An aircraft carrier should never, ever be that close to the enemy ships. In fact nearly no ship should be that close to another ship.
Hopefully like the aircraft and tanks warthunder can do it better.
Are you saying warships cannot ram?
While it wasn't used as a tactic, if an Essex class aircraft carrier rammed a japanese destroyer that destroyer would not be a happy vessel. Its better to have it in just in case, as you can clearly see in the video you won't have many chances to do it.
I've converted to almost 100% warthunder but I'll give it a go.
An aircraft carrier should never, ever be that close to the enemy ships. In fact nearly no ship should be that close to another ship.
Hopefully like the aircraft and tanks warthunder can do it better.
Are you saying warships cannot ram?
While it wasn't used as a tactic, if an Essex class aircraft carrier rammed a japanese destroyer that destroyer would not be a happy vessel. Its better to have it in just in case, as you can clearly see in the video you won't have many chances to do it.
I've converted to almost 100% warthunder but I'll give it a go.
Naval vessels should not ram. No sane person would use a ship of extreme importance to ram another ship.
Do you know expensive it is to build an aircraft carrier? OR even a smaller vessel? Both ships would be very messed up, but most admirals would be sacked if those ships before they even got close.
Tanks rammed each other, planes rammed each other, but ships have not rammed each other for a very ling time. Both ships should get very badly messed up for ramming.
Personally this puts me off. Just personal taste really.
An aircraft carrier should never, ever be that close to the enemy ships. In fact nearly no ship should be that close to another ship.
Hopefully like the aircraft and tanks warthunder can do it better.
Are you saying warships cannot ram?
While it wasn't used as a tactic, if an Essex class aircraft carrier rammed a japanese destroyer that destroyer would not be a happy vessel. Its better to have it in just in case, as you can clearly see in the video you won't have many chances to do it.
I've converted to almost 100% warthunder but I'll give it a go.
Naval vessels should not ram. No sane person would use a ship of extreme importance to ram another ship.
Do you know expensive it is to build an aircraft carrier? OR even a smaller vessel? Both ships would be very messed up, but most admirals would be sacked if those ships before they even got close.
Tanks rammed each other, planes rammed each other, but ships have not rammed each other for a very ling time. Both ships should get very badly messed up for ramming.
Personally this puts me off. Just personal taste really.
Okay. But, these ships are player controlled in very much and Arcade style game. Would you rather have them just clip through each other? Or impact without any damage?
An aircraft carrier should never, ever be that close to the enemy ships. In fact nearly no ship should be that close to another ship.
Hopefully like the aircraft and tanks warthunder can do it better.
Are you saying warships cannot ram?
While it wasn't used as a tactic, if an Essex class aircraft carrier rammed a japanese destroyer that destroyer would not be a happy vessel. Its better to have it in just in case, as you can clearly see in the video you won't have many chances to do it.
I've converted to almost 100% warthunder but I'll give it a go.
Naval vessels should not ram. No sane person would use a ship of extreme importance to ram another ship.
Do you know expensive it is to build an aircraft carrier? OR even a smaller vessel? Both ships would be very messed up, but most admirals would be sacked if those ships before they even got close.
Tanks rammed each other, planes rammed each other, but ships have not rammed each other for a very ling time. Both ships should get very badly messed up for ramming.
Personally this puts me off. Just personal taste really.
Okay. But, these ships are player controlled in very much and Arcade style game. Would you rather have them just clip through each other? Or impact without any damage?
No I think both ships should suffer terribly for it. The incentive to ram should be nil.
An aircraft carrier should never, ever be that close to the enemy ships. In fact nearly no ship should be that close to another ship.
Hopefully like the aircraft and tanks warthunder can do it better.
Are you saying warships cannot ram?
While it wasn't used as a tactic, if an Essex class aircraft carrier rammed a japanese destroyer that destroyer would not be a happy vessel. Its better to have it in just in case, as you can clearly see in the video you won't have many chances to do it.
I've converted to almost 100% warthunder but I'll give it a go.
Naval vessels should not ram. No sane person would use a ship of extreme importance to ram another ship.
Do you know expensive it is to build an aircraft carrier? OR even a smaller vessel? Both ships would be very messed up, but most admirals would be sacked if those ships before they even got close.
Tanks rammed each other, planes rammed each other, but ships have not rammed each other for a very ling time. Both ships should get very badly messed up for ramming.
Personally this puts me off. Just personal taste really.
Essex Class Aircraft Carrier- 36 000 long tons, equivalent to smallish battleships
Fubuki Class destroyer- 2000 long tons
Ramming has been done several times in naval history, it was encouraged for a time as a valid anti-submarine tactic by the royal navy. In fact the only time a battleship sunk a submarine was when HMS Dreadnought rammed one during ww1, cut the u-boat clean in half for no damage.
In World War II, naval ships often rammed other vessels, though this was often due to circumstances, as considerable damage could be caused to the attacking ship. The damage that lightly constructed destroyers took from the tactic led to it being officially discouraged by the Royal Navy from early 1943, after the HMS Hesperus was dry-docked for three months following sinking U-357 in December 1942 and HMS Harvester was torpedoed and sunk following damaging her propellers during the ramming of U-444 in March 1943. USS Buckley rammed U-66; and HMS Easton rammed U-458.
Not recommended. A few outliers does not mean it should be common. Remember if you ram a ship, its gonna grind along the sides and or undersides of your ship, which is valuable. Let along the impact that may damage your ship.
Im not saying ramming cant happen, but it doesnt happen in the sense that ships should ram and destroy other ships. Both ships are likely to be damaged costing millions to get them sent back and repaired for little to no gain.
Anyway, there is no convincing me ramming is a viable tactic. As I said if you enjoy using your aircraft carriers to ram destroyers, go ahead. But I personally find the fact that the two ships are even close in the first place horrible in a naval game.
But I get it. Its arcade.
Also ramming subs and U boats is not the same at all to ramming destroyers and other armoured warships. Especially in the early 1900s.
In World War II, naval ships often rammed other vessels, though this was often due to circumstances, as considerable damage could be caused to the attacking ship. The damage that lightly constructed destroyers took from the tactic led to it being officially discouraged by the Royal Navy from early 1943, after the HMS Hesperus was dry-docked for three months following sinking U-357 in December 1942 and HMS Harvester was torpedoed and sunk following damaging her propellers during the ramming of U-444 in March 1943. USS Buckley rammed U-66; and HMS Easton rammed U-458.
Not recommended. A few outliers does not mean it should be common. Remember if you ram a ship, its gonna grind along the sides and or undersides of your ship, which is valuable. Let along the impact that may damage your ship.
Im not saying ramming cant happen, but it doesnt happen in the sense that ships should ram and destroy other ships. Both ships are likely to be damaged costing millions to get them sent back and repaired for little to no gain.
Anyway, there is no convincing me ramming is a viable tactic. As I said if you enjoy using your aircraft carriers to ram destroyers, go ahead. But I personally find the fact that the two ships are even close in the first place horrible in a naval game.
But I get it. Its arcade.
I'm not saying it should be a viable tactic but if it does happen an aircraft carrier weighs 18 time as much as a destroyer, what do you think is going to happen? The carrier won't much care to be perfectly honest. Its important for it to be in the game and looks good in a trailer.
Since we're quoting wikipedia, let me quote you some wikipedia
Ironically for a vessel designed to engage enemy battleships, her only significant action was the ramming and sinking of German submarine SM U-29, skippered by K/Lt Otto Weddigen (of SM U-9 fame), on 18 March 1915. U-29 had broken the surface immediately ahead of Dreadnought after firing a torpedo at HMS Neptune and Dreadnought cut the submarine in two after a short chase. She almost collided with HMS Temeraire who was also attempting to ram. Dreadnought thus became the only battleship ever to sink a submarine
During anti-submarine action, ramming was an alternative if the destroyer was too close to the surfaced submarine for her main guns to fire into the water. The tactic was used by the famous British anti-submarine specialist Captain Frederic John Walker from December 1941 to the end of the war.
Lt. Commander Gerard Roope, the captain of HMS Glowworm, was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for the 1940 ramming of the German cruiser Admiral Hipper following a close-range action in bad weather off the Norwegian coast. More recent claims suggest that the Hipper was actually attempting to ram the Glowworm and the two ships simply collided.
On 5 November 1942, the Finnish submarine Vetehinen rammed the Soviet submarine Щ 305 in the Sea of Åland and sank it. Vetehinen was on a night patrol searching for Soviet submarines. A contact was found, and after confirmation of an enemy contact, Vetehinen launched a torpedoes, which missed probably due being fired at too short distance. Vetehinen then opened fire with its deck guns. Deck guns managed to damage the Soviet submarine, which by then had started an emergency dive. The Captain of Vetehinen, determined not to let the submarine escape, ordered his submarine to ram the other vessel, which at last was a success.
The bold parts indicate that ramming was a tactic often considered by captains. If a ship is damaged then yes it will take time an money to repair, but if a ship is dead its dead, sunk, on the bottom of the sea, out of the fight. If you can suffer some damage to permanently put a ship out of action its a good trade. Ships take years and millions of dollars to build, sinking one is almost always worth it, even if you do take some damage.
Yea but as I said they are outliers. Normally by circumstance.
You are twisting the evidence to suggest ramming was a viable tactic all the time.
Ramming a submarine is different, still risky but a dent in a submarine will kill it/render it useless. A dent in a warship can be solved.
Viable tactic doesnt mean a good one, just one that can work. Its viable for me to kill someone with my bare fists, but if I can use something different I will, like a base ball bat.
Its viable for me to ram a sub if I cant use my guns or have no other options. Its not viable for me to go out of my way to ram a destroyer with an aircraft carrier.
Ramming in a warship will 99% of the time result in a loss of your job I assure you. Ramming a sub is stupid, but if you have to do it then yes it has more chance of working.
In short, its still dumb as hell and is not frequent enough to allow ramming as a powerful tool (as indicated by the trailer).
As I said even the fact and aircraft carrier is close enough to ram another ship is bonkers as it is.
The large vessel may care if you ruin its propellers, rudder or even remotely damage the hull. Yes I do think an aircraft carrier will care if its ramming destroyers. Especially given how expensive and valuable they are.
I think we are arguing at cross purposes here. First of all, the ramming is just in the trailer, if you watch the gameplay at no point does anyone try to ram and even get remotely close enough to ram another ship.
Second, we're kind of saying the same thing, but with a different point of view. My point is, its something you do if you're too close to use your guns, and believe me, if you can sink an enemy vessel, its worth it. Ships go into repair all the time, if you're in a battle at all and are close enough to consider ramming, you've probably taken shell fire and will have to repair anyway, if you can sink an enemy ship its worth it.
The thing is warships of the early 20th century are very tough, look at all the firepower it took to sink the Bismarck. Most naval battles result in very few loses, mostly just gunfire for a bit, one side runs away, everyone goes into repairs for a while. If, by ramming a vessel, a captain sinks an enemy vessel he'll probably be commended in some way because he sank an enemy vessel.
EmilCrane wrote: I think we are arguing at cross purposes here. First of all, the ramming is just in the trailer, if you watch the gameplay at no point does anyone try to ram and even get remotely close enough to ram another ship.
Yes I know, but as (at least as I thought I said) the fact that ramming like that is a thing put me off instantly. 2 ships shouldn't ram. Submarines are different of course as seen in the evidence. Thats all that put me off. The ramming of an aircraft carrier into another ship spells out the game play to me.
I can grantee in that trailer it will show broadsiding battle ships for example, in fact ill watch past the ramming and see if my initial assumptions on the game are correct. (ok, seconds later this happened) I will watch no more.
But for me it spelled the nature of the game personally.
Yea I know, even ironclads were hard to sink, hence why ramming was used then. But for an aircraft carrier, the point im stressing here, to ram an enemy ship is unthinkable, and then for a warship to ram a warship is again not normal or in any way common.
Hence why aircraft carriers and submarines are vital to naval warfare, they can blow up vessels like no other ship can.
Just ignore that stuff at the beginning and watch the real gameplay. I have a history degree, I did my dissertation in naval history, I know what real naval battles look like, and while no arcade game can come close, World of Warships does an ok job. The real gameplay, not that crap at the beginning.
EmilCrane wrote: Just ignore that stuff at the beginning and watch the real gameplay. I have a history degree, I did my dissertation in naval history, I know what real naval battles look like, and while no arcade game can come close, World of Warships does an ok job. The real gameplay, not that crap at the beginning.
Would have been better to say this at the beginning
I might give it a watch, but when im home with sound maybe.
An aircraft carrier should never, ever be that close to the enemy ships. In fact nearly no ship should be that close to another ship.
Hopefully like the aircraft and tanks warthunder can do it better.
Are you saying warships cannot ram?
While it wasn't used as a tactic, if an Essex class aircraft carrier rammed a japanese destroyer that destroyer would not be a happy vessel. Its better to have it in just in case, as you can clearly see in the video you won't have many chances to do it.
I've converted to almost 100% warthunder but I'll give it a go.
Naval vessels should not ram. No sane person would use a ship of extreme importance to ram another ship.
Do you know expensive it is to build an aircraft carrier? OR even a smaller vessel? Both ships would be very messed up, but most admirals would be sacked if those ships before they even got close.
Tanks rammed each other, planes rammed each other, but ships have not rammed each other for a very ling time. Both ships should get very badly messed up for ramming.
Personally this puts me off. Just personal taste really.
Clearly, this reveals something is severely lacking from both this game and RL naval combat.
Battering rams.
Someone go and petition the US Navy and the makers of this game to add battering rams to modern ships. Modern navy guys are all weaklings, cowardly killing before they can even look each other in the eye! It is obvious modern warships have great need of battering rams. Also boarding actions.
EmilCrane wrote: I think we are arguing at cross purposes here. First of all, the ramming is just in the trailer, if you watch the gameplay at no point does anyone try to ram and even get remotely close enough to ram another ship.
