m4inbrain

High tier DDs are already less effective than their low tier counterparts. Don't know where that idea of "low tier destroyers would be destroyed" comes from, it's exactly the opposite.

So 118 damage for a torpedo is "fine" for you? That's less than a Eerie does with an HE shell against a yamato. To call that "fine" is quite a stretch, especially considering the min-max damage of torpedos. And their reload time - it's a bit different to be able to shoot once a minute or every 7 seconds with multiple guns.

If anything, HE should cause flooding against low armored targets. The hole of a big AP round in a destroyer would be surprisingly small (pretty much just barely bigger than the diameter of the shell itself).

Yeah. That reason would be "CBT". And why do they cap it to two per team/battle? Thanks for ignoring the rest though, good start.

The question goes the other way around as well. Why should the class that survives three thirds of their games do 50% more damage as another class? Don't you think balancewise, there's something wrong? Btw, yes. I expect all classes, if played on equal level(!) to do at least roughly equally well. That's called balance. Especially since CVs not only do (by the looks for now) considerably more damage as a BB at roughly equal survival rate - they also have less RNG components, and on top of that are the class that can prevent caps indefinately regardless of what corner they park at. Apart from the obvious fact that i said that i'm convinced that BB players etc don't come close to CV stats i just want to know by what margin. You must have missed that in the two sentences i typed. edit: @Lightbaron, impressive stats. I'm not too sure that there's too many better players out there.

Maybe because he has more than 1000 games played in CVs, i assume - and roughly 500 in the Essex.

30odd games, not seen one. If only i were that lucky with my citadel hits then. Oh and i am in the same spread, thank you. Otherwise i wouldn't constantly fight Baltimores, Iowas and Essexes. Which are, in my world, pretty high tier. Actually no, it's not a more complex situation, or i'm misunderstanding you there. The fact that they weren't detected until the first salvo was fired makes it infinitely less complex. And you're wrong. 12% was the best ever achieved, with the best conditions you can wish for. On the other hand, actual hitrates are below 5%, which already is massively inflated by the game (30ish% hitrate on BBs is average). I don't think you understand how ridiculous 20% hitrate in fog would be, especially since a single hit can kill a DD (critical rudder/engine, and you're done for). That's 10% less of what you did in basically all your USN Cruisers against targets NOT in fog (edit: just realized, it would make a single salvo of the Cleveland hit with at least what, two grenades?). Against the single ability that makes DDs barely viable at the moment. Is it? As i just told you a couple of times, it didn't happen in the real world. Yes, a battlecruiser(!) was severly damaged to the point that they scuttled it. This has zero compatibility to what the problem was for the TE. In real life, in that situation (to be clear: you being detected, swerving because you'd like to not die, enemy not optically visible), even the USS Washington wouldn't have hit a single round. Even less so a cruiser, because their GFCS did not account for constant bearing, elevation and range changes. That's also a reason why salvo chasing exists. It is impossible for old WW2 systems to properly predict movement. That's where the problem seems to be, i didn't state that example to show you that those systems worked well, i specifically tried to show you the limitations. Which in case of the TEs scenario would be simply: a real GFCS in a real combat situation (your ship swerving, meaning constant change to gun elevation because the ship is leaning/waves, bearing and range) would not be able to hit. Which is exactly what happened after the USS Washington engaged the IJN BC, hence no hits (zero) anymore. But you're right: i brought in the RL example. Lets keep it to gaming arguments then: it would be stupid to take away the single saving grace of DDs (edit: and one of the very few things that support/encourage teamplay, next to CAs AA ability, and, well.. that's it). Any objections?

Since there is no cripple mechanic in the game (thanks to the repair ability), i don't think so. Also, my torpedo hit the Minekaze midships, same for the Mine vs Grmly torpedo from the TE. At pretty much 90 degrees.

