Benser33

My basic understanding was that the earlier release of AP bombs causes them to go straighter and later release of AP bombs can cause them to strike at more of an angle Example with the IJN bomber path, but it displays the basic premise; You can use this to control whether you want the bomb to penetrate a lot (straight down) or less so (angled) depending on who your target is, straight penetrating bombs can overpenetrate cruisers and bombs that hit BBs at an angle may not produce sufficient penetration. I believe that the actual penetration of the bomb is not affected by speed or altitude or anything like that, the variable is how they strike. The actual stats are kept from us for now. However, with GZ and her circular dispersion ellipse youll find yourself at the mercy of RNG more often than not to determine whether the 2 bombs that get dropped strike anywhere near the citadel or land harmlessly in the water.

I hope so, would seem very unfair otherwise. Same with the PAN commanders they added.

Why would they test anything under the assumption they are infallible either? Be grateful that they are as transparent as they are about changes to test ships and providing a test environment and actively engaged with CCs, but we dont have the stats WG has and we don't know their objectives or expectations either, some changes to ships could be made with the intention of nerfing something else later on, such is the nature of testing. Like when trying to resolve an issue if you apply 5 different solutions simultaneously and the problem is fixed how do you know which solution was the necessary one? Maybe make the first change and observe the results before doing any further.

But since they nerfed it the last round it's now underperforming, so. But we only have what WG is saying about it, they're not showing us the stats.

People complain about how a sniper slava is bad for the meta so WG gives it some buffs that dont even fully revert the last nerf it got so that it can stand more chance at closer ranges and not entirely rely on sniping and people complain that it's getting buffed, holy moly.

Buy it then? Why is it an issue?

A lot of this stuff just seems like it would be for the event, its not like WG added any of the halloween event consumables to future ship lines like the aura heal, target blocker or damage heal, although these are a lot less realistic than smoke shells, etc. SAP shells could relate to features of an italian ship line however.

If only they could somehow hire multiple people to work on different things at the same time. They literally just added a new ship line, a new map and balancing for CVs in the latest patch, WG are obviously going to want to also add new "fun" content or whatever it is people say they want when they fill out surveys, and theyll be capable of doing that concurrently with new standard content and balancing work.

You can buy it once at a discount through the personal offer, if I remember correctly.

What does this have to do with anything?

Yep, unfortunately the Blitz and WoWS content are separate, so the new content for Blitz doesnt get to the PC game. However, we do get our own AL content, I summarised new stuff for the second round of the AL collab here;

If we continue to use the Soyuz example, the AP shells would cause 1325 damage to both a saturated and unsaturated compartment, but HE would caused 1914 damage to unsaturated sections but only 957 damage to a saturated section. However, DD midsections cannot be saturated, so if the ship has sustained enough damage for saturation to be applied the HE shells would do less damage than AP pens to saturated bow, stern and superstructure sections but would do more than AP to the midsection. Although on some ships (Daring comes to mind), the midsection can be an exceptionally small portion of the ship.

Oh indeed, I am mistaken. I remember the change to torpedos that enabled them to always cause 10% of damage but was not aware of this for overpens (though it seems illogical that normal pens will fail to cause damage but overpens still can, why would normal pens not also cause 10% damage under those circumstances). Still, you would have to hit the bow or stern for this to make any discernable difference.

Yeah, they hid the info nicely in this thread, I'll quote my own response as I quoted the relevant section of the original post That is not correct, saturation affects all damage in the exact say way. Timestamped video below, you only need to watch it for about 10 seconds. If wargamings old video is not sufficient you can test this yourself. Yes, but overpenetrating a DD and penetrating a DD causes the same 10% of the shells maximum value as damage, with the exceptions being Khaba and Harugumo. AP shells cause zero damage penetrations all the time when shells hit modules and the damage is absorbed by an AA gun or secondary, you can probably observe this behaviour every single game. Yes, hence why I referred to these as anecdotal evidence. You provided two personal examples. I am sure that in a day of playing I could provide two examples of causing more damage to DDs with HE than AP, especially if thoses AP shells are absorbed by modules and the HE shells are not. The outcome is specific to the circumstances and do not reflect generally expected behaviour because of the variables involved. Even if a module had sufficient armor to arm an AP shell I doubt it would be large enough for the shell to detonate inside once the velocity and fuse time are taken into consideration but this behaviour is entirely irrelevant against DDs because AP overpens and AP penetrations both only cause 10% of listed damage regardless. If the 4 shells had hit and damaged the modules however then they would have done 5300 damage to the modules, not the ship, so your damage still would have been zero. Also consider that HE hits to DD midsections (so anything that isnt the superstructure, bow, stern or a module) always inflict the full 33% penetration damage and is never affected by saturation, with the exception being the upcoming French DDs who have the ability to saturate their hulls as a national trait to improve their survivability for having neither smoke nor heal. The irony was that your first reponse to me was an insult.

That's being changed. Saturation effects all damage, why would that influence your choice between AP and HE shells? Indeed, my mistake. I imagined that you might have hit a saturation threshold around 5200 dmg. I even checked my Soyuz ingame to quote the numbers but I must have misread. That does nothing to change the point I was making however, which is that HE shell pens on DDs cause more damage. Fascinating. If they were AP shells they also would have caused no damage. You do. True, however consider what would have happened if the HE shells you had fired that caused so little damage had been AP shells instead. No splash damage would be caused to surrounding modules, no fires would be started and if you do hit the hull and cause damage the AP shells would cause less damage than the HE shells. Ironic considering your response to my first post. I'm not sure you even considered that I quoted your first post because my post was a response to the content of the first post and not any subsequent posts in this thread.