Yes I know, but as (at least as I thought I said) the fact that ramming like that is a thing put me off instantly. 2 ships shouldn't ram. Submarines are different of course as seen in the evidence. Thats all that put me off. The ramming of an aircraft carrier into another ship spells out the game play to me.
I can grantee in that trailer it will show broadsiding battle ships for example, in fact ill watch past the ramming and see if my initial assumptions on the game are correct. (ok, seconds later this happened) I will watch no more.
But for me it spelled the nature of the game personally.
Yea I know, even ironclads were hard to sink, hence why ramming was used then. But for an aircraft carrier, the point im stressing here, to ram an enemy ship is unthinkable, and then for a warship to ram a warship is again not normal or in any way common.
Hence why aircraft carriers and submarines are vital to naval warfare, they can blow up vessels like no other ship can.
So... you are dismissing an entire game on the basis of about 3 seconds of gameplay? Recorded as a highlight, not something typical. Also, to play a bit of devil's advocate. Just because it never happened in reality doesn't mean it's something impossible.
EmilCrane wrote: I think we are arguing at cross purposes here. First of all, the ramming is just in the trailer, if you watch the gameplay at no point does anyone try to ram and even get remotely close enough to ram another ship.
Yes I know, but as (at least as I thought I said) the fact that ramming like that is a thing put me off instantly. 2 ships shouldn't ram. Submarines are different of course as seen in the evidence. Thats all that put me off. The ramming of an aircraft carrier into another ship spells out the game play to me.
I can grantee in that trailer it will show broadsiding battle ships for example, in fact ill watch past the ramming and see if my initial assumptions on the game are correct. (ok, seconds later this happened) I will watch no more.
But for me it spelled the nature of the game personally.
Yea I know, even ironclads were hard to sink, hence why ramming was used then. But for an aircraft carrier, the point im stressing here, to ram an enemy ship is unthinkable, and then for a warship to ram a warship is again not normal or in any way common.
Hence why aircraft carriers and submarines are vital to naval warfare, they can blow up vessels like no other ship can.
So... you are dismissing an entire game on the basis of about 3 seconds of gameplay? Recorded as a highlight, not something typical. Also, to play a bit of devil's advocate. Just because it never happened in reality doesn't mean it's something impossible.
Yes pretty much.
I am very picky with video games. Its a curse as any outsider can see. But its something I have to live with when it comes to choosing books, movies and games.
EmilCrane wrote: Just ignore that stuff at the beginning and watch the real gameplay. I have a history degree, I did my dissertation in naval history, I know what real naval battles look like, and while no arcade game can come close, World of Warships does an ok job. The real gameplay, not that crap at the beginning.
Would have been better to say this at the beginning
I might give it a watch, but when im home with sound maybe.
Give it a try, the guy commenting knows his stuff and is very informative and fun to listen to. Just try to survive the initial seconds that are never again showed
Sadly, didn't get on the EU one, so I'm hanging out in the NA closed beta. Just tried out a couple romps in a Japanese destroyer. Torpedo's are hilarious and at good breaking ships in two.
A king George the fith class BB cut a tribal class destroyer in WW2.
Took a good gouge into the bow but the ship was never going to be sunk by that. Anyway the hull was not so armoured that far forward, the thickest belt was further back.
Ramming not good but when you have size in favour by ernough times you will not be sunk.
If it has that class I'd be tempted, though be higher tier I know as its a well armoured BB with 10 14 inch guns and was modern in WW2
BaronIveagh wrote: As an alpha tester, my NDA binds and gags me hand and foot.
The NDA has been lifted:
With CBT just around the corner, we are happy to drop the non-dislosure-agreement that prevented you all from sharing your adventures from the game with the rest of the community. From 12 March onwards, you will finally be able to post your videos, screenshots and impressions without any constraints!
I'm not really sure what I think about this. I'm not naval historian, but naval things are an interest of mine, and from what I can tell it seems like the defining characteristic of warships is that they are big and slow and hard to sink. I haven't really followed this game too closely, but from what little I have seen it feels like they are going to make the ships way too fast and the engagements way too short ranged. I mean, a BS can fire its guns over the horizon... obviously you will never hit a moving target from that distance, but still, that's the kind of ranges we're dealing with.
At least with the tank simulations they did a good job of reloading times and slow paced urban environments that make good use of terrain, and aircraft duels work with no terrain because aircraft are inherently quick and maneuverable with forward firing guns. If they want to do ships and make it interesting I'm afraid they will have to cut ranges significantly shorter than they should be, and shoehorn battles into unrealistic locations so that they can use islands as terrain.
I guess it boils down to me being too much of a stickler for historical accuracy with my ships for this to really feel like a good idea.
Ciciro wrote: I'll wait for when War Thunder does it better.
Going on past form it will be a long wait.
And with built in cheats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dementedwombat wrote: I'm not really sure what I think about this. I'm not naval historian, but naval things are an interest of mine, and from what I can tell it seems like the defining characteristic of warships is that they are big and slow and hard to sink. I haven't really followed this game too closely, but from what little I have seen it feels like they are going to make the ships way too fast and the engagements way too short ranged. I mean, a BS can fire its guns over the horizon... obviously you will never hit a moving target from that distance, but still, that's the kind of ranges we're dealing with.
At least with the tank simulations they did a good job of reloading times and slow paced urban environments that make good use of terrain, and aircraft duels work with no terrain because aircraft are inherently quick and maneuverable with forward firing guns. If they want to do ships and make it interesting I'm afraid they will have to cut ranges significantly shorter than they should be, and shoehorn battles into unrealistic locations so that they can use islands as terrain.
I guess it boils down to me being too much of a stickler for historical accuracy with my ships for this to really feel like a good idea.
Most of my engagements in Tier 1 and 2 ships have been between 7 and 10 km range. Only because at this tier you have tiny guns (by naval standards).
jhe90 wrote: That's short, historically the big guns can duel at 30km +
Those ranges and more your firing blind off radar, spotters and flights are long ernough to count in the ships speed and heading.
So, exactly what game does? Did you read the part where I said Tier 1 and 2 ships with tiny guns?
Higher tier battleships do have scout planes they can launch.
Just looked at the Tech tree, and yeah, there are ships that can fire over 25 km ranges.
That all said, I keep scratching my head when people complain about wargamin games not being realistic. They make arcade style games and have never said otherwise, I never understand this expectation of 100% realism.
Also, if it was realistic each match would take 4 hours and would be boring as feth.
jhe90 wrote: That's short, historically the big guns can duel at 30km +
Those ranges and more your firing blind off radar, spotters and flights are long ernough to count in the ships speed and heading.
So, exactly what game does? Did you read the part where I said Tier 1 and 2 ships with tiny guns?
Higher tier battleships do have scout planes they can launch.
Just looked at the Tech tree, and yeah, there are ships that can fire over 25 km ranges.
That all said, I keep scratching my head when people complain about wargamin games not being realistic. They make arcade style games and have never said otherwise, I never understand this expectation of 100% realism.
Also, if it was realistic each match would take 4 hours and would be boring as feth.
True, maybe miss worded, just saying that that's just a start, the real gunnery fun starts to kick in at longer and even beyond visual blind fire. I don,t expect a frigate sized ship ever to match a BB on range..
I know navel firepower and size are somewhat cubed in there growth , big guns are huge monsters that can weigh more than the smaller escorts for a single triple turret firing shells weighing the same as cars.
Yes, I'd not want to calculate the firing solution hitting one moving target to another with up to 1 minute flight time, firing blind off radar or spotter.
Not a fun game if that real, more a mathatics degree
The NDA has been lifted for everything AFTER alpha. So, here goes:
In the nice inversion of WOT everything Russian is gak. Expect this fixed soon with a flood of not even paper projects and nationalist wishful thinking.
Japan still has no carriers. The US still has no battleships. Predreadnought ships are now allowed, apparently. (see 'thread'nought on this subject in their forums way back in the day when the [replaced] devs swore 'Death before Pre-dreadnought')
The alpha reward ship is actually pretty sweet, being the only cruiser (so far) with a smoke generator. IJN and USN still have the wrong flag, told not a bug, but a design feature. (Both have 'modern' versions of their national flag instead of period flags or navy ensigns.)
Debate on if German battleships will be historical models or big metal X's will be placed on prows continues.
An aircraft carrier should never, ever be that close to the enemy ships. In fact nearly no ship should be that close to another ship.
Hopefully like the aircraft and tanks warthunder can do it better.
Are you saying warships cannot ram?
While it wasn't used as a tactic, if an Essex class aircraft carrier rammed a japanese destroyer that destroyer would not be a happy vessel. Its better to have it in just in case, as you can clearly see in the video you won't have many chances to do it.
I've converted to almost 100% warthunder but I'll give it a go.
Naval vessels should not ram. No sane person would use a ship of extreme importance to ram another ship.
Do you know expensive it is to build an aircraft carrier? OR even a smaller vessel? Both ships would be very messed up, but most admirals would be sacked if those ships before they even got close.
Tanks rammed each other, planes rammed each other, but ships have not rammed each other for a very ling time. Both ships should get very badly messed up for ramming.
Personally this puts me off. Just personal taste really.
History disagrees with you. If you're going to complain about historical inaccuracy, at least be familiar with what you're complaining about. Hell, the Soviet Navy rammed the American Navy as recently as 1988.
That's short, historically the big guns can duel at 30km +
Those ranges and more your firing blind off radar, spotters and flights are long ernough to count in the ships speed and heading.
Most battles during WW2 were fought at significantly closer ranges than you realize. Battleship duels over the horizon like you describe were rare, if they occurred at all (I havent found much to support that assertion, usually those maximum range barrages that you describe were against static targets on land). The battle of the Denmark Straight, for example, was initiated at roughly 24kms (roughly the horizon at the top mast of the ship) and the ships closed to within 14km before the Prince of Wales retreated.
That being said, I feel as though Carriers absolutely should in no way, shape, or form, be represented at these ranges. With the exception of the small escort carriers, most of the larger carriers engaged at distances of hundreds of miles and never came within sight of an enemy surface combatant.
First salvo at the Battle of Surigao Straight was fired at 22km, and the ships closed to at least within 18km, if not closer.
Guadalcanal, had its opening salvo at 2.7 km away (which is basically point blank range), and major surface combatants from either side came as close as 20ft to one another during what was later described as (a barroom brawl after the lights had been shot out"). The San Francisco and Hiei dueled at about 2.3km before the San Francisco retreated. At the second battle of Guadalcanal the battleships Washington and Kirishima duked it out at about 8km distance.
At the Battle off Samar (aka last stand of the tin can sailors) the opening salvos might have started about 30km away, but the ships closed to within very close range, some coming within 2-3 km of eachother. I believe in at least one case opposing vessels came within a few hundred feet.
Also worth mentioning that (American) torpedos only had a range of about 10km, meaning that for them to be used they would have to get at least that close to an enemy surface combatant, if not closer.
In other words "if you're going to complain about historical inaccuracy, at least know the history of what you're complaining about."
Silent Puffin? wrote: How is the matchmaker in comparison to WoT? Bearing in mind that the WoT beta had a 4 tier spread (tier 6s often ended up facing tier 10s.....)
Tier's are far less influential in this game IMO. Torpedo's from a tier 2 Destroyer will still put A LOT of hurt on a Tier 4 ship. That said, I've never gotten more then a 3 tier spread so far.
Silent Puffin? wrote: How is the matchmaker in comparison to WoT? Bearing in mind that the WoT beta had a 4 tier spread (tier 6s often ended up facing tier 10s.....)
What tank? I've seen a few tier 6 scouts in tier 10 battles but everything else has been at least a tier 8 that I have seen.
Silent Puffin? wrote: How is the matchmaker in comparison to WoT? Bearing in mind that the WoT beta had a 4 tier spread (tier 6s often ended up facing tier 10s.....)
What tank? I've seen a few tier 6 scouts in tier 10 battles but everything else has been at least a tier 8 that I have seen.
Scout tanks have +1 to tier spread so they always tend to get the end of the stick. Otherwise the spread in WoT is always is 3 AFAIK.
It might have changed since I last played, but anything above T5 for me frequently ended up in battles where I was basically just cannon fodder. Facing a Tiger II or a Leone in a T-34-85 is just a trial in futility. Its why I ended up playing lots of Tank Destroyers, since their bigger guns made facing tanks 2 even 3 tiers over me less a waste of time. It's made worse by the fact that starting in T7, there is an insanely sharp power curve.
LordofHats wrote: It might have changed since I last played, but anything above T5 for me frequently ended up in battles where I was basically just cannon fodder. Facing a Tiger II or a Leone in a T-34-85 is just a trial in futility. Its why I ended up playing lots of Tank Destroyers, since their bigger guns made facing tanks 2 even 3 tiers over me less a waste of time. It's made worse by the fact that starting in T7, there is an insanely sharp power curve.
IMO, a lot of it comes down to knowing what to do, flanking is the way to go.
That would matter if the maps (again, when I played) weren't basically just a series of open and narrow kill zones There was maybe 1 map where flanking was doable. The one with all the woods and the sparse town in the center.
LordofHats wrote: That would matter if the maps (again, when I played) weren't basically just a series of open and narrow kill zones There was maybe 1 map where flanking was doable. The one with all the woods and the sparse town in the center.
Yeah that's changed a lot with more physics being introduced as well and map design has gotten A LOT better. (some maps can still suck a massive dick though )
FYI for them that don't know: Atlanta is a explosive spam machine Just keep firing for almost guaranteed disabled enemy ships. Damage though, not so great.
Kitakami should be the main character in another game, called God of Torps. 20 of them per broadside.
Yes, it WILL one shot a Yamato if you can get close enough.
Both of them will be in the 50-60 dollar range
Downside is that they fitted her with torps that had their development discontinued about a dozen years before Kitakami was ever made into a torp machine. They're short range. In real life Kitakami was fitted with Long Lances, which was the reason the USN did not face ten of them: not enough tubes to go around.
Which is one of the things that REALLY get my goat about this game. Saipan in particular. Saipan class were Korean War, they have them fitted with aircraft that were removed from service almost 20 years earlier.
