piritskenyer

Interesting.

What historical perspective exactly? The perspective in which most of the German surface fleet that went i to open ocean was pummelled right into the sea? Okay, that's mean, let's not use that set of numbers. I am willing to accept the notion that the numbers are not looking good, especially in light of "superior german engineering", but I find it ridiculous that you guys in this topic are thowing a fit before even seeing full videos and performance statistics of the new ships. PS: Tirpitz's performance stats are pretty good tbh (51.5% WR, 52k avg dmg), so if you consider that to be a bad ship, you really must be looking for field-sweeping OP machines...

Basically Germans crying that German BB's are not overpowered, before they are released. Classy.

Because german battleship best battleship and if not best battleship than inevitably worst battleship

The disco between fnord and KMS is very interesting, however it seems that in gameplay terms it is mostly irrelevant. What counts in game is "mechanical accuracy" or "mechanical dispersion" which is a characteristic of the very gun itself. Not the firecontrol systems it is slaved to. As someone already stated, YOU, the PLAYER, are the FCS of the ship you are sailing, therefore how you fire, where you aim, is entirely up to you. What you are mainly interested in is how tight your own groupings will be, or how well the broadside you just dropped will envelop your target.

Don't let the fact that I was talking about the Yamato's guns bother you at all. @everyone else, thanks for the explanation. Variable density never came to mind, but in retrospect it seems obvious

50° elevation is NOT max range elevation. A pretty easy look there would have told you that 48° was the max range elevation... And another look would have told you that the max elevation of the turret is 45° which is the practical max range. That range is 42'030m (45'960y). OFF: what I don'T really understand is why the max range for that gun though is 48° and not 45°. Could someone explain that to me in a PM? Last time I studied physics, I learned that 45° was the "max range angle" even in non-vacuum conditions...

That is well undestood, but maybe these guys have the max geared DD cpt's to put in there to make the ships "OP-ish". Sure I understand that there is a limitation to everything, but it seems that the Atlanta/Flint type may not be as bad as everyone was led to believe and maybe Atlanta's stats are just tarnished by incompetent cpt's. There was a thread around here where every competent Atlanta cpt were posting there e-peen increasing results with rdiculous amunts of damage and xp, which would not be possible in an outright bad ship more than a few time and even then only with a healthy dose of luck. Hope you get what I'm trying to say...

I still think that Karlsruhe is way too situational to be a good enough game carrier. Sure, AP rips through any cruiser in her MM slot like they were made of paper, but she's slow and turns rather bad. She's also rather short ranged (11.7km IIRC?) and not exactly well armoured. That adds up to a ship that made my shitlist almost as quickly as the Phoenix did (although Phoenix was actually, I must admit, pretty okay when elited). Now what is the problem with slow speed and bad-ish maneuverability? Any enemy cpt with half a brain in a 1v1 can keep you just outside of your range (because let's face it, the only ships slower than her on T4 are the two carriers and Wyoming...), while pummeling you to death with HE at their leasure. I'm willing to believe that she's not as bad as she was when I ground through her, but i still don't think she's up there with the Kuma.

I think Flint performs very well because it's a reward ship for people who got to rank I in at least two ranked seasons. Which means they are good players, and they can make the ship work.

Agreed on most of it. As for the "logical fallacy", I probably didn't explain myself well. What I'm trying to say in this case isn't that "the Pensa isn't bad but its got terrible detection which makes it the primary focus for everyone which makes it bad" What I'm trying to say that the ship is hamstrung, rather than outright bad. The Karlsruhe, for example, is outright bad: slow, short ranged, turning slow with really no armour. Pensacola, in comparison, has one overwhelming weakness: that stupid detection range. Every other stat is average or better than average. I am willing to bet you actual, real life money, that if the detection range was brought down to normal levels (13-13.5km), the ship's statistical performance would jump up considerably. As for the armour, I would have to look up the ingame armour models to make a real, detailed comparison, but I'm not in a position to do that right now (I'm on vacation), so until then I will maintain that Pensacola's armour isn't significantly weaker, if at all, than other T7 CA's'. It seeming squishier is probably down to the fact that "first seen, first served" means a lot of incoming fire and high fireconcentration kind of ignores armour...