Okay, one last time, but then i'm done. Exactly. That example (as i clearly stated) was an undetected ship, surprising another visible ship that was already engaged in battle with a third ship. And yet they managed only a 12% hitrate. That's literally the best, no actually dream circumstances to engage another ship. Feel free to explain to me how that would've looked with your ship constantly switching bearing, elevation (thanks to turning, since you have to dodge the torpedos coming at you) and speed, with a less sophisticated GFCS. Small hint: only Iowas GFCS (Mark 8 afaik) could actually account for all that. Your BS of "either you can or cannot" is simply childish, you CAN jump from a bridge as well. You simply wouldn't survive, which defeats the point. Yes you can fire your guns, but the GFCS doesn't play a role - you can fire your guns completely without radar as well and have the same chance of hitting. Not a single moving ship was ever hit in fog, why you think that is? Even better, why do you think the Ship from my example earlier, the USS Washington - that ship that had dream conditions, didn't manage to get a single hit on the destroyers which were scrambling after it, which then could retreat completely safe in fog? Being a game is not really an indicator, since the argument "it's a game, you're not supposed to go there" would work as argument there as well. The only analogue one can paint is to reallife, if you want to argue "radar". Because otherwise, the answer would be simply "l2p", because that's the whole issue with the TE. And there's the problem. I might be in the wrong mindset - but so are you. Everything you wrote down here can be easily countered by: get your own DD to cover your team. It's a non-issue. Apart from the intellectual dishonesty, since ships in fog certainly can be detected already, the second they shoot or by CVs (and no, planes getting shot down is not an issue, since we're assuming that people are getting shot from behind the fog - which would need planes as well to spot - if only one team has planes, it's an MM issue). The only ships to be hidden and effective in smoke are DDs. Every other ship would be suicidal to get into midrange of BBs into fog, without actually seeing targets (smoke works both ways). Smokescreens are the only defense of the weakest subclass ingame, it actually is beyond my comprehension why someone would actually argue for it. He is not supposed to fire into the fog. In fact what he's supposed to do is get his own DDs to simply fire torpspreads into that fog, done. Funny that you talk about actual "skill", yet argue to remove pretty much the only skillbased ability ingame. And that's what this ability would do, since you constantly have more cruisers than DDs in a match. A DD is literally not able to engage anymore. The only problem with the whole story the TE pictured is this: his enemies worked well together and used what you called "skill", whereas his team sniffed donkeybutts and did nothing. That's literally what it comes down to. .. what? Wow. And no, obviously, only because i think it's ineffective doesn't mean it cannot be done. The fact that it would be retarded to take away the last thing DDs have, does though. Obviously, what? You give a class an ability that completely negates the ability of another one, how is that NOT op? How about DDs and CAs get a skill (since we talk game and not realism as you stated, should be fine) that prevents BBs from using their repair (not heal) after activated for as long as the smoke CD is? And to be clear, i drive cruisers mostly. How long would it take for BB drivers to come and [edited] because they watch their ships constantly burn and flood? If "+-40 meters" is accurate for you. While shooting at a ship that's 12m wide and 100m long. And that's already the advanced cruiser-GFCS. And, again, against a target that is not aware that it's being targeted. Btw, from the same guy that made your first video: "You are right, the radar is quite an inaccurate measuring device, but even with an error of up to 2 nautical miles you can get a pretty good idea of the course of any convoy if you take enough samples, as you can see in the video." And as a last sidenote: your digital dickwaving is pointless, i get into the same matches as you do. Just that i'm on the lower end of the tierspread.

I start to think that modules soak up all the damage. Every single screenshot etc provided shows that one or more hits were criticals. To me that's clearly a bug, a critical hit with a torpedo that takes out a turret(!) would pretty much break a destroyer in half. edit: wouldn't say unplayable though.. It's still pretty rare, although annoying when it happens because it mostly will result in your death immediately after.

Well i'm pretty convinced that there's no BB player in the world coming close to that damage/survival rate, i'd just like to know by what margin. And i'm certainly not a good indicator for that.

I'd know a solution for that. Give cruisers Radar, how's that sound. Here's mine, did post it somewhere else, but i guess you can't make it clear enough that this wasn't a freak accident.

Lets see.. No, not really. Or maybe i should've said "not effective", didn't expect a Joker coming from funny island trying to suggest that i meant "they can't really shoot" literally. Would you also tell me "of course they can shoot easily" if i would've said that they can't really use their guns if there's a knot in the barrel? They could've also used the guns completely without radar guide, would most likely hit exactly as much. Wrong. All major navies did employ radar guided FCS, USN and RN were the only ones who had blindfire capabilities. It does not. It tells you that there's an enemy, and it tells you ROUGHLY where he is, but not good enough to engage it via your guns. What's the difference to now? You know there's ships in that smoke, you just can't tell where exactly. Outcome still is the same. And about the ships behind the smoke, shooting at range: no counter needed, since already in the game. Guess you must be pretty old then, because you clearly wouldn't state this if you were talking about modern GFCS, no? Because obviously, you wouldn't even dare to compare the resolution of modern GFCS to analog ones? Your silent hunter example is interesting, yet history disagrees again. I gave you the example of what a real GFCS (one of the more advanced ones) could do in RL back in the day, and that's 12% hitrate against a huge, immobile target at less than 8km. There's not a single thing to argue there, it's documented and fact, no matter what you did in a game. About the backpaddling: just stop. I stay in the parameters the TE gives, you add things to your liking. Starting with stationary DDs, to "engaging/detecting ships BEHIND the smoke" where the TE clearly(!) states that he wants to detect specifically the DDs in the fog. I'm stopping here since it's getting stupid now.

Somebody else? edit: knows them, obviously not checking every single player - since good CV players are known, i assume the same goes for BB players too.