Swastakowey wrote: Yea but as I said they are outliers. Normally by circumstance.
You are twisting the evidence to suggest ramming was a viable tactic all the time.
Ramming a submarine is different, still risky but a dent in a submarine will kill it/render it useless. A dent in a warship can be solved.
Viable tactic doesnt mean a good one, just one that can work. Its viable for me to kill someone with my bare fists, but if I can use something different I will, like a base ball bat.
Its viable for me to ram a sub if I cant use my guns or have no other options. Its not viable for me to go out of my way to ram a destroyer with an aircraft carrier.
Ramming in a warship will 99% of the time result in a loss of your job I assure you. Ramming a sub is stupid, but if you have to do it then yes it has more chance of working.
In short, its still dumb as hell and is not frequent enough to allow ramming as a powerful tool (as indicated by the trailer).
As I said even the fact and aircraft carrier is close enough to ram another ship is bonkers as it is.
The large vessel may care if you ruin its propellers, rudder or even remotely damage the hull. Yes I do think an aircraft carrier will care if its ramming destroyers. Especially given how expensive and valuable they are.
Its not like everyone is going voluntarily allow you to get close enough to ram
What tank? I've seen a few tier 6 scouts in tier 10 battles but everything else has been at least a tier 8 that I have seen.
This was in the beta. The matchmaker was slightly improved to limited most tanks to 2 tiers but in reality a tier 5 medium will be able to do nothing to a tier 7 heavy in normal situations except perhaps shower it with shrapnel and eviscerated crew. On top of that player skill isn't taken into account which means that far too many games are completely one sided and/or massively frustrating. The shoddy matchmaker is the main reason I don't play WoT anymore and I am currently pinning my hopes for good tank on tank action to Armoured warfare.
I am interested in WoWS (what is the correct acronym?) but if the matchmaker is anything like WoT I will not be spending much time with it and I certainly will not be spending any money.
There are some 2 tier matchups that don't lose out too much. My crusader is one (love that taaaaank). Then there is KV2s/ KV85s 1 shotting almost any tier 4 tank they roll up on. Which just kills it as the tier 4 driver, unless you were in a luchs and could bail.
Don't get me wrong I enjoy the game, but it has its issues. Also, I nabbed a beta access too, should get to play tomorrow
There are some 2 tier matchups that don't lose out too much. My crusader is one (love that taaaaank). Then there is KV2s/ KV85s 1 shotting almost any tier 4 tank they roll up on. Which just kills it as the tier 4 driver, unless you were in a luchs and could bail.
Don't get me wrong I enjoy the game, but it has its issues. Also, I nabbed a beta access too, should get to play tomorrow
Luchs, A20, M5 Stuart. It's just a matter of getting to weak spots.
Welp, just got my first Battleship. NOW we are talking. I really need to learn how to use this bad boy, I mean, 30 second reloads? Oh boy, you better make every shot count.
Luchs, A20, M5 Stuart. It's just a matter of getting to weak spots.
T34/76 Vs T29 GO!
The real issue is the huge HP boost that tiers provide which coupled with the inevitably better armour and firepower in higher tiers puts lower tier vehicles at a huge disadvantage. certain tanks can mitigate this to a degree (My KV-2 can do a huge amount of damage to tier 8s for example) but in general its terrible game design.
Luchs, A20, M5 Stuart. It's just a matter of getting to weak spots.
T34/76 Vs T29 GO!
The real issue is the huge HP boost that tiers provide which coupled with the inevitably better armour and firepower in higher tiers puts lower tier vehicles at a huge disadvantage. certain tanks can mitigate this to a degree (My KV-2 can do a huge amount of damage to tier 8s for example) but in general its terrible game design.
Closed beta applications are now closed >/
This is the big flaw in WoT: the HP pools for tanks are just nonsensical and are the biggest problem in the tier spread.
My Tiger II can get T10 battles, and I can, with a little luck and good aim, pen a T10 tank.
and then do 5% damage.
The tiers usually provide decent benefits aside from the HP pool; better armour, guns, mobility, etc, but it's the HP pool that really defines things. The Tiger I, for instance, due to its tiering basically has no armour; everything can pen it at T6+, it only works due to a large HP pool, and easily angled due to boxyness to get some chance of deflecting shots. They've kind of "balanced" themselves into a corner with this; some tanks at present just wouldn't work with a smaller HP spread, and the profitability of most tanks at higher tiers with a lower power spread by tier would be totally ruined. The only reason their game model "works" is the tanks which hemorrhage money is that no matter what they'll usually live long enough to put some shots into something, which is frustrating as all hell for a lower tier tank who's done the smart thing, outflanked, attacked at opportune moments, has shots on the weakest armour and plink away 5-10% at a time and then die for their troubles.
Thankfully, from what it looks like, WoWs is moving away from that huge spread in effectiveness (everything within the same class is durable, and the mobility of cruisers and destroyers actually mean something with the maps not all being tunnels and shooting lanes), and WoWP already did; the HP spread was certainly there, but for all that game's faults, I felt player skill mattered a lot more than just what vehicle you're in.
Truth be told, I like War Thunder's game model more; no HP pools, but critical systems/crews for both planes and tanks, no bush invisibility, and their more recent add-on of the "pen-cam," where you see what your shells do to the enemy, and what the shell which killed you did to internal systems and crew in Arcade Mode is great; both lessons any feeling of a cheap kill, but also teaches tank weaknesses really well. The overarching system, however, is not to my liking; crew skills are glacial, and your "pool" of tanks or planes is shared, and as you can bring every vehicle you have into a game, the people with more of the right vehicle in their hanger have an immediate advantage in-game; they can respawn and fight several times more. "Realistic" mode eliminates that, but almost no one plays it and it takes forever to actually play a game. The game also suffers from a tiny roster of maps.
My main problem with Warthunder is that it has an inherent maphack. Turn graphics to low and all foliage and cover disappears, and you can bet your ass players use this all the time.
BaronIveagh wrote:The NDA has been lifted for everything AFTER alpha. So, here goes:
In the nice inversion of WOT everything Russian is gak. Expect this fixed soon with a flood of not even paper projects and nationalist wishful thinking.
Japan still has no carriers. The US still has no battleships. Predreadnought ships are now allowed, apparently. (see 'thread'nought on this subject in their forums way back in the day when the [replaced] devs swore 'Death before Pre-dreadnought')
The alpha reward ship is actually pretty sweet, being the only cruiser (so far) with a smoke generator. IJN and USN still have the wrong flag, told not a bug, but a design feature. (Both have 'modern' versions of their national flag instead of period flags or navy ensigns.)
Debate on if German battleships will be historical models or big metal X's will be placed on prows continues.
Does the Japanese ships have the emperor seal though? that could be considered offensive to people that felt the brunt of the Japanese invasion.
Personally i think they should keep it true to reality, i am against any form of censorship even if some things appall me.
Eh, as far as naval games go it certainly looks entertaining - about as much as WoT anyhow.
Then again, the naval games genre is pretty sparse when it comes to recent years, so I guess beggars can't be choosers - I'll check this out at some point.
BaronIveagh wrote: I've survived rams before. It's not hard, just remember it's sort of HP based.
You seem to be the knowledgeable go to guy for this game, so I have a few questions for you.
What tier will the lowest Japanese Carrier be? And what is the ship that he will branch out from? I'm guessing Tier 4 branching out from the Umikaze?
Can we control the spotter plane in anyway?
Also I'm getting better at leading my targets at extreme ranges, managed to one shot a Destroyer at 12+ km in my Kongo with a single shot fired yesterday! Torpedo that, beach!
BaronIveagh wrote:The NDA has been lifted for everything AFTER alpha. So, here goes:
In the nice inversion of WOT everything Russian is gak. Expect this fixed soon with a flood of not even paper projects and nationalist wishful thinking.
Japan still has no carriers. The US still has no battleships. Predreadnought ships are now allowed, apparently. (see 'thread'nought on this subject in their forums way back in the day when the [replaced] devs swore 'Death before Pre-dreadnought')
The alpha reward ship is actually pretty sweet, being the only cruiser (so far) with a smoke generator. IJN and USN still have the wrong flag, told not a bug, but a design feature. (Both have 'modern' versions of their national flag instead of period flags or navy ensigns.)
Debate on if German battleships will be historical models or big metal X's will be placed on prows continues.
Does the Japanese ships have the emperor seal though? that could be considered offensive to people that felt the brunt of the Japanese invasion.
Personally i think they should keep it true to reality, i am against any form of censorship even if some things appall me.
If you mean this:
Spoiler:
Yes, the ships do have them. I have noticed it on my Cruisers, but I admit I haven't looked for it on my Battleships.
And I HATE Destroyers. I don't seem to ever be able to hit them with a battleship at long range but the damn torpedos sure find me. I love my Myogi but damn, I'm so bad using it
Yamamoto and her sister had rather large symbols like that, its how the Microsoft founder partly identified her sister ship.
That and the enormous anchors, too large for any other ship to need.
Anyone know if Royal Navy, German Navy and such will be put on the game, I like the idea but I'd want more variety in ships.
Ie like Tribal class, multi roles, gun hevey destroyers, or the slightly glass cannon HMS Hood.
I see the Russian fleet might be next, lol what hunks of scrap?
There fleet vs the big powered at time was pretty feeble.
I suspect that WoWs will follow WoT with regards to nations.
WoT started with just Germany and the USSR but over time more German and Soviet tech trees have been added alongside 5 other nations with tech tress of varying densities.
As a self-proclaimed naval history buff, this game gets a big YAY from me!
I just got into the closed beta last night, and played a couple of quick matches with the starting ships this morning, and it looked and played really great. I can't wait to spend more time with it.
BaronIveagh wrote: FYI for them that don't know: Atlanta is a explosive spam machine Just keep firing for almost guaranteed disabled enemy ships. Damage though, not so great.
Kitakami should be the main character in another game, called God of Torps. 20 of them per broadside.
Yes, it WILL one shot a Yamato if you can get close enough.
Both of them will be in the 50-60 dollar range
Downside is that they fitted her with torps that had their development discontinued about a dozen years before Kitakami was ever made into a torp machine. They're short range. In real life Kitakami was fitted with Long Lances, which was the reason the USN did not face ten of them: not enough tubes to go around.
Which is one of the things that REALLY get my goat about this game. Saipan in particular. Saipan class were Korean War, they have them fitted with aircraft that were removed from service almost 20 years earlier.
Eh, this is part and parcel with the type of game that WG is making. Like WoT (I have no experience with WoP), WoWs looks like it is going to be arcade both in terms of game play, as well as historical points like the ones you point out above. The reason why they don't give the Kitikami Long Lances and the Saipan A-1 Skyraiders is one of balance, of course. So, while historical inaccuracies like this might annoy history buffs like you and me, it is probably for the best in terms of the game!
BaronIveagh wrote: I've survived rams before. It's not hard, just remember it's sort of HP based.
You seem to be the knowledgeable go to guy for this game, so I have a few questions for you.
What tier will the lowest Japanese Carrier be? And what is the ship that he will branch out from? I'm guessing Tier 4 branching out from the Umikaze?
Can we control the spotter plane in anyway?
Also I'm getting better at leading my targets at extreme ranges, managed to one shot a Destroyer at 12+ km in my Kongo with a single shot fired yesterday! Torpedo that, beach!
Ignore, misread your post.
Anyway, they haven't showed the Japanese Carrier tech path yet and Alpha features are still under NDA so he can't reveal them anyway.
BaronIveagh wrote: IJN and USN still have the wrong flag, told not a bug, but a design feature. (Both have 'modern' versions of their national flag instead of period flags or navy ensigns.)
Debate on if German battleships will be historical models or big metal X's will be placed on prows continues.
The flag issue is understandable in the case of the IJN. While I personally like the Rising Sun design, it's still very touchy in that part of the world due to its relationship to World War 2 Japan.
I would imagine that there will also be an absence of Swastikas from the German ships.
My Tiger II can get T10 battles, and I can, with a little luck and good aim, pen a T10 tank.
and then do 5% damage.
I ran into a similar issue the other day. I was using the T4 US artillery vehicle, and managed to score direct hits on opposing enemy heavy tanks... for a whopping 8 damage.
After that, I basically said, "Screw it. Not worth the trouble."
Clearly you are using the wrong artillery, because BERT THE AVENGER is the only artillery allowed. (for those wondering, it's the FV304 british Tier 6 arty)
Also, maybe an idea to make this a Wargaming topic in general? May be nice to have.
Eh, this is part and parcel with the type of game that WG is making. Like WoT (I have no experience with WoP), WoWs looks like it is going to be arcade both in terms of game play, as well as historical points like the ones you point out above. The reason why they don't give the Kitikami Long Lances and the Saipan A-1 Skyraiders is one of balance, of course. So, while historical inaccuracies like this might annoy history buffs like you and me, it is probably for the best in terms of the game!
Actually, Kitakami's balance is horribly broken without them. BBs in it's tier and up have what effectively amounts to a damage aura 16km wide (due to long range secondaries + skills/mods). It's torps have a effective range of about 7km, meaning that bar using something as a shield, it's useless. I've managed to one shot Yamato's with it, but it takes stupid levels of blind luck. People have been bitching about it for some time, considering it''s a $70 ship. Saipan should be the Tier X, but for some reason Essex got bumped up instead.
Soladrin wrote: Clearly you are using the wrong artillery, because BERT THE AVENGER is the only artillery allowed. (for those wondering, it's the FV304 british Tier 6 arty)
Also, maybe an idea to make this a Wargaming topic in general? May be nice to have.
BaronIveagh wrote: Saipan should be the Tier X, but for some reason Essex got bumped up instead.
I think it makes sense to have the Essex on top...they were bigger and could handle more aircraft. Objectively, they were more powerful ships. If anything, I would have liked to have the Midway class at the top of the heap!
Plus, just imagine the complaining if WG had made the Tier X American carrier a light carrier!
BaronIveagh wrote: Saipan should be the Tier X, but for some reason Essex got bumped up instead.
