piritskenyer

I was wondering what all those spars were for, never would have thought that they were supposed to hold torp nets. Would be fun to see them deployed in port, however in game it would be impractical for several reasons: a) net seems to be useable when stationary or steaming only slowly, b) the nets aren't foolproof, meaning a big torpedo salvo would penetrate them. The two problems in conjunction would mean the ships deploying nets in battle would be putting themselves at a disadvantage, as their slow speed would make for easier shots with both gun and torpedo, meaning higher aggregated recieved damage. Simply put: In a game mechanic perspective, the torp nets would be more of hazard than a benefit. Also this: Death to BB's. Umm I mean... Down with BB oversaturation! (Yes, that's totally what I meant)

Leander is just wonderful. If I get frustrated in T8-9 (which seems to happen more and more often), I just take my Leander out, and it takes a fair bit for me to not come out smiling of that battle. Ever since I understood how to play her, she leaves me with a rather high average damage and just tons of fun. Can't wait for Fiji & Co up the higher tiers. Best damage and winrate for any cruiser on the tier, I'd say the fault lies with the player, not the ship.

Armour doesn't get any worse, it just doesn't scale as well as the guns' penetration. You should angle whenever you can, and you should definitely avoid camping at the back, as that is basically useless, and if targets start getting into optimum range you basically have lost already.

Vanguard was made able to use, but was never issued supercharges. No doubt she would have used them in war, as with her higher elevation coupled with SC she could have achieved pretty dangerous ranges, not to mention how at closer ranges the late-war APC for the 15" when supercharged would have been devastating. To be fair, the 15"/42 Mk I is commonly regarded as being one of, if not the best heavy naval gun fielded by any nation ever. Not the most powerful, as there are guns that outdid them in that regard, and not by a bit, but the best, as it is one of the longest lasting gun designs (I'm pretty sure that if Vanguard had been kept in reserve/service like the Iowa class, she would have retained those guns to this day, with little cadets in the early '90s reading "ROF 1920" or some such in awe on the breech).

The primary point of supercharge wass to extend range of the gun at a given elevation and that in turn led to increased penetration. However, you can't just stuff more of the same stuff in the chamber (well you can, but it's not always as effective), mostly due to pressure curves, burning characteristics and simple geometry. A few example of supercharges: 14"/45 Mk VII: Standard charge: 153kg of SC 300 Coastal artillery supercharge: 220kg of SC 500 15"/42 Mk I: Standard charge: 196 kg of SC 280 Supercharge: 222kg of SC 300 As you can see not only are the charges bigger, but they also are different (different burning characteristics and thus different internal ballistics, including pressure curves etc - that said, I'm not familiar with the different types of powders, so I can't tell you which burns faster, which burns slower, etc). Supercharge was only used in special circumstances, as it increased the barrel wear and dispersion. In game the former wouldn't really be a problem so it could be used as "standard" for ships up the line with the same weapon at the cost of the latter. Also, I wouldn't hold a candle to what Tano says, because unlike his namesake, he doesn't usually know what he's talking about.

And that is the point. A lot of windowlickers in the game will rage on about how "unrealistic" the game mechanic is. Not "unbalanced" or some such (for the most part), but "unrealistic". Why is that? because they are bobtards, thinking that this game is a simulation, which it isn't. It's an arcade game with game mechanics that balance around giving each ship class strengths and weaknesses. Or so it seemed to me in the beginning, with a development crew that was on the ball and stuck to the mechanics. Now they have folded to popular (and quite incorrect!) demand of people who want to play the iconic ships only, basically castrating the other classes. These same morons moaning about how unhistorical the game mechanics are don't realise that if we took a scaled sample of any major engagement, the proportions of ships would be so completely different that the idiots queueing in a BB should requeue three times before entering a match and there just wouldn'T be enough DD players to fill out a match. In the event that the MM threw them a bone and pitted 12BB vs 12BB, they'd run here moaning about them having no soft targets to shoot at. My point is that in this case (as in many before) the majority of the playerbase is wrong, but they get their way because they are many more than the rest of us.