Hahaha, we might very well be

I found her to be a rather nice destroyer, tbh. Not as specialised as any of the T3 DD's (Good fast torps, but slow reload, so can't spam torps like IJN, fewer guns than USN/VMF so can't gunfight 1v1) but still very nice. Definitely not a ship to just toss in the corner and sometimes look at, but otherwise never take into battle.

*this is gonna turn into a "USN CA's are bad - no they are not - yes they are - no they aren't" thread again and it's gonna make me curse and shout at all of you again, I can feel it* USN cruisers are not bad. Period. What they are is not r-tard-proof. Like really not. They require special attention to be made work, have a very high skill ceiling, and more importantly a very high skill floor, which makes it so that average players who don't give as much human excrement about the game as we tryhards do will do bad. "Pensacola is squishy ad a prime target for BB shells" is a ridiculous staement. Not because it's not true, but because it's true for every cruiser in the game, not just Pepsi. Pepsi doesn't have diabolically bad armour, certainly not as bad as everyone would have you believe. The max thickness is the same as the Myoko's, and the min thickness is the same as New Orleans'. And yet noone would call either of those two ships thinly armoured for a cruiser. Problem of the Pensacola is that she gets outspotted by some battleships, and that her firing range is not longer than her detection range, which basically makes her the first target spotted in every other match. Otherwise she's punchy, reasonably quick, handy and she can bounce 8" AP just like the next T7 CA. USN CA's alsogot out-powercreeped by the new cruiser lines IMO. Their base range only exceeds 16km on the NO, which is ridiculous, considering that the cruisers of the VMF and KM lines have sub-16 km range for last time on T4... That said, IJN is not much better off with their rather short ranges (*looks at Mogami angrily*), but they at least get over 16km on T9 and 10... Not to mention torps, lolwin HE and the likes.

http://wowreplays.com/Replay/12894 This little gem. Trainspite and me are serving as training wheels for my little brother, but things went bad very quick, so the friendly Dresden and I picked up the slack and carried the end.

4 battles today, 1 win, in the last 2 I was a total fncking donkey. I need these two weeks of break from everything. So see you in 2 weeks.

Well played, sir, well played. PS: we should division sometime since you already know my callsign

Oh yeah, only without proof, what you say has no weight to it. That's why you don't set your stats to private. I've had bad days too, I still don't hide my stats.

>get IJN cruiser >get cpt >get next cruiser >carry cpt over >train DE > ??? >watch the world burn

*edited* *This post has been edited by the moderation team due to disrespectful comments.

Oh wow, congrats. AP causes citadels, whatd'ya know? /sarcasm

IU don't understand why people are so eager on setting their profile private... this isn't the place where your identity and data will be stolen.

BB - Battleship BC - Battlecruiser note: the two classes are not separated in game CL - Light cruiser CA - Protected/Armoured/Heavy cruiser note: the two classes are not separated in game DD - Destroyer SA - Situational awareness BFT - Basic firing training AFT - Advanced firing training IFA - Incoming fire alert EM - Expert marksman EL - Expert Loader DE - Demolitions expert CE - Concealment expert SI or Supernintendo - Superintendent

*says gap between T4 and T5 is huge* *brings T3 to T3 fight as example* /sarcasm I partially agree with this decision. Not completely, because I still think there are ships that not only are not handicapped, but can very well hold their own in a two-tiers-higher match. A Kuma or an Isokaze is not, was not and will not be ever handicapped in those matches, despite them being supposedly inferior ships. Sure, their carry potential is substantially inferior in a T6 match (the Kuma's anyway, Isokaze probably not so much), but they are by no means out of their pond. A higher tier game just means more HP to farm for those two. But I think that they are right to implement it for T3, as most T3 ships are in fact outclassed in some form or another by T5's. People keep bringing up the St Louis as an example of a ship that doesn't mind T5, but if we're completely honest, its lack of speed and 10.2 km range makes the St Louis easy food with any players with half a brain. It's not so apparent on T4, where people either don't have speed or range in spades, but on T5 you will seldom find a ship that can't get her into range and comfortably keep her at that range, while taking no return fire.

Have, you didn't really get MY sarcasm, did you? :|