I think it makes sense to have the Essex on top...they were bigger and could handle more aircraft. Objectively, they were more powerful ships. If anything, I would have liked to have the Midway class at the top of the heap!
Plus, just imagine the complaining if WG had made the Tier X American carrier a light carrier!
Midway was going to be the T X. but for some reason they folded it back into Essex.
Actually i doubt there would be too much complaining what with the ASM and all. Carriers live and die in this game by being harder to find more than their team mates protection.
Midway was going to be the T X. but for some reason they folded it back into Essex.
Actually i doubt there would be too much complaining what with the ASM and all. Carriers live and die in this game by being harder to find more than their team mates protection.
Interesting! I appreciate the insight. I haven't made it anywhere near that level of play; I'm still working towards my first Tier IIs . Makes me wonder if there might be a development down the road to split carriers out into fleet and light/escort lines...if the last few years playing WoT has taught me anything, its that tech trees are written in sand.
Interesting! I appreciate the insight. I haven't made it anywhere near that level of play; I'm still working towards my first Tier IIs . Makes me wonder if there might be a development down the road to split carriers out into fleet and light/escort lines...if the last few years playing WoT has taught me anything, its that tech trees are written in sand.
Whn you get there, a tip, stay about ten km from a Yamato. Those secondaries give it a huge damage aura and it HURTS. As in even if it doesn't one shot you, it will whittle away a cruiser in about 30 seconds. Torps are about your best option. A Kitakami will one shot it if it connects with all 20 torps, but two dessies will still mess it up as long as they're fitting long range torps. Torp bombers are less effective and dive bombers might as well be dropping spitwads. Amusingly an Atlanta can wreck one, if you spam explosive and can keep it's turrets disabled. If even one turret goes active though it will one shot you.
Been looking at this game, and it looks like a load fun, though I'll probably stay away till they throw the Iowa or South Dakota into the game. Just the thought of all that AA being thrown up in the sky makes me all giggly.
Also, how accurate is the game when it comes to the little things like fire control and damage control?
It seems to be a timed reset. So you get hit, emergency crews pull up their pants and get to it, then they go back to doing whatever navy folks do in their downtime ( ) for a minute until they "recover" then they can do it all again.
Spoiler:
I don't actually mind navy folk, but I couldn't help myself
Interesting! I appreciate the insight. I haven't made it anywhere near that level of play; I'm still working towards my first Tier IIs . Makes me wonder if there might be a development down the road to split carriers out into fleet and light/escort lines...if the last few years playing WoT has taught me anything, its that tech trees are written in sand.
Whn you get there, a tip, stay about ten km from a Yamato. Those secondaries give it a huge damage aura and it HURTS. As in even if it doesn't one shot you, it will whittle away a cruiser in about 30 seconds. Torps are about your best option. A Kitakami will one shot it if it connects with all 20 torps, but two dessies will still mess it up as long as they're fitting long range torps. Torp bombers are less effective and dive bombers might as well be dropping spitwads. Amusingly an Atlanta can wreck one, if you spam explosive and can keep it's turrets disabled. If even one turret goes active though it will one shot you.
If torp bombers aren't effective and dive bombers dont do crap, then what good is an aircraft carrier? o.O
Interesting! I appreciate the insight. I haven't made it anywhere near that level of play; I'm still working towards my first Tier IIs . Makes me wonder if there might be a development down the road to split carriers out into fleet and light/escort lines...if the last few years playing WoT has taught me anything, its that tech trees are written in sand.
Whn you get there, a tip, stay about ten km from a Yamato. Those secondaries give it a huge damage aura and it HURTS. As in even if it doesn't one shot you, it will whittle away a cruiser in about 30 seconds. Torps are about your best option. A Kitakami will one shot it if it connects with all 20 torps, but two dessies will still mess it up as long as they're fitting long range torps. Torp bombers are less effective and dive bombers might as well be dropping spitwads. Amusingly an Atlanta can wreck one, if you spam explosive and can keep it's turrets disabled. If even one turret goes active though it will one shot you.
If torp bombers aren't effective and dive bombers dont do crap, then what good is an aircraft carrier? o.O
Torp bombers are less effective than ship-launched torpedos, but still do serious damage to battleships and anything else really. This is a historical difference (air dropped torpedos, by necessity, are significantly smaller) and provides a decent gameplay distinction; ship torps are more powerful, but more dangerous to oneself, as you have to enter firing range of your opponent, whereas planes can attack with a lot more impunity, and react to changing circumstances much faster.
Interesting! I appreciate the insight. I haven't made it anywhere near that level of play; I'm still working towards my first Tier IIs . Makes me wonder if there might be a development down the road to split carriers out into fleet and light/escort lines...if the last few years playing WoT has taught me anything, its that tech trees are written in sand.
Whn you get there, a tip, stay about ten km from a Yamato. Those secondaries give it a huge damage aura and it HURTS. As in even if it doesn't one shot you, it will whittle away a cruiser in about 30 seconds. Torps are about your best option. A Kitakami will one shot it if it connects with all 20 torps, but two dessies will still mess it up as long as they're fitting long range torps. Torp bombers are less effective and dive bombers might as well be dropping spitwads. Amusingly an Atlanta can wreck one, if you spam explosive and can keep it's turrets disabled. If even one turret goes active though it will one shot you.
If torp bombers aren't effective and dive bombers dont do crap, then what good is an aircraft carrier? o.O
Torp bombers are less effective than ship-launched torpedos, but still do serious damage to battleships and anything else really. This is a historical difference (air dropped torpedos, by necessity, are significantly smaller) and provides a decent gameplay distinction; ship torps are more powerful, but more dangerous to oneself, as you have to enter firing range of your opponent, whereas planes can attack with a lot more impunity, and react to changing circumstances much faster.
And they HURT as hell. I'm currently using Myogi, the Rank IV battleship. It has 0 AA and there isn't exactly a possibility of Cruiser escorts in the random games.
if they introduce subs then they will likely introduce destroyer escorts/sub chasers/frigates as a ASW focused platform, they could also add in aerial subhunters as part of carrier air compliments. As it stands though, I have trouble seeing how subs would fit into the game in terms of class balance. Destroyers are more durable, faster, and can lay down a bigger spread of torpedoes then a submarine could. Unless submarine torpedoes were damage buffed to hell and back again, there probably wouldn't be much point to them.
Also, in this case - historically speaking - submarines weren't really a 'fleet asset' like you would see in these sorts of battles. They were primarily used as commerce raiders against civilian/commercial shipping rather than against enemy warships (not to say they didn't hunt warships, remember the Indianapolis) but those situations were rare and not in a pitched battle. Also, for the record, submarines sunk more ships with their deck guns than they ever did with their torpedoes.
I missed the beta applications but I'll definitely get into the game whenever the next intake or open beta happens. I'm more interested in the german and British navies anyway. It will be interesting to see what their tech trees look like, I'm predicting either the Vanguard or Lion class for the British tier X BB, and one of the absurd H class proposals for the german tier X.
I have a lot of issues with Wargaming. I don't like their ethics, or some of their business practices or their insistence on filling their games with paper tanks and planes and sometimes just inventing units out of thin air. I think WoT has gotten silly and frustrating to play and WoWP was a complete non-starter but I think this game may get some of my business back, it actually looks... good.
Tier 10, not sure a triple turret 16 inch fast battleship might be a 9?
the others are the monster 72.000 tons of Yamato, or a qaud turret 16 inch Montana class, the H class with right one would be, the bigger ones would be insane and way too powerful though. like the late war designs.
of course there is a slightly mythical mad house that is the H45, 16 inch secondaries..... main guns off a 800mm siege gun., estimated to need to weigh at full load 700,000 tons.
if true. you would not want to see that coming, one good hit would cut most ships in two.
and need estimated 2 Bismarks in weight as a powerplant/fuel.
For example, the one I know of, the Rank IV Battleship, the Myogi never existed. The Kongo and her sisters were built considering the ideas for the Myogi, tho.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the H-class, well if they're keeping somewhat close to history the H-39 class was almost a real thing. They had laid down 2 hulls and awarded contracts for 4 more. There were plans/blueprints for H-40 through H-44 iirc, never heard of H-45.
For example, the one I know of, the Rank IV Battleship, the Myogi never existed. The Kongo and her sisters were built considering the ideas for the Myogi, tho.
There's a difference between paper designs and pulling stuff out of your arse. The Miyogi was a prototype blueprint that never entered production, the waffletrager e100 was never even put on paper.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the H-class, well if they're keeping somewhat close to history the H-39 class was almost a real thing. They had laid down 2 hulls and awarded contracts for 4 more. There were plans/blueprints for H-40 through H-44 iirc, never heard of H-45.
The Waffentrager E-100 is a different tank to the one you linked, and fuses the E-100 chassis (of which only one was built) with a pre-existing 150mm autoloading AA gun for stationary mounts, not the proposed turreted 15cm KwK, or the 17cm KwK. There were no plans at all for anything even close to the Waffentrager E-100, not even in blueprints.
chaos0xomega wrote: Oh, my bad. Dont play the game, thought 'waffentrager E-100' was just what they called the PzKpfw E-100
Waffentrager means 'weapons carrier' and typically applied to semi-impromptu field conversions and certain other uses for vehicle chassis being converted to create self propelled guns.
A few protoypes is fine in a game, but WoT suffers from the problem that now there are significantly more paper or imaginary designs than real, historical vehicles. The historical ones are also the weakest; many prototypes were designed to counter specific actual vehicles found in the same tier; consider the Tiger's role at T7; it's a long range sniper with low damage per shot and no armour, and will rarely beat heavies in its own tier, with many of them being designed 10-15 years after the Tiger. The American line is really bad for this; almost all of the tanks are paper or blueprints, seeing actual Shermans, Jacksons, Wolverines and the like is uncommon, instead T29s are as common as dirt, being arguably the best T7 heavy.
WoWs only has a few paper designs at present, and there are lots of historical warships yet to add (though the Atlanta as a premium is a bit strange; it's a standard design, not something rare or from a minor nation as premiums usually are), but that's what WoT was back in the day too; few paper designs, only a handful of prototype units,mostly historical. Give it time, and you won't see actual historical vehicles anymore, I fear.
I really dig that War Thunder has used as many historical designs as possible, leaving shorter progression trees rather than pad them with all sorts of blueprints. I don't think there's a single purely "paper" design in the game, and only a few prototypes for either ground or air.
WoWs only has a few paper designs at present, and there are lots of historical warships yet to add (though the Atlanta as a premium is a bit strange; it's a standard design, not something rare or from a minor nation as premiums usually are), but that's what WoT was back in the day too; few paper designs, only a handful of prototype units,mostly historical. Give it time, and you won't see actual historical vehicles anymore, I fear.
WoT at least tends to have fairly historical vehicles in lower tier games (ahistorical armaments excepted). There were very few prototype/blueprint vehicles in the WoT beta, the only ones that I can remember are the V36.01H and the T46. Its inevitable that WoWs will eventually be full of fantasy designs unfortunately.
EmilCrane wrote: ...sometimes just inventing units out of thin air.
This piqued my curiosity, what units did they invent out of thin air?
T110E4 and E3, the E5 was just a concept for a heavy tank, the only specification WG had for it was the width, because it had to be small enough to fit in german tunnels.
The T-28 prototype is utterly fake, the T-25 AT as well.
WoWs only has a few paper designs at present, and there are lots of historical warships yet to add (though the Atlanta as a premium is a bit strange; it's a standard design, not something rare or from a minor nation as premiums usually are), but that's what WoT was back in the day too; few paper designs, only a handful of prototype units,mostly historical. Give it time, and you won't see actual historical vehicles anymore, I fear.
WoT at least tends to have fairly historical vehicles in lower tier games (ahistorical armaments excepted). There were very few prototype/blueprint vehicles in the WoT beta, the only ones that I can remember are the V36.01H and the T46. Its inevitable that WoWs will eventually be full of fantasy designs unfortunately.
Still not got into the beta >/
I just can't wait for an entire line of fake russian battleships that are superior in every way to real ships that saw service.
Logging into WoT provides a link on the patcher to an online article about their new tower defense tanks vs zombies game. And e-mails are going out about the new underwater battle mode.
I saw that movie and enjoyed much more the anime reboot. Sigh!
If Germans are in the game we need the Regia Marina too. Much better ships than their German counterpads, pity about the quality of the flag officers tho.
so I downloaded the game, or managed to without specifically getting an invite code. How did that work? I've checked all my accounts as far as I know, and can't find anywhere where I might have gotten an invite.
Also, Wargamings april fools joke was pretty funny.
I dont see whats funny or even 'joke-y' about this. Its a good idea... great idea, just keep it separate from the existing 10 tiers (which is what they alluded to in the video).
Also, sidenote, need to watch the live action Space Battleship Yamato. Didnt know they made it into a film.
chaos0xomega wrote: [
I dont see whats funny or even 'joke-y' about this. Its a good idea... great idea, just keep it separate from the existing 10 tiers (which is what they alluded to in the video).
It's been suggested many times as a T XI-XV.
It's typical WG trolling about 'We know you want it, but it's our game, go feth yourselves.'
It's same with the massive dumbing down that WoWS has had since 0.1.7 back when water depth was relevant and your ship lost buoyancy when torpedoed rather than a buttload of HP. The new devs (the old ones having been fired due to being nationalist Ukrainian [no, really]) are in Belarus, and have decreed a Russian line, to properly depict the glory of the Soviet Union's paper projects during WW2. This will be added before any actual warships from WW2, other than the already announced ones.
Warspite and Bismark will be added as Premiums in the mean time to try and appease people pissed about this
They went through the trouble of making the 3d assets for the stuff, I have trouble seeing them not implementing them at some point... thats certainly a lot of work theyve done for "a joke".
Re: buoyancy, does that mean that once upon a time it was possible to sink ships without removing their HP?
chaos0xomega wrote: They went through the trouble of making the 3d assets for the stuff, I have trouble seeing them not implementing them at some point... thats certainly a lot of work theyve done for "a joke".
Re: buoyancy, does that mean that once upon a time it was possible to sink ships without removing their HP?