We wont get any of the WoWS Blitz ship camos on PC.

edit The entire topic of the thread is whether to use HE against DDs. That is the title of the thread, that is the anecdote you presented in your first paragraph, that is the dilema you considered in the second paragraph, that is the mechanic for which you requested a WG response from in the third paragraph. I explained what influences the decision between using HE or AP and some of the process behind that because your anecdotal evidence in your first post contradicts the general behaviour of AP vs HE that you would expect to experience in the majority of situations. You claim to have done more damage with AP than HE, in that situation you did, in most situations you would not. Did you do less damage because HE is a worse shell choice? No, you could have done less damage because of saturation, you even suggest that AP could help you do more damage because of the buggy double pen mechanic yet your 4 AP pens did 5,300 damage, 100 damage less than you should have gotten from 4 AP shells so your AP shells didnt do extra damage thanks to double pens, they just did their listed damage. Your HE shells did less damage because of something like saturation, and your AP shells would have done even less damage because they would also have been effected by saturation but their listed damage is lower. If you want to base your decision on anecdotal evidence rather than facts then why even create a topic? Go ask a fortune teller or pray to the gods for your answers. edit: language please

Soyuz HE shells do 5800 dmg on a citadel, 1914 on a penetration and 0 on a shatter. Soyuz AP shells do 13500 dmg on a citadel, 4455 on a penetration, 1350 on a penetration against a DD, 1350 on an overpen and 0 on a non-penetration or ricochet. Therefore, against a DD, you can do at most 1350 dmg per shell with AP, or 1914 dmg per shell with HE. If that wasn't reason enough, HE also has more chance to cause damage to knock out modules like turrets, torpedoes, engine and steering when you hit the ship and they can also start fires. The vast majority of BBs do more damage with a HE pen than they do with an AP overpen, but there is still the issue of actually loading HE to begin with. HE is definitely better to be firing at DDs, but unless you are certain you will get to take that shot or use HE against something else loading the HE often isnt worth it.

Neither the AL nor the RU collections have an expiry date so you have time to get them both completed.

Ironic. The meme refers to "necro"-ing a thread, or taking a thread that has had no responses for a long period of time and posting a new reply, resurrecting the conversation. Such as when you first commented in the thread, it had been inactive for 15 months. But people will also complain when people create duplicate threads so you really cannot win.

Could you share your preferences.xml file?

Assuming you have already tried changing the Object LOD option ingame, you could try closing the game, going to the WoWS install folder, locate the preferences.xml file and rename it to preferencesBACKUP.xml This will force the game to create a new preferences file with all of your settings returned to default when you next start the game and you can then reconfigure to see if that changes anything. If not, you can restore your old settings by deleting the new preferences.xml file and renaming preferencesBACKUP.xml back to just preferences.xml

I can't really justify sending a t7 BB to the middle of a map in a t9 game under any circumstances, thats just asking for someone to return you to port. Nelson in particular as a ship with great repair rates, powerful repair party and great guns but poor AA and an exposed citadel is not a ship you want to position in such a way as to take a large amount of damage in a short time, especially if there are CVs around capable of doing so. You could perhaps have improved your chances of avoiding the damage with your positioning, considering the weaknesses of the ship, but otherwise, yes, Nelson should be weak to AP bombers, the ship is already incredibly strong and if CVs in general were changed so that not even Nelson is vulnerable to them then the class would most certainly be useless.

The citadel of the Stalingrad is large and easily penetrated, Stalingrad also has very poor agility, with a very long 12.5s rudder shift time and a turning circle of 1130m exceeding most battleships and rivaling CVs. Its only saving grace in terms of mobility comes in the form of its surprising top speed. If threatened from the side Stalingrad requires far too much time to react and change position and if subject to crossfire can quickly fall to AP damage if unable to sufficiently angle against the threats. Because of this, keeping distance is one of the best ways to keep Stalingrads very vulnerable flanks safe. Using Stalingrads speed can quickly lead you to overextend and that only further increases the risk of exposing your flank to something with the capability to delete Stalingrad. Further to this, Stalingrad doesn't have the option of bringing Hydroacoustic Search to battles, so you must rely on DDs being spotted and personal ability to predict potential torpedo attacks without the confirmation of Hydro to provide added reaction time. Without reliable intelligence of enemy DDs, maintaining distance is again the best way to reduce the risk of potentially lethal torpedo damage. Lastly is Stalingrads terrible concealment, 17.58km as stock, 14.2km at best, leaves it with a worse concealment than most BBs as well forcing the ship to maintain a great distance if it ever wishes to disengage. While it can be safest at a distance, HE shells with 50mm penetration such as Hinden and IFHE Henris, risk of being outflanked and significant numbers of fires (which burn for 43 seconds on Stalingrad, even with a full survivability build) will all give a Stalin a reason to want to disengage and recover which it cannot do if it has gotten too close to the engagement. Not only are Stalingrads weaknesses compensated for by keeping a distance, but her main battery holds extremely good penetration at a distance and the shell velocity makes reaching out to targets at maximum range easier than in many other tier 10s. It's also easier to take advantage of Stalingrads armor scheme at a distance, reducing the attack surface of the ship, with the bottom half of the bow too thick for any AP to overmatch and the 50mm deck also causing ricochets against the majority of AP shells leaves only the 25mm upper bow and bow deck vulnerable to large calibre AP. I am certain you will find much more success playing Stalingrad with caution, the powerful AP on such a platform can make it a great opportunist to punish cruisers and BBs who overextend or fail to protect their sides, but likewise Stalingrads can quickly be punished for misplaying and it can be very difficult to salvage the situation if you misposition the ship.

Your rank wont change due to inactivity but it only applies to this season, when the next ranked season starts your rank will be reset based on your current rank just like it reset at the start of this season.