Lolwut. It's my most played ship, and I usually encounter one every other game that I take her out.

It's also potential information to the opposition you're facing: Someone with multiple marks is someone who is proficient and thus reliable in that ship.

To answer that: And I believe it was a pretty general practice in the IJN for members of the same class of ship.

I *was* being serious. There are many examples of funnelrings, mainly to distinguish between the different members of a given class. Just two examples: Dunkerque and Strasbourg and the entire Mogami-class.

Schroedinger's BB: until the result screen it's braindead and superintelligent

Funnels! That's what we have the funnels for!

No, this is a semi-legit point IMO. Most ships can be found in the techtree in one form or another under their respective names, so seeing a ship with a name that can't be found in the techtree for info may be problematic if someone wants to find out more about it. However, should Takao ever be introduced into the regular techtree (which I hope it'll eventually be - as an Atago cpt myself, might I add), I hope they'll change ARP Takao's name to Takao when ARP is switched off.

What?

I have one question, especially seeing how my week is going: If one gets selected as a ST, does one get to sit out sessions if he gives prior notice or subsequent justification? I'm asking this because yesterday I got last minute work dumped on me, which made it totally impossible for me to log in, and if that happens in the future, I want to know if that is a BIG problem. We are not talking about a common occurence, but it's a possibility.

Oh shoot, I thought you just had to do a demonstration of a bug report, not to actually hunt down and find and report a bug o.O Mine was total made up buggers

Oh my, I made it! *Sleepless nights and perf anxiety intensifies*

Nice. Very nice.

I started out slow with the ship, not really sure how to use her, but now in my last 3 battles I never went below 79k damage with her.

I think that in time Atago will have her AA suite buffed to historical levels due to the newer and newer ships getting better and better, so in order to retain her competitiveness they'll buff the only thing left to buff on her: AA.

Hi there, First I have to add a disclaimer: before you all look at my battlecount and dismiss me as inexperienced and a newb, I have played closed beta on a smurf account and have in fact unlocked the Arkansas. This is my main account. I've been reading a lot about the development of the Royal Navy before, between and during the World Wars lately, and I have noticed an interesting (and in game terms somehow disconcerting) thing: The main armament of some cruiser classes seems to be heterogen. What do I mean? Let's take the Cressy-class as an example: It's an armoured cruiser, and a ship that resembles the St Louis class of CA's most, so much so in fact that the only notable difference in game terms is the forward and aft mounted gun turrets, which aren't armed with 6" guns like the side casemates, but are in fact 9.2" guns. The 2x 9.2" and the 12x 6" guns are supplemented by 12x 12pdr 12cwt (3") guns as secondary armament (and there are also 2 single 18" torpedo tubes). Some of you may already see where I'm trying to go with this, but let me bring another example. Arethusa-class light cruisers: Armament: 2x 6" guns (one fore, one aft) and 6x 4" guns. Now putting aside the way these ships will/would be balanced and tiered, there is a fundamental problem with their weapons arrangement when it comes to game terms: if we use the highest calibre guns available as main armament and then use the second-highest calibre as secondary, then we'll effectively have some ships with as little as 2 player controlled guns. In case of the Cressy that would be the fore and aft 9.2" turrets while the 6" guns would be doing their own "thing". Same thing for the Arethusa: the two 6" guns would be the main battery and then the 4" guns would operate alone? As a cruiser captain it's not something that I'd see going well. And I don't really see the opposite working out well either: you control the nore numerous guns, and your high calibre guns work on their own? Just no. So is there a way to couple different calibre weaponry as main armament? Their individual rate of fire would of course be different (4" guns firing faster than 6" guns, which in turn fire fater than 9.2" guns), but their firing range would be the same (after all, that is determined by the fire control equipment rather than by the guns themselves). I have seen on the Omaha that the turret and casemate-mounted guns are treated differently due to the turret-mounted ones being double-barrel, the others being single barreled, is that a mechanic that would work with different calibre main armament?

Isn't it? It feels that to me.

Congrats for the super necro guys, really well done.

Where's the negrep button when you need it.