Yes. And if you were sinking, you could drive your ship into the shallows and beach it.
chaos0xomega wrote: They went through the trouble of making the 3d assets for the stuff, I have trouble seeing them not implementing them at some point... thats certainly a lot of work theyve done for "a joke".
Re: buoyancy, does that mean that once upon a time it was possible to sink ships without removing their HP?
Yes. And if you were sinking, you could drive your ship into the shallows and beach it.
Well that sounds all sorts of awesome. What I've seen of the game still looks good, better than WoT or WoWP, but that would have been superb.
Preorders packages are now available. Note that preordering does NOT get you into Beta.
this has proven somewhat alarming to testers. Not the not getting in part, but the fact the game isn't quite ready yet. There are still a lot of serious issues.
BaronIveagh wrote: Preorders packages are now available. Note that preordering does NOT get you into Beta.
this has proven somewhat alarming to testers. Not the not getting in part, but the fact the game isn't quite ready yet. There are still a lot of serious issues.
There are? I had no idea. I've been having a blast of fun and never noticed anything too major. But then again, I only hit tier VII - Nagato - so I have no idea how balanced the end-game is.
There are? I had no idea. I've been having a blast of fun and never noticed anything too major. But then again, I only hit tier VII - Nagato - so I have no idea how balanced the end-game is.
You haven't noticed things like running aground on invisible objects, aircraft sitting on the surface of the water shooting at you, or the recent return of glass turrets, a bug that was fixed three updates ago, but has mysteriously risen again?
There are? I had no idea. I've been having a blast of fun and never noticed anything too major. But then again, I only hit tier VII - Nagato - so I have no idea how balanced the end-game is.
You haven't noticed things like running aground on invisible objects, aircraft sitting on the surface of the water shooting at you, or the recent return of glass turrets, a bug that was fixed three updates ago, but has mysteriously risen again?
1 - No
2 - No
3 - I did think my turrets were getting screwed up more than they usually were, but I thought it was because I was mostly fighting against tiers VII - X. And those pack the hell of a punch.
There are? I had no idea. I've been having a blast of fun and never noticed anything too major. But then again, I only hit tier VII - Nagato - so I have no idea how balanced the end-game is.
You haven't noticed things like running aground on invisible objects, aircraft sitting on the surface of the water shooting at you, or the recent return of glass turrets, a bug that was fixed three updates ago, but has mysteriously risen again?
1 - No
2 - No
3 - I thought my turrets were getting screwed up more than usual but I thought it was because I was mostly fighting tiers VII - X and those pack the hell of a punch.
Current knon bug list. These are known bugs that have not yet been fixed.
Login Screen / Port / Chat
Passwords saved for the login screen may become incorrect and must be entered again
Logging into the game client with a a name featuring non-Latin characters is not possible
The message detailing information for the queue is not translated
The Heavy Damage mission may be accomplished with less than the required 20,000 points of damage
Characteristics and parameters of ships do not update even after researching new modules or upgrading crew
Information regarding Premium Account expiration may not display
If screen resolution is 1366x768 or less, the list of available modules for a ship may be displaced from the module slot
For some screen resolutions, selection arrows overlap module prices while in Port
Virtual tour for Primary Armament modules on USS Phoenix are missing
The even multiplier (x1.5) may inadvertently be applied even after a defeat. it may also remain active after the first victory
Issue causing the selected ship to be replaced with a different ship when entering battle. Restarting the client may solve the problem
Even with an adequate population in the queue, it's still for the matchmaker to form incomplete teams
If a player has sold all the ships for a particular nation, commanders may not be displayed in the Reserve
When switching between ships, incorrect pricing for module research or module purchase may be displayed
Some Japanese ships may have the wrong type of torpedo tubes listed in their parameters
AA guns on some of the ships may be displayed incorrectly while in Port
System messages may sometimes overlap each other
User statuses may be displayed incorrectly in the heading of a private chat
Usernames of players found through Search in the chat may not be displayed
Chat channels may not work properly
Right after the battle, chat history may not be displayed in the private channel
Messages in the private channel flicker after a player has left the battle
Division chat history is not saved after a player has left the battle
Names of primary armament modules and their performance characteristics may not match on some ships
Arrows for selecting ships in port may display on the Tech Tree
Aircraft are incorrectly placed on Lexington's deck
The entry field on the Exchange Piasters screen has not length limit
Chat channels messages may not be visible for some users, even if other players are able to see them
Chat channels are deleted when the wrong password is entered in the chat channel password entry window
It may be impossible to create a chat contacts group with the same name if it has been previously deleted
Punctuation mistakes are possible in chat groups creation explanation
Separate battle tasks timers sometimes overlap other battle tasks
Battle / Maps / Modes
Visual defects may appear when viewing remote landscape elements
Unequal teams may be formed while playing in a Division or during long wait times for random battles
The description for Domination mode that appears during the battle loading screen is incomplete
When matchmaking a Division consisting of a tier I and a tier X in Co-op battles, the balance is based upon the lowest tier
Sunlight may be seen in the shade of icebergs on the islands of the Ice map
Ships may not display at all during battle. Restarting the game client typically solves the issue
The Battle! button and game tips may appear simultaneously on the map loading screen
Ships' icon can sometimes go beyond the minimap limits in the Big Race loading screen
On some maps it's possible to hit an invisible barrier while moving around
On some maps it's possible to fall inside the terrain
It's sometimes happens that ship sinking animation does not trigger if they're sunk near an island
Ship icons are sometimes displayed in the corner of the minimap during loading screens
On low graphics settings there are reflections of islands and landscapes, even though they shouldn't be enabled
On the North map islands may look incorrect when the level of detail is set to low
Ships
Torpedo tubes may sometimes touch or cross into the ship's superstructure on certain ships
AI controlled ships in Co-op battles may sometimes run into islands and then need to reverse
There are some issues surrounding the level of detail when switching between low and medium settings
Ships sometimes 'twitch' when using the zoomed in binocular view
The camera sometimes goes through the ship when watching the rest of the battle in Spectator Mode
Turrets sometimes appear to face away from their target when watching the rest of the battle in Spectator Mode
Ships sometimes may appear to move 'jerkily'
The propeller on some ships may appear to be spinning while in Port
Ships may not move smoothly when turning
Autopilot may run a ship aground
Ships can sometimes appear to be floating in the air above the water when using low graphics settings
Tail wheels for fighter planes do not touch the deck aboard USS Independence
Torpedo tubes appear loaded during the pre-battle countdown, but after the battle starts, the loaded torpedoes disappear
The bottom of some ships may be visible when they rock in Port
The collision alert does not work when ships move in reverse
Certain video controllers and drivers can cause a full screen artifact
After a ship is destroyed, it can sometimes appear that the ship's guns are moving strangely
When using a smaller ship and in Binocular view, being hit by enemy fire can cause a very large jolt and camera shake
Aircraft
A recon aircraft model remains on the ship's catapult even if all recon planes have been launched
Aircraft sometimes dive under water or fly through terrain objects
When preparing air squadrons, the take-off sequence may be disrupted
Aircraft attack vector may not function properly if set too close to the map border
It may be possible to use an air squadron that was not registered in flight control
Air groups may sometimes appear to have an increased hit point bar
Air attack sight may sometimes disappear partially or completely
An island's shadows are sometimes displayed on aircraft even when they're flying above them
Fighters' ammunition may be displayed incorrectly
After reconnecting to a game, aircraft may appear to have full ammunition even when they don't
When an air squadrons' icons are displayed on the minimap for the first time, they may be shown in A1, regardless of where they actually are
Graphics
Visual effects may disappear when rotating the camera
Primary armament firing effects may loop or continue to play when switching from Binocular view to third-person view right after the shot is fired
Water surfaces may 'jump' or 'shiver' at long and medium distances
Shell tracers sometimes appear much too large
When rotating the camera a ships' shadow may disappear
Smokescreen visual effects may not appear at all
Damage effects may sometimes spontaneously appear fater a ship is destroyed
Tracers of secondary armaments may sometimes look like primary armament tracers
When firing through a smokescreen and using the shell-chase camera, it may trigger a sequence that makes it appear as if the ship were firing from inside the smokescreen
The smokescreen effect may sometimes incorrectly appear to be floating above the surface of the water
Explosion effects may sometimes display incorrectly. Pieces of terrain may be appear to be affected even if the explosion takes place in the sea
When pointing the camera at the sun, the glare effect may display incorrectly on certain combinations of graphics cards and their drivers
Bow wave effects sometimes appear too far in front of the ship
Reflections can suddenly 'pop' when approaching ice fixtures
Shot flare reflections can sometimes be seen in unexpected places on the North map
Some ship visual effects can be displayed incorrectly when a ship is in the very corner of a map
Music and Sound
Notification when destroying an enemy ship may sometimes be delayed
Voice messages may interrupt one another if sever events happen simultaneously
Sounds of weapon fire, engine, turret turning, torpedo tubes, and AA guns may be mission for certain ships
The sound of turning torpedo tubes on Fubuki may be very loud
User Interface / Minimap / Settings
Interface elements may duplicate multiple times. The issue appears most often with ATI graphics cards
The consumable icons are designated with the "N" character when assigning hotkeys to numerical keys
A number of small issues in pop-up and system messages
Commanders have the same names in Russian
Full-screen mode and active monitor settings may work incorrectly
The actual received damage and the value shown on the floating icon may differ. As a result, ships with zero hit points in the interface may still be active in the battle
If an enemy shell explodes near the ship, the word "text" may appear instead of the correct message
Primary armament on some ships' HUD may be displayed beyond the outline of the miniature
Modules in the module research interface may disappear when a ship is loading
Icons and names for HE and AP shells may not match the keys in the control settings
Torpedo spread cones may look distorted and ragged when aiming at terrain
When the camera rotates with the angle or sector locked, the horizontal vector may go beyond the vertical vector
When adjusting settings of the Collision Alert system, the Apply button is not active
The Tactical Map may be displayed on the background of the battle results
The view cone and the primary armament firing range may be incorrectly displayed on the minimap
When playing in Division A, statistics accessed with the Tab key may show an incorrect battle type
Torpedo aiming sight may overlay some elements of the ship
Sometimes the post-battle stats can be displayed twice
A negative time indicator can be displayed for consumables when reconnecting to a battle
When accessing the stats with Tab, it's possible that islands and ship icons may not be displayed
The Port interface may sometimes overlay the battle interface while in battle
With small resolution settings (1280x720) chat messages may overlay the control panel
The post-battle stats may sometimes incorrectly feature large font
Interface elements that can be adjusted by the player are sometimes not remembered in the Settings
System
The game client sometimes cannot return to full-screen mode after switching back to the client with Alt+Tab
When returning from a game crash, the current ship may be blocked in the Port even after the battle is over, and any attempt to start a new battle results in endless loading. Requires a client restart
The game client will sometimes crash after seven or eight battles on PCs using Windows XP. Requires a client restart
Players may lose control of the Port camera after purchasing Premium Account time. Requires a client restart
Ships can sometimes appear 'inside out' with certain combinations of graphics cards and drivers
Interface elements may be distorted when using certain AMD graphics cards
If a computer has multi-display configurations like Surround (nVidia) or Eyefinity (AMD), all settings in the Options menu may become inoperative
The wrong color icon (red) may appear for a team kill in the battle results window
If a player exits a battle, their ship may remain in the battle for a long period of time
Memory leaks may appear in Port. The game client may crash after being inactive in Port for an extended period of time
After disabling full-screen mode the display may go black. Requires Alt+Enter to correct the matter
It is sometimes impossible to reconnect if disconnected during a Squad battle
Trondheim wrote: All my nopes, not getting this trainwreck. And beside Id raather burn my money than let some Russian firm have it
Lol what? Trainwreck? It's in closed beta and performing far better then most games at launch. The game is fantastic.
Fantastic? Well as much as I want to spew my unfilterd opinions on this "masterpice" and your opinion of it I will refrain from it. The game has the same appel as world of warplanes aka NONE! Its a brainless and utterly dull game, with no need for creative thinking or any regards to teamwork. But as we all live in democratic nations I suppose that one can have various opinions on the matter
Trondheim wrote: All my nopes, not getting this trainwreck. And beside Id raather burn my money than let some Russian firm have it
Lol what? Trainwreck? It's in closed beta and performing far better then most games at launch. The game is fantastic.
Fantastic? Well as much as I want to spew my unfilterd opinions on this "masterpice" and your opinion of it I will refrain from it. The game has the same appel as world of warplanes aka NONE! Its a brainless and utterly dull game, with no need for creative thinking or any regards to teamwork. But as we all live in democratic nations I suppose that one can have various opinions on the matter
Right, I'll work of the assumption that you haven't actually played it then. If you think this game doesn't need teamwork you must be a horrible team mate to have.
Trondheim wrote: All my nopes, not getting this trainwreck. And beside Id raather burn my money than let some Russian firm have it
Lol what? Trainwreck? It's in closed beta and performing far better then most games at launch. The game is fantastic.
Fantastic? Well as much as I want to spew my unfilterd opinions on this "masterpice" and your opinion of it I will refrain from it. The game has the same appel as world of warplanes aka NONE! Its a brainless and utterly dull game, with no need for creative thinking or any regards to teamwork. But as we all live in democratic nations I suppose that one can have various opinions on the matter
Right, I'll work of the assumption that you haven't actually played it then. If you think this game doesn't need teamwork you must be a horrible team mate to have.
Veiled insults are still insults btw.
Played it for a number of days after I got a invite by a friend actualy. And I suppose your milage(spelling?) may vary
BaronIveagh wrote: I'm surprised, since AFAIK no one has been given any invites to hand out, though some streamers were supposed to pass out a few.
I'm guessing EU is pretty bad. I know they were having a hard time getting players for the alpha test.
I think Asia was worst. A friend of mine is currently living in Japan and he got into the Closed Beta for the Asia Region. I got an extra code and gave it to him, he logged in for the first time and (almost) shouted over TeamSpeak "WHAT THE HELL?! 5000 PLAYERS?!" Yeah, Asian servers were bad
Trondheim wrote: All my nopes, not getting this trainwreck. And beside Id raather burn my money than let some Russian firm have it
Lol what? Trainwreck? It's in closed beta and performing far better then most games at launch. The game is fantastic.
