Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ruckdog wrote:


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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ruckdog wrote:


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

chaos0xomega wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ruckdog wrote:


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.

chaos0xomega wrote:


If torp bombers aren't effective and dive bombers dont do crap, then what good is an aircraft carrier? o.O

They can hit you anywhere on the map. Ships have to go over to you and expose themselves to fire.


And Yamato is, for obvious reasons, absurdly powerful, as it is the Japanese tier X battleship.

Alone it could be killed. It will need escorts to keep enemies at a safe distance. Plus those 30 second reloads.

Even the biggest giants have a weakness.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ruckdog wrote:


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.

Those airplanes kick my butt so damn hard.

It's a shame submarines weren't a part of this game. The Canadian in me wanted to hunt some U-boats.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
It's a shame submarines weren't a part of this game. The Canadian in me wanted to hunt some U-boats.

Subs would have been difficult to do even remotely accurate. There's a lot involved in sub hunting and hiding.


Plus, if the other side is reduced to just one sub who's an afk player...

Subs could be added later in the same way WoT added Tank Destroyers. Consideration would need to be given as to their function though.

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.

 EmilCrane wrote:
...sometimes just inventing units out of thin air.

This piqued my curiosity, what units did they invent out of thin air?

 King Pariah wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
...sometimes just inventing units out of thin air.

This piqued my curiosity, what units did they invent out of thin air?

Waffentrager E100 is the first one to come to mind. Never existed. The gun existed and chassis existed, they were never melded.

Wargaming has an extremely broad understanding of 'history.

Its a shame that the historical game mode was added so late in the game as virtually no one plays it.

 Soladrin wrote:

 King Pariah wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
...sometimes just inventing units out of thin air.

This piqued my curiosity, what units did they invent out of thin air?

Waffentrager E100 is the first one to come to mind. Never existed. The gun existed and chassis existed, they were never melded.

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/29086-since-the-soviet-spgs-never-existed/page__pid__407855#entry407855

Granted, it's from 2011, but an admin is outright stating that many of the tanks in the game never existed.

They are adding prototypes to WoW, yes.

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.

 Soladrin wrote:

 King Pariah wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
...sometimes just inventing units out of thin air.

This piqued my curiosity, what units did they invent out of thin air?

Waffentrager E100 is the first one to come to mind. Never existed. The gun existed and chassis existed, they were never melded.

Depends how you define "never existed" I suppose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerkampfwagen_E-100


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.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
They are adding prototypes to WoW, yes.

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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 King Pariah wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
...sometimes just inventing units out of thin air.

This piqued my curiosity, what units did they invent out of thin air?

Waffentrager E100 is the first one to come to mind. Never existed. The gun existed and chassis existed, they were never melded.

Depends how you define "never existed" I suppose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerkampfwagen_E-100


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.

Oh, my bad. Dont play the game, thought 'waffentrager E-100' was just what they called the PzKpfw E-100

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.

Just got my Tier 6 Aoba class Japanese Cruiser, Gotta love those 10km range torpedos.

I want to play this but I'm afraid I will like it then Wargaming will ruin it in some way or another. Like they have in both WoT and WoWP.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

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 >/

WoT is fine IMO.

And WoWP wasn't ruined, for something to be ruined it needs to have been good at some point.

 King Pariah wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:

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.