Out of interest, who'd be the equivalent for BB players?

Where did i backpaddle, what? I said: you can't really use your guns based on radar pings (literally). You said: you easily can. Then i gave you an example of how wrong you are, and somehow you tell me i'm backpaddling? Troll somewhere else please. My point stands. The one trying to backpaddle is you actually, since you now imply that DDs sit immovable in smoke, which i've never seen before, not even on lower tiers. The TE specifically said that he couldn't engage the DDs because of torpwaves and smoke, so the ships further behind don't play a role at all. That his teammates retreated was due to the fact that they were shot from out of/behind the smoke, and guess what: there's already a countermeasure in the game for that. Called smoke.

No, you can't. The GFCS you quote have are thoroughly inaccurate. You would NOT be able to sink a destroyer with it. The Mark 4 was mounted on most ships we play with, lets have a look at those stats. This was also the system mounted on the Baltimore. You see the problem? Yes, the Iowa had a decent enough radar to be used as fire solution, but cruisers/destroyers did not. As a small indicator what was deemed "impressively effective", and keep in mind, that's a BB GFCS: In a fight between the USS Washington and the IJN Battlecruiser Kirishima, the GFCS managed a whopping nine hits out of 75 (seventy-five) fired rounds. At 7,7km range(!). And that's a more advanced GFCS compared to a cruiser, on a target double the size, slower, and alot less manouverable than a destroyer. Yeah. No. Radar helped to be able to tell that "somewhere over there" is an enemy, but it certainly wasn't enough to effectively engage a destroyer. Just as a small mention: the USS Washington opened fire completely undetected, so they had time to actually aim carefully. Not a single hit was received in that battle, AND the japanese ship was lit up since they used searchlights to light up the USS South Dakota. Sorry, no. Radar certainly is not the solution for an ingame problem, which isn't even a problem in the first place. So feel free to explain what you think would've happened without smoke. Do you assume you're supposed to have a chance against three DDs even without smoke - because that obviously wasn't what pushed your teammates away, since even without smoke you need to get into detection range first, which would be what, 6-7km?

They can easily, if the torps get spotted soon enough. If your BB is the closest ship to the incoming torpedos, that's kinda your teams fault. Apart from the obvious problem that long range torps get spotted at 2km and are rather slow, there's no excuse to be hit by those other than you not being careful. edit: apart from the obvious fact that the TE deems it "unbalanced" that DDs can shoot torps at longer ranges than he can engage them, but apparently deems it "fair" to do the same thing against DDs. Which already happens btw, if there are capable CV captains on the map. Smoke is the ONLY defense a DD has, and isn't even the problem. Even without smoke, they can still engage with torps long before you can see them. Like, really long. If you get pushed back by torps (which is really weird in the first place), the smoke isn't the issue, because even without smoke you would not be able to see them at that range.

Apart from the obvious problem that a radar ping doesn't help you at all - you can't really use your guns based on a radar ping, because you wouldn't know speed (or just gets updated in huge increments) - shooting something according to radar, .. no. I'm pretty convinced that you'd not be able to.

I'd love to run around with a huge fan on my ship, blowing all the fog away - but in all honesty.. No. That's pretty fine - you have DDs on your own that can push enemy DDs back. That's obviously a MM issue, if you don't get DDs while the enemy does, you're screwed - but that's something that shouldn't happen in the first place.

Kinda have to agree, started playing IJN CAs now, my last game in a Furutaka, 80 hits and 12 fires started. That's pretty much one per salvo. And that's simply too much, considering how much damage a triple fire does.

Omaha is fine, but the reason why all other ships feel like a downgrade after cleveland is not because they're bad. It's because the cleveland is too strong for its tier. It's like putting the E75 before the King Tiger in WoT, obviously the KT will feel shitty afterwards even though it's still a good tank. I don't really know where that faster RoF on IJN cruisers comes from, afaik only on Tier 7 you have a slightly faster RoF, after and before that the cake goes to USN ships. New Orleans, Pepsi and Baltimore all have higher RoF than their counterparts. In all honesty, AP works. Not necessarily on long range, but that's the point of having two ammo types.

Yeah.. As the topic states. I had it a couple of times now that a torpedo clearly hits - for less than 200 damage. Anyone got an explanation for this screenshot here? As you can tell, it was a clear hit, even caused flooding - 118 damage? The explanation "well just module damage" is not good enough, since a 500kg warhead hitting a DD pretty much anywhere should simply blow it up. As happens most of the times, apart from these really odd ones. So what happened?

I've hit a T5 Minekaze.. -.- I think, without being mean, that this supportanswer is pretty bs. Especially since the destructive force doesn't come from "piercing the hull". A torpedo is not meant to penetrate armor, neither contact-mechanisms nor magnetic ones.

Seems not as rare as i thought it would be. oO