Fantastic? Well as much as I want to spew my unfilterd opinions on this "masterpice" and your opinion of it I will refrain from it. The game has the same appel as world of warplanes aka NONE! Its a brainless and utterly dull game, with no need for creative thinking or any regards to teamwork. But as we all live in democratic nations I suppose that one can have various opinions on the matter
Right, I'll work of the assumption that you haven't actually played it then. If you think this game doesn't need teamwork you must be a horrible team mate to have.
Veiled insults are still insults btw.
Played it for a number of days after I got a invite by a friend actualy. And I suppose your milage(spelling?) may vary
Instead of making blanket statements maybe you can say why you don't like it? Watching lots of footage of many big Ytubers and they seem to think they have a winner, or are you working for gaijin entertainment?
Well, I got into the CBT via a regular invite (I guess they sent out another wave?)
Must say, I'm having a lot of fun, and I quite enjoy how ship can hit above their tier much easier than tanks can in WoT. A Kawachi can and will feth up a Kongo if the Kongo isn't paying attention, and my Myogi has made a business of killing high tier cruisers.
Destroyes are insane, however. Almost impossible to hit if they keep moving, difficult to spot and torpedos absolutely wreck face. I totally get the game design choices behind this (cruisers being well suited to killing most destroyers - Japanese ones alittle less so being torpedo focused themselves, lack the raw gunnery firepower until higher tiers to engage DDs as reliably) but it's kind of funny seeing how, while historically the whole idea of torpedo destroyers fell out of favour as air power become dominant, and thus quick, heavy-AA armed destroyers became king, in-game, the Japanese doctrine of torpedos out the wazoo works much better.
Been watching this game for some time. Didn't like their planes game much but have tanks for days in WOT. Ships seems good, it's no kantai collection, but it will do.
One has fleet combat and growth and stuff, the other is "Imma ship!" arcade fun time. Both are good. A merger? Now that's what I call port side.
One has ships and combat. The other is a travesty.
I wouldn't say a travesty. It's not big surprise a number of WoW players are also KanColle players, or because of KanColle they got interested in naval warfare and are now interested in WoW.
Heck, in one of the Closed Beta Surveys they sent, they had one question asking what other games you play and one of the options was "Kantai Collection".
Hell, I love big ships with big cannons, but it was mostly in a sci-fi enviornment. I learnt and got interested in learning more about naval warfare thanks to KanColle.
The girls are the "warships". They inherit the spirits of the sunk battleships and face the Abyssals. Elements of the ships are designed into the girl's uniform.
Yes, it makes no sense. But it's fun.
But the Kongou is awesome. Both in KanColle and in WoW. So it's such a major win for me.
It is fun if you into the whole moe thing, to me it is primarily a way to sell ship models by associating them with scantily clothed young girls, makes me think of that other show strike witches.
Trondheim wrote: All my nopes, not getting this trainwreck. And beside Id raather burn my money than let some Russian firm have it
Lol what? Trainwreck? It's in closed beta and performing far better then most games at launch. The game is fantastic.
Fantastic? Well as much as I want to spew my unfilterd opinions on this "masterpice" and your opinion of it I will refrain from it. The game has the same appel as world of warplanes aka NONE! Its a brainless and utterly dull game, with no need for creative thinking or any regards to teamwork. But as we all live in democratic nations I suppose that one can have various opinions on the matter
Right, I'll work of the assumption that you haven't actually played it then. If you think this game doesn't need teamwork you must be a horrible team mate to have.
Veiled insults are still insults btw.
Played it for a number of days after I got a invite by a friend actualy. And I suppose your milage(spelling?) may vary
Instead of making blanket statements maybe you can say why you don't like it? Watching lots of footage of many big Ytubers and they seem to think they have a winner, or are you working for gaijin entertainment?
Why yes, I could do that if I thougth it would make a difference And just because people online like it dose not mean they are rigth. And by the gods no, Id never work for those folks
Trondheim wrote: All my nopes, not getting this trainwreck. And beside Id raather burn my money than let some Russian firm have it
Lol what? Trainwreck? It's in closed beta and performing far better then most games at launch. The game is fantastic.
Fantastic? Well as much as I want to spew my unfilterd opinions on this "masterpice" and your opinion of it I will refrain from it. The game has the same appel as world of warplanes aka NONE! Its a brainless and utterly dull game, with no need for creative thinking or any regards to teamwork. But as we all live in democratic nations I suppose that one can have various opinions on the matter
Right, I'll work of the assumption that you haven't actually played it then. If you think this game doesn't need teamwork you must be a horrible team mate to have.
Veiled insults are still insults btw.
Played it for a number of days after I got a invite by a friend actualy. And I suppose your milage(spelling?) may vary
Instead of making blanket statements maybe you can say why you don't like it? Watching lots of footage of many big Ytubers and they seem to think they have a winner, or are you working for gaijin entertainment?
Why yes, I could do that if I thougth it would make a difference And just because people online like it dose not mean they are rigth. And by the gods no, Id never work for those folks
Okay, ignore list it is then. If you have nothing to add to a conversation why bother?
Tried it this weekend, got a good amount of hours in.
I played with my brother, we rolled together and focused targets / covered eachother / AA Guns closer together is effective.
And I have to say it was a lot of fun. I think i'm hooked, I like it a lot more then I did world of tanks, or any of the Gajin games.
There can be a lot of teamwork, but you can't expect that if your In 100% pugs. Voice Chat + People you know or just people who are competent = a lot better.
Spyder68 wrote: Tried it this weekend, got a good amount of hours in.
I played with my brother, we rolled together and focused targets / covered eachother / AA Guns closer together is effective.
And I have to say it was a lot of fun. I think i'm hooked, I like it a lot more then I did world of tanks, or any of the Gajin games.
There can be a lot of teamwork, but you can't expect that if your In 100% pugs. Voice Chat + People you know or just people who are competent = a lot better.
To be fair, that argument works for every team based game. But yeah, me and purple were running around in our Tier 5 destroyers yesterday and we got some fantastic games in.
Saw the latest mingles with jingles and he mentioned a mod used for cheating in WOW heard of it?
Yes, I have been hearing about it but I didn't think it was that bad.
It kinda explains how I'm hit over 20kms away with consistent citadel hits. No really, there's the "HOLY gak, THAT WAS LUCKY YOU SON OF A BITCH" and then there's the consistent battering I sometimes get.
It's rare to see accusation in chat, but they are here.
Ah well, the game is still mighty fun and after reading those patch notes I'm incredibly pumped up! American Battleships! OH YES!
Just read all that, wow, I mean wow, those changes, now that's an update!
Saw the latest mingles with jingles and he mentioned a mod used for cheating in WOW heard of it?
Yes, I have been hearing about it but I didn't think it was that bad.
It kinda explains how I'm hit over 20kms away with consistent citadel hits. No really, there's the "HOLY gak, THAT WAS LUCKY YOU SON OF A BITCH" and then there's the consistent battering I sometimes get.
It's rare to see accusation in chat, but they are here.
Ah well, the game is still mighty fun and after reading those patch notes I'm incredibly pumped up! American Battleships! OH YES!
Just read all that, wow, I mean wow, those changes, now that's an update!
Saw the latest mingles with jingles and he mentioned a mod used for cheating in WOW heard of it?
Yes, I have been hearing about it but I didn't think it was that bad.
It kinda explains how I'm hit over 20kms away with consistent citadel hits. No really, there's the "HOLY gak, THAT WAS LUCKY YOU SON OF A BITCH" and then there's the consistent battering I sometimes get.
It's rare to see accusation in chat, but they are here.
Ah well, the game is still mighty fun and after reading those patch notes I'm incredibly pumped up! American Battleships! OH YES!
Just read all that, wow, I mean wow, those changes, now that's an update!
Saw the latest mingles with jingles and he mentioned a mod used for cheating in WOW heard of it?
Yes, I have been hearing about it but I didn't think it was that bad.
It kinda explains how I'm hit over 20kms away with consistent citadel hits. No really, there's the "HOLY gak, THAT WAS LUCKY YOU SON OF A BITCH" and then there's the consistent battering I sometimes get.
It's rare to see accusation in chat, but they are here.
Ah well, the game is still mighty fun and after reading those patch notes I'm incredibly pumped up! American Battleships! OH YES!
Just read all that, wow, I mean wow, those changes, now that's an update!
Ah Soladrin, nice to see you are in the "EXPRESS TORPEDO DELIVERY" service
I have now done close to 300 games.
I'm a fething God of Death and Destruction when I'm playing with my sweet Kongo or destroyers at lower tiers.
I fething love this game too much and it's only the CBT. Damn, I need that new patch ASAP, I want to get my hands on the USA's Battleships to compare with the Japanese.
TheDraconicLord wrote: Ah Soladrin, nice to see you are in the "EXPRESS TORPEDO DELIVERY" service
I have now done close to 300 games.
I'm a fething God of Death and Destruction when I'm playing with my sweet Kongo or destroyers at lower tiers.
I fething love this game too much and it's only the CBT. Damn, I need that new patch ASAP, I want to get my hands on the USA's Battleships to compare with the Japanese.
Yeah, I've done about 200 battles myself and am absolutely loving it. My preference of ship however is very much settled on Japanese destroyers, second probably being carriers. I've gotten to Tier 6 on both the US and Japanese cruiser lines and while fun, it's just not for me. got a kongo too but I just can't stand that rate of fire.
I'm a sneaky torpedo delivery man at heart.
Think I'll try American destroyers today to see if they are worth a damn.
Also, the russian pre-order destroyer is hilarious. Decent torpedos and 130mm guns. I've killed Aoba's one on one with that thing.
TheDraconicLord wrote: Ah Soladrin, nice to see you are in the "EXPRESS TORPEDO DELIVERY" service
I have now done close to 300 games.
I'm a fething God of Death and Destruction when I'm playing with my sweet Kongo or destroyers at lower tiers.
I fething love this game too much and it's only the CBT. Damn, I need that new patch ASAP, I want to get my hands on the USA's Battleships to compare with the Japanese.
Yeah, I've done about 200 battles myself and am absolutely loving it. My preference of ship however is very much settled on Japanese destroyers, second probably being carriers. I've gotten to Tier 6 on both the US and Japanese cruiser lines and while fun, it's just not for me. got a kongo too but I just can't stand that rate of fire.
I'm a sneaky torpedo delivery man at heart.
Think I'll try American destroyers today to see if they are worth a damn.
Also, the russian pre-order destroyer is hilarious. Decent torpedos and 130mm guns. I've killed Aoba's one on one with that thing.
The American destroyers are fun. Their torpedos have an insane short range, the one I'm using has 5.5 Kms. It's like Jingles says, it's a life of risk and adventure aboard one of those! What you get are awesome, awesome cannons, that's why I like them a bit more than the Japanese ones.
I MURDER most of the destroyers I meet, including the russian because the players are still (I guess) noobs who only use their torpedos, including against me, another destroyer. I just laugh as I shoot them with my ridiculous rate of fire.
Fun Fact: Nearly 300 games played and I don't even have the first Carrier unlocked
Yeah, I've done about 200 battles myself and am absolutely loving it. My preference of ship however is very much settled on Japanese destroyers, second probably being carriers. I've gotten to Tier 6 on both the US and Japanese cruiser lines and while fun, it's just not for me. got a kongo too but I just can't stand that rate of fire.
I'm a sneaky torpedo delivery man at heart.
Think I'll try American destroyers today to see if they are worth a damn.
I've settled on Japanese Destroyers and Cruisers myself. Got a Mutsuki and a Myoko so far.
The Myoko was a bit of a disappointment after the God of the Seas that is the Mogami, but the combination of unlocking the eight extra torpedo tubes and realizing that I need to play her much more like a battleship than a regular Cruiser has greatly improved my experience...
Yeah, I've done about 200 battles myself and am absolutely loving it. My preference of ship however is very much settled on Japanese destroyers, second probably being carriers. I've gotten to Tier 6 on both the US and Japanese cruiser lines and while fun, it's just not for me. got a kongo too but I just can't stand that rate of fire.
I'm a sneaky torpedo delivery man at heart.
Think I'll try American destroyers today to see if they are worth a damn.
I've settled on Japanese Destroyers and Cruisers myself. Got a Mutsuki and a Myoko so far.
The Myoko was a bit of a disappointment after the God of the Seas that is the Mogami, but the combination of unlocking the eight extra torpedo tubes and realizing that I need to play her much more like a battleship than a regular Cruiser has greatly improved my experience...
She's no queen of the seas, but her gunnery is half decent for her tier, though the torpedos have ass firing arcs.
The Kongo is life however. Gods that battleship is glorious, I never have a bad game in her (save for when being torpedo'd by friendlies at spawn....)
I'm currently waiting for the patch however - a few too many questionable hits as I round islands and getting consistently out-dueled at range with enemies hitting with more barrages than they ought to make me extremely suspicious, and I refuse to use that cheat myself. The fact that it exists is enough to sour my mood, as rather than attributing enemy hits to good aim and luck, I'm inherently suspicious, even when I shouldn't be.
She's no queen of the seas, but her gunnery is half decent for her tier, though the torpedos have ass firing arcs.
The Kongo is life however. Gods that battleship is glorious, I never have a bad game in her (save for when being torpedo'd by friendlies at spawn....)
I'm currently waiting for the patch however - a few too many questionable hits as I round islands and getting consistently out-dueled at range with enemies hitting with more barrages than they ought to make me extremely suspicious, and I refuse to use that cheat myself. The fact that it exists is enough to sour my mood, as rather than attributing enemy hits to good aim and luck, I'm inherently suspicious, even when I shouldn't be.
Yeah, I'm there with you and I also stopped playing my Fuso because of it.
Playing in cruisers and destroyers mitigates the issue though, because you are much better at dodging incoming BB fire.
