well. All of the Illustrious class carriers survived, at least, in spite of taking heavy damage in multiple cases.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Insert name here posted:There's a navweaps article about armoured flight decks that I thought was pretty interesting: http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm Alright, that article is pretty good and convinced me that armored decks didn't work out all that well. Is there any ship type that, realistically, the US didn't have the best of in WW2?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:The Indomitable got rendered uneconomical to repair by an internal fire, compare the Franklin. Alright, I conceded the argument. I'm not going to get into grognard tail chasing. wjs5 posted:Subs, for a while at least due to poo poo torps. Fair enough. Even then, the subs themselves were pretty good aside from the whole torpedo issue. Especially in terms of crew comfort compared to the German subs (ice cream machines vs "lets stuff one of our two toilets full of extra rations") Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
I just had a Yamato that did everything right.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
I'll apply to DONGS later today on AdventurePigeon.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Pacra posted:There are some high tier carrier players whom, if I see them on the other team, I resign myself to getting obliterated midway through or towards end of the match, no matter what I'm playing. The discrepancy in high tiers between a unicum CV and an average CV is huge, much more than DD players (and at least multiple DD players are likely in the match.) It's been a while since I've had a WARBEASTY game. I'm pretty sure the dude is actually mentally retarded, not just bad at the game. He kept attacking enemy battleships and hitting them with one or two torpedoes and saying "THIS HURT YOU BATTLESHIP" or something like that in chat each time while the enemy carrier toasted our team unopposed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 20:17
|
|