I feel the same. I hate when I can't just tip my hat because of a shot well placed and instead I'm suspicious said player is using the mod.
But, tbh, I haven't felt that in a while now. I'm rocking the seas with my Amagi. That beautie had her ass kicked when she was "stock" but now, fully upgraded and with a Captain fully retrained? It's beautiful. Dodging torpedos, shooting down planes with AA, DESTROYING MY GOD-EMPEROR DAMNED ENEMIES LEFT AND RIGHT! All at the same time! IT'S GLORIOUS!
I have been playing a lot with the girl and I haven't been suspicious of a player for a while.
Still, Kongo remains my love. Kongo is Love, Kongo is Life!
BaronIveagh wrote: Still don't know if we're actually going to be allowed to keep warspite after CBT ends or it this is just another cash grab.
You are aware that all gold spent in CBT will just be refunded to you when CBT ends right? Accounts will be wiped and any gold/ships you preorded will be added.
Warspite is no longer on sale at all when CBT ends. Hence why people were wondering what the story was. And, also, not strictly true. All reward ships will also be kept.
And, yes, I know, it's almost the inverse of the historical Warspite. I've been killing them left and right with Kongo simply by playing keep away.
They had soemthing similar with WoWP and the Buffalo. there's a premium version of it that was only on sale during Beta, that after the end of testing you got to keep.
BaronIveagh wrote: They had soemthing similar with WoWP and the Buffalo. there's a premium version of it that was only on sale during Beta, that after the end of testing you got to keep.
Welp, if that's the case, not going to complain, I love me some shiny stuff. They doing this with the Kitakami too?
No. And, they just announced that despite being only available in beta, it's being wiped after CBT. Needless to say, people are screaming because they preordered gold just to buy it, thinking it was like the Buffalo. Glad i didn't buy it.
BaronIveagh wrote: No. And, they just announced that despite being only available in beta, it's being wiped after CBT. Needless to say, people are screaming because they preordered gold just to buy it, thinking it was like the Buffalo. Glad i didn't buy it.
I was very confused with this so I searched around the forum for the official statement:
Ahoy, Captains! I got the answer about the Warspite.
So, the ship is currently available in the Closed Beta for 7,500 tokens. At the end of Closed Beta (start of Open Beta), it will be wiped from your account, it will be unavailable for purchase, and you will be refunded your spent tokens as doubloons. (The same as any other purchase in the Closed Beta Test)
We will eventually offer the Warspite again in the future. For the time being, it is only a Closed Beta Test ship that you can play and test during the Closed Beta. I should also make a point that the current price will not necessarily reflect its future price when it is made available again after OBT.
Well, they'll have the gold back for actual GOOD premium ships or premium time. Not that piece of crap.
Ya know, after watching Jingles kicking ass and taking names with Warspite, I'm not so sure it's such a bad ship after all. His video is really surprising.
TheDraconicLord wrote: Ya know, after watching Jingles kicking ass and taking names with Warspite, I'm not so sure it's such a bad ship after all. His video is really surprising.
You don't expect him to show you the embarrassing battle where I blew him sky high with my Kongo because he couldn't return fire and hit me at 20km, do you?
(That may be unfair, I'm unsure if that battle was before or after he made this vid.)
TheDraconicLord wrote: Ya know, after watching Jingles kicking ass and taking names with Warspite, I'm not so sure it's such a bad ship after all. His video is really surprising.
You don't expect him to show you the embarrassing battle where I blew him sky high with my Kongo because he couldn't return fire and hit me at 20km, do you?
(That may be unfair, I'm unsure if that battle was before or after he made this vid.)
To be fair, Jingles isn't afraid of bad mouthing stuff or showing that he isn't the best player on earth.
Got the Altanta premium cruiser. Load HE shells. Burn everything.
The fire rate of that ship coupled with HE shells is amazing, I managed to burn down an amagi and a Kongo in single fight. I had 280 shell hits by the end of it.
Soladrin wrote: Got the Altanta premium cruiser. Load HE shells. Burn everything.
The fire rate of that ship coupled with HE shells is amazing, I managed to burn down an amagi and a Kongo in single fight. I had 280 shell hits by the end of it.
Soladrin wrote: Got the Altanta premium cruiser. Load HE shells. Burn everything.
The fire rate of that ship coupled with HE shells is amazing, I managed to burn down an amagi and a Kongo in single fight. I had 280 shell hits by the end of it.
Brace yourself, HE is getting nerfed next patch.
No problem, it's more devastating (though less fun) with AP shells. Also, I think if they nerf HE it's never going to be used by anyone. The damage for those shells is already terrible and there's no one shotting destroyers with citadel hits.
I can't kill Battleships though, everytime I get in torp range they devastate me with their main guns, I am generally dead before I get in position to launch (although I have had a few posthumous kills).
Yeah, I own the Kitakami, it's hilarious to use. It's also complete garbage. The guns are gak, the acceleration is gak, the turning circle is gak and the the amount of torpedo's is completely without use.
I have discovered that my problems with destroyers stem from playing USN ships like IJN ships. Torp spam works much better from 2km outside of your detection range
MrDwhitey wrote: Hitting an enemy Kongo in the citadel with an AP shell is satisfying.
More satisfying than being rammed by his mate's Warspite though...
The Kongo was fun until I unlocked the Fuso, now I'd much rather play the Fuso and I'm left scratching my head as to why people like the Kongo so much. The majority of the time I see other people playing them they end up getting out ahead of the main group, isolated and destroyed.
MrDwhitey wrote: Hitting an enemy Kongo in the citadel with an AP shell is satisfying.
More satisfying than being rammed by his mate's Warspite though...
The Kongo was fun until I unlocked the Fuso, now I'd much rather play the Fuso and I'm left scratching my head as to why people like the Kongo so much. The majority of the time I see other people playing them they end up getting out ahead of the main group, isolated and destroyed.
I'm one of those persons. Give me my ship-waifu over Fuso any day of the week. Mostly it's a combination of armor, firepower and speed that make me love her so much. I've very, very rarely had a game with that ship I considered a failure. It happened, yes, but very rarely compared with the others.
Then again, when I play with a battleship I play as the tank so I don't even know if I'm doing it right "LOOK AT ME! Big scary ship! HIT ME! HIT ME!" as I advance into the fray to the magical 10-12 KMs range I love so much and protect the little guys. When I see battleships remaining at near maximum range in a game and not even daring to advance, I just laugh and I wonder if they are actually having fun.
Hell, my favorite moments is when I'm capping and I'm dodging torpedos, the AA are shooting, the secondary batteries are blazing away at near targets and I'm shooting the main cannons. Bonus points if me and another battleship are doing a broadside less than 3 kms away.
It's a freakin' carnage and an orgy of explosions. AND I LOVE IT!
When is the release planned? I really want to get this game but don't want to go through the beta and get ships only to have all the effort wiped out when the game goes final.
Miguelsan wrote: When is the release planned? I really want to get this game but don't want to go through the beta and get ships only to have all the effort wiped out when the game goes final.
M.
Depends on how many bone headed moves that WG makes in design that testers have to point out to them. Most likely fall of this year. There's to be no wipe though between Open beta and release.
Miguelsan wrote: When is the release planned? I really want to get this game but don't want to go through the beta and get ships only to have all the effort wiped out when the game goes final.
M.
Depends on how many bone headed moves that WG makes in design that testers have to point out to them. Most likely fall of this year. There's to be no wipe though between Open beta and release.
It's still closed beta though so current progress will be wiped.
Also death to US CVs apparently; the IJN is now ruler of the skies as US CVs lost 1 TB squadron at all levels in favour, in almost all cases, of more dive bombers.
Also death to US CVs apparently; the IJN is now ruler of the skies as US CVs lost 1 TB squadron at all levels in favour, in almost all cases, of more dive bombers.
Whoopie.
Meanwhile he IJN is rolling with 5 TB squadrons.
we'll see how this pans out.
SERIOUSLY?! 5?! I know they mentioned japanese planes are weaker, but DAMN, 5 seems overkill!
Ever since the patch my aim has been completely off thanks to the crazy BB AP arcs. Hell, sometimes when I shoot one of my Izumo's batteries, I see one shot going all the way left, one goes way up, and the last goes all the way right. And I mean 3 shots from the same turret. It's crazy.
I'm only now reliably hitting targets again but the accuracy of the BB turrets still feels so damn off. . Still, congratulations on that awesome result, I'm nowhere near that kind of results
But let me tell ya, bouncing a Nagato's secondary battery shell when you are using a Sims with 67 HP and thanks to that, being able to take down said Nagato with torpedos and survive was one hell of a laugh
Haha, yeah. I don't even use BB's. Highest I got is a Fuso, I'm just not a fan of the playstyle.
Also, the best part of that match was blind fire into a smoke cloud killing a destroyer, turning away from him and having a Cleveland trying to ram me, I dodged him and gave him some torpedo's as a going away present.
Soladrin wrote: Haha, yeah. I don't even use BB's. Highest I got is a Fuso, I'm just not a fan of the playstyle.
Also, the best part of that match was blind fire into a smoke cloud killing a destroyer, turning away from him and having a Cleveland trying to ram me, I dodged him and gave him some torpedo's as a going away present.
Honestly, after reading that I can only imagine your ship's captain putting on his sunglasses riding to the sunset as the Cleveland explodes in a ball of flames behind him.
Yeah that's pretty much how it went. Seriously though I don't I ever stopped shooting that match and we won on points at my 7th kill, I got every kill for my team and won the game in about 10 minutes.
The new carrier loadouts are a bit off. I just had a game where I completely shut down 2 Hoshos with my fighter loadout Bogue. 40 planes shot down and I even seriously damaged a BB by setting fire to it, for the loss 5 planes. I can't imagine that it was a fun game for them though.
Enigwolf wrote: So... Having barely skimmed over the 8 pages of the thread.. Verdict?
Watch some of mighty jingles videos, makes me want to buy a pc just for gaming, i like the slower pace and the different tactics of the ships, wished it was available on console.
I expect it to go down like the Hood. Balance is awful and they currently have cruisers launching fighter squadrons in the 0.4 version we tested this weekend because they can't figure out how ot balance AA and aircraft. Or ships against heach other. Or figure out what to do with US BBs period.
And they are refusing to listen to the testers screaming in the forums not to go to Release (which Open beta is in this case, there's no wipe following it).
BaronIveagh wrote: I expect it to go down like the Hood. Balance is awful and they currently have cruisers launching fighter squadrons in the 0.4 version we tested this weekend because they can't figure out how ot balance AA and aircraft. Or ships against heach other. Or figure out what to do with US BBs period.
For a Wargaming.net product WoWs actually seems relatively balanced. The obvious exception is Carriers, I have ground my way up to the Ranger and the sheer randomness and frustration of Carrier gameplay means that I just no longer use it.
Wargaming really need to do something with their repair mechanics though.
Spyder68 wrote: hate to say game is pretty close to balanced. Just a few tweaks here and there.
There is just a ton of people who expect Battleships to walk through everything.
Game is ready.. people will always complain.....
so, the fact that, by WGs own admission, all other things being equal, an IJN BB will always beat a USN BB is balanced??? Right now the entire US BB line is more or less xp pinatas (with the possible exceptions of T8-9), but it's not a priority to fix because, as the devs have said, people will play them anyway???? You can't evade, keep up with, or outrange some cruisers, and your supposedly superior armor means crap at engagement distances because you're diving a matchstick BB that busts into flame like the Human Torch at the slightest hit?
that AA, the USN's supposed 'flavor' means so little that to balance it they have cruisers able to launch fighter squadrons now????
Yeah, it's peachy. you must have missed the 0.4 patch's 'pre release' weekend. this weekend. Get ready, WG has just flushed balance.
that AA, the USN's supposed 'flavor' means so little that to balance it they have cruisers able to launch fighter squadrons now????
In fairness a USN carrier with a fighter loadout will absolutely shred an IJN opponent and ship based AAA is generally quite effective. The big issues with carriers are the extreme disparity between tiers, the sheer number of squadrons that higher tier carriers can field and the near uselessness of dive bombers (unless RNGesus is on your side). I would think that carrier gameplay is probably the most broken at the moment.
Its not open beta so far, it is one last stress test.
Registration for beta participation is open at this moment, but will close again as soon as WG thinks that they have enough participants to enter this last stress test.
So if you wan't to play a bit before open beta begins, you better hurry up before the registration closes again.
I am finding the 'open beta' to be far too grindy. I just can't be arsed playing WOWs anymore. I enjoyed it with mid tier USN destroyers, USN carriers (in a balanced match) or my lovely Cleveland. Grinding up through the USN BB line or self flagellating with the utterly hopeless Wickes for paltry rewards just isn't fun.
Silent Puffin? wrote: I am finding the 'open beta' to be far too grindy. I just can't be arsed playing WOWs anymore. I enjoyed it with mid tier USN destroyers, USN carriers (in a balanced match) or my lovely Cleveland. Grinding up through the USN BB line or self flagellating with the utterly hopeless Wickes for paltry rewards just isn't fun.
Welcome to the club. I have Furutaka and Kawachi together with Myogi to surprise butt sex me. I'm not looking forward to it at all.
EmilCrane wrote: I think we are arguing at cross purposes here. First of all, the ramming is just in the trailer, if you watch the gameplay at no point does anyone try to ram and even get remotely close enough to ram another ship.
Yes I know, but as (at least as I thought I said) the fact that ramming like that is a thing put me off instantly. 2 ships shouldn't ram. Submarines are different of course as seen in the evidence. Thats all that put me off. The ramming of an aircraft carrier into another ship spells out the game play to me.
I can grantee in that trailer it will show broadsiding battle ships for example, in fact ill watch past the ramming and see if my initial assumptions on the game are correct. (ok, seconds later this happened) I will watch no more.
But for me it spelled the nature of the game personally.
Yea I know, even ironclads were hard to sink, hence why ramming was used then. But for an aircraft carrier, the point im stressing here, to ram an enemy ship is unthinkable, and then for a warship to ram a warship is again not normal or in any way common.
Hence why aircraft carriers and submarines are vital to naval warfare, they can blow up vessels like no other ship can.
It wasn't ramming it was a... brushing incident.
Yeah, a brushing incident... that's the ticket!
The Auld Grump - typically a brushing incident is between two or more submarines... when one doesn't know that the other is there....
I'd had a few games of the open beta this morning, and i'm rather liking it. No where near as...pacey I suppose? Compared to world of tanks anyway. Ships can take a good deal of punishment, it tuck me around 25 or so penetrated AP hits to sink some T2 or 3 cruiser.
I'm having a blast in the open beta. Playing USA, and finally finished what I've come to call the "Tier 3 Purgatory" where you're slogging through with the crap T3 battleship (that's actually worse than the T3 Cruiser). Flashbacks to when I played World of Tanks and had to suffer through the M3 Lee to finally get to the Sherman (and the French AMX 40 to get to the AMX ELC).
I just got the T4 battleship and T4 cruiser, so today I'll see how they play. Can't quite get into destroyers. Too fragile for me, and I usually sucked with light tanks in WoT, so playing the fast but wet-tissue-paper-armored ship doesn't work for me. Looking forward to giving carriers a whirl when I get there. My first experience in a game with an enemy carrier ended the way you would expect: my next-to-no-AA T3 battleship got torpedo-bombed early on.
I do see the occasional idiot trying to play as if it was WoT (hide behind island, scoot out to shoot, scoot back behind island, and promptly die because they're not moving fast enough to avoid incoming shots).
USN destroyers are really good, at least they are from tier 5 onwards.
Low tier USN destroyers are deathtraps with weak guns, suicidally short ranged torps and no HPs. Its a cruelly hard grind to get the Nicholas but its worth it when you get there.
Im in the T3 slog right now, Im doing both American and Japanese T3 Cruisers and Battleships, this really sucks (although I've really grown to appreciate the Japanese ships, they both require very different playstyles versus the American ones which are more straightforward), but the game itself is awesome.
I've set a few goals for myself as to what ships I want to get to. I want the best carrier I can get up to. I want to at least get to the USS Texas (forget what class it was, I think New York). and the best Cruiser I can get up to. That's what I want to work towards during Beta and after full release. After that, I would like to work towards a Bismarck in the German line (assuming they don't make it a premium ship).
As far as premium ships go, I would love to see the USS Enterprise. I would be all over that.
The Kongo's worth is entirely dependent on how good a shot you are at long range. Its guns have a very long range for its tier (21km IIRC) but its shells take a long time to reach their target and its only has 8 guns. In addition is its fast but weakly armoured for a battleship so its not good at short ranges. Its not noob friendly IMO but if you know how to hit targets at long range its great.
It also has sufficient AAA to be a semi credible threat to aircraft.
Silent Puffin? wrote: The Kongo's worth is entirely dependent on how good a shot you are at long range. Its guns have a very long range for its tier (21km IIRC) but its shells take a long time to reach their target and its only has 8 guns. In addition is its fast but weakly armoured for a battleship so its not good at short ranges. Its not noob friendly IMO but if you know how to hit targets at long range its great.
It also has sufficient AAA to be a semi credible threat to aircraft.
See, I only have issues with that when I'm focused down, due to HE being the current Meta for CA and DD guns. Kongo's superior speed and maneuverability for a BB help a LOT with torp happy ships..
I'm currently working my way back up to USN Carriers and I am finding the Wyoming surprising enjoyable. I never liked Battleships in the closed beta but I am obviously a sufficiently better shot to allow me to rack up the damage, 12 guns helps a little bit with this as well.
Yeah, it definitely helps that the Wyoming has the extra guns, so "wasting" one of them to check targeting isn't too bad. I suppose I'll eventually get to be a good enough shot that I won't have to use targeting shots, but those BB reload times mean you can't afford to miss with the full salvo.
Got my first carrier, the Langley, yesterday. I've already played several games with it. Playing as a carrier is very different from the other ships. I sometimes feel like my only role is to use my one piddly fighter squadron to do some initial scouting and then to intercept as many of the enemy's bombers as I can. I actually manage to sink a ship with my own torpedo bombers every other game, most times I just do a good bit of damage with them or completely miss. Although, I'm surviving a lot more battles now, or at least I'm one of the last ships to go down.
Still looking forward to moving on from the Wyoming BB to the New York class (as it is the USS Texas). Will probably stop there for BBs, as the carrier takes up a lot of my time.
Im a pretty good shot in the game... for whatever reason I have trouble landing hits with the Myogi though. Im lucky to get a citadel hit with the Myogi, other ships I get 3+ per game. The Wyoming has been known to get me 3 citadel hits *per salvo*.
I think youll get better with torp bombers in time, there are some stupidly good carrier drivers out there who manage to put down unavoidable spreads of torpedos against the big ships. Last night one of the matches came down to a lone carrier vs 3 BBs and a Carrier. The lone carrier set fire to our carrier w dive bombers twice in a short period, making it impossible for him to launch anything, than torpedoed it. I managed to track him down in my myogi and put some shells into him but he torpedoed me, and then killed one of the two wyomings on the other end of the map. Game ended in defeat for my team at that point.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Will probably stop there for BBs, as the carrier takes up a lot of my time.
Carrier gameplay is quite broken just now. The difference between the effectiveness of fighters between tiers is hopelessly unbalanced to the extent that I was able to completely lock down 2 enemy carriers 1 tier below me with my fighter loadout Ranger in closed beta. Dive bombers are pretty much useless due to their terrible accuracy and low damage while torp bombers are obviously good but they are fairly easy to avoid, even with battleships (turn into the sqn and kill your speed when they start their attack run). I like carrier gameplay but it needs a lot of work before it is even close to balanced.
I just experienced the tier disparity in my last game. I was up against a Bogue that had two fighters and one bomber. His fighter squadrons were faster than mine and just one killed mine in a matter of seconds. And one player on my team was all like "lure them to the AA, you suck." I would gladly lure them into some AA, but that would have required the AA to be parked right next to me for that entire battle.
A game before that was my Langley plus another Langley against a Hosho and a Zuiho. Sure, our fighters are stronger than theirs and have no problems taking out their fighters and bombers, but our two fighter squadrons can't be everywhere at once to counter all of their bomber squadrons. By a minor miracle we still won because a destroyer or cruiser on our team hauled ass to the other side of the map and got their carriers.
doc1234 wrote: Well, that and the other reason for wanting the Kongo
Spoiler:
You. I like you. *high five*
Burning Love 4Eva!
Haven't played massive quantities after the start of the open beta. I'm still in the Myogi hell, I had enough of that ship in CBT, right now it's being so damn hard to reach my beautiful Kongo.
shasolenzabi wrote: Things were just fine until they opened the beta up, now the derps have invaded and I seem to get more of the derpy teams than the thinkers.
Thought is a sin! Torp your team mates! LEEEEEROOOOOYY JENKINSSS!
Just got my Bogue, yay. I was able to somewhat powerlevel my way through the Langley as I had earned a "confederate" achievement earlier, giving me a bunch of flags that add 50% XP in a battle.
I've seen a few idiots in the game. Apart from the one who thought my one T4 carrier fighter squadron would be a match for 2 T5 carrier fighter squadrons, I once had some guy in a cruiser or destroyer collide with my battleship. I'm in a battleship, I am slow and steer like a cow, and your fast and agile ship still couldn't avoid me? It's not like I appeared out of nowhere. I've also seen the ones that don't pay attention before firing their torpedoes. There are also the ones who are apparently ex-Navyfield players who like to shoot some torps right away. not realizing the things have a fairly short range (launching torps at someone 11km away ain't gonna work).
My favourite are people who try and reverse behind islands while underfire in destroyers.
I just had a very iconic game. My Wyoming was left to cover a flank essentially on my own (a South Carolina supported me but didn't last long) against 3 enemy Battleships. I managed to kill 2 with gun fire but I was obviously pretty badly damaged, on fire and with a couple of crippled turrets. The remaining BB was about 4 KM on nearly full health firing broadsides at me. I had only 1 option left, RAMMING SPEED! 3 enemy battleships sunk and a shiny medal for my Captain's widow.
I won the battle but as usual my team lost the war.
Trying it, and honestly, just not into it I guess... the tiers feel like they're less one sided than in WoT so that's a plus, but the grinding is still there and still tedious.
I really wanted to get to the Aircraft carriers but the first two battleships I've played are so unfun XD.
Carriers are tricky, and take some skill mastering as you have to switch from carrier-to-squadron-to-squadron-to squadron, and master the way to lock onto the targets, and get to carrier again to move it from harm.
BBs are slow and methodical and take patience but can hurl powerful salvos at the enemy, Wyomings are beasts! each BB does seem to have special issues like the mixed fire control problems of the Kawachi, or the way the Arkansas Beta, or SC wallow like 800hogs in mud
Cruisers, all around with speed decent enough to be fun to run, firepower that hurts the enemy, and some come with torps.
DDs fastest things around, but delicate, need to smoke screen to hide, and the devastation in closed areas of torps
Yes, many do not realize the short range of WW-2 era torps. the longest range torps of that time I recall were the Japanese Oxygen jet torps which had double the range of propeller driven US torps.They were however less prevalent than the standard Japanese propeller torps, so yeah past 7km the torps are useless, they are close in weapons, and one has to make use of small islands to lop around as fire of the enemy is absorbed by the terrain and then lob the torps at close quarters, most cruisers die to 3 torps if they are full health, got 6 torps? BB can be dead meat at close range, but watch the BB salvos!
The torp spotting mechanics ensure that long range torps are essentially useless unless your target is AFK or asleep.
I have finally gotten past the horrific grind that is the Wickes (the only good thing to say about that pile of gak is that it is fast) and into the semi reasonable Clemson. Only 20k or so exp until I get my Nicholas back.
They may not hit, but the torps can be handy for shepherding enemy ships in the direction you want to go, and if you can get them stuck in a position where they can't turn out of the way even better. The torps are weapons of opportunity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm questioning the lack of Tenryu reskins
Spoiler:
Just got the ship, rather enjoying it as an over armoured destroyer. Going to assume ship reskinning will be a bit annoying till the game leaves beta, I seem to remember that they changed the skin location in the files a good few times with World of Tanks.
Huh I must have found the wrong one then, another thread came up when i googled it that seemed like it was from the alpha/closed beta and was mostly outdated. Ah well, thanks !
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also is it just me or are the skins not applying with changes to the ships hull module?
I got myself a Kongo, first thing I did was upgrade it with the accuracy mod. Soooooo much better than the Myogi was, but I still cant help but feel that I enjoy playing the Wyoming better, it handles more like what I expect a battleship to feel like. The 12 gun salvo feels more impactful and meaningful than Kongos 6, even if Kongos guns are a bit bigger, Kongo just feels like an oversized cruiser, not quite as fast and with a painfully slow reload time.
Don't forget regardless of her classification in the game as a Battleship, historically the kongo class were Battlecruisers, not battleships. So they really are over sized Cruisers in the same way the Tenryu is a fat Destroyer.
doc1234 wrote: Don't forget regardless of her classification in the game as a Battleship, historically the kongo class were Battlecruisers, not battleships. So they really are over sized Cruisers in the same way the Tenryu is a fat Destroyer.
Kongo class got a complete tear down in the mid 30's upgrading them to fast battleships.
doc1234 wrote: Don't forget regardless of her classification in the game as a Battleship, historically the kongo class were Battlecruisers, not battleships. So they really are over sized Cruisers in the same way the Tenryu is a fat Destroyer.
Kongo class got a complete tear down in the mid 30's upgrading them to fast battleships.
I know what they became, but given that the games also using ships that are pretty much ww1 era, it seems they're leaning the Kongo more to the battlecruiser side of things. Though the fast battleship upgrade should be more evident in the module upgrades personally.
I know what they became, but given that the games also using ships that are pretty much ww1 era, it seems they're leaning the Kongo more to the battlecruiser side of things. Though the fast battleship upgrade should be more evident in the module upgrades personally.
The difference in performance between the first and second hulls I found pretty obvious, but it's not for everyone.
I know what they became, but given that the games also using ships that are pretty much ww1 era, it seems they're leaning the Kongo more to the battlecruiser side of things. Though the fast battleship upgrade should be more evident in the module upgrades personally.
The difference in performance between the first and second hulls I found pretty obvious, but it's not for everyone.
Some of the upgrades seem fairly questionable at times frankly.
Some of the upgrades are undoubtedly downgrades. Notably the top Omaha hull which not only removes a set of torp tubes but also 2 turrets for a handful of extra AAA, well worth 3800 exp.
I got my Nicholas back last night. The Wickes was an absolute tedious grind but the Clemson was a joy that I flew threw; it only took me about 2 days of casualish play to complete and in that time I only had 1 bad game and I generally finished at or near the top in each game.
Speed, excellent guns (for its class and tier) and power torps with sufficient range to use safely make the Clemson an absolute beast.
Been on a massive losing streak with both my Warspite and Myoko. I'm getting games where I do 2-5 kills each time and my team still manages to fall apart enough in the first 5 minutes to leave me hanging in a 1-3 vs 6+ situations.
Recently started playing and I LOVE the St. Louis just for the sheer amount of cannons it has. Finished up a battle in it with 4 kills and 1 kill was a duel between a battleship and myself.
King Pariah wrote: Recently started playing and I LOVE the St. Louis just for the sheer amount of cannons it has. Finished up a battle in it with 4 kills and 1 kill was a duel between a battleship and myself.
Well, just got myself into a New York, didnt give it a go yet. I'm starting to feel a bit of grind fatigue. The game is tons of fun, but its quickly becoming rather repetitive, especially since it seems that the same 2 or 3 maps make up 90% of all games played (at least for me). Would be nice to get a bit more variety in that. I also think some new scenarios might be nice. Beyond that, the cost of upgrades/getting into higher tiers is ballooning up pretty fast, almost to the point that I've lost interest in continuing to chase after higher tier gameplay (and thus losing interest in playing the game entirely).
