piritskenyer

Repair cost was changed to service cost and set constant, independent of battle damage literal YEARS ago. The reason for this was to avoid having morons avoid taking damage and hang back at ineffective ranges just to save on repair. It's a fact you will have to live with, no matter how much it winds you up. Also, if you are complaining about the economy in this game, I suggest you don'T go near WoWp or WoT. Those have actually slow economy, here you can take any T5-7 silver ship and grind them for credits easily. He's not WG staff, he's wayyy too snarky. Thing is though... 99% of cases he's also right.

put a 19 point cpt in them and grind that cpt xp

She definitely suffers from powercreep and MM. She used to be awesome and is still very viable in divisions, but alone, on a bad day it's just load, shoot, die with 30k damage

Bonjour les gars, je sais que je ne vient pas souvent du coté Francais du forum, mais bon. Je voudrais faire la copie de mon topic que j'ai fait dans la section Anglaise, un petit recueil de données. Donc voila, je voudrais proposer deux croiseurs premium potentiels pour la ligne Francaise, un T4 et un T7, mais il y a plusieurs problemes sur les quels j'aimerais avoir votre opinion. Tier IV: Jeanne d'Arc Croiseur école largement similaire a la classe Duguay-Trouin mais armée de 6 tubes de torpille seulement contre les douze des DT. Probleme n°1: Le navire est plutot lent a 25 nd (27,8 en essais), qui pourrait etre un probleme important. Avec Sierra Mike la vitesse est 26,25 et 29,09. Solutions possibles: Rien, i's'de[edited]e Ajouter de la vitesse jusqu'a 29nd Prendre la vitesse d'essai de 27,8 et ajouter un speed boost de 20% comme pour les croiseurs T8-X pour une vitesse de 33,36 nd ou 35,03 avec Sierra Mike Prendre la vitesse standard de 25 et ajouter un speed boost de 20% pour une vitesse de 30 nd ou 31,5 avec Sierra Mike Probleme n°2: Quand le navire a joint les alliés en 1943 les torpilles ont été démontés et de l'artillerie anti-aerienne a été ajouté. Question: Torpilles + AA mediocre Pas de torpilles + AA serieux Bon, on vient de me faire remarquer que Jd'A avait 2x1 lance torpille qui rend leur existance en jeu un peu superflu. Je n'ai aucune idée comment j'ai pu manquer ce "petit" detail. Tier VII: Suffren Croiseur lourd precedant Algerie, le suel dans sa classe a pas avoir été sabordé a Toulon. Probleme n°1: Il manque de protection. Mais vraiment, 60mm de ceinture. Solutions possibles: Rien Citadelle petite, basse ou divisée Reparation Agilité Probleme n°2: Pas tres rapide pour un croiseur de T7 a 31 nd (32,55 avec Sierra Mike) Solutions possibles Rien, assez rapide comme ca Speed boost de l'Algerie de +15% pour une vitesse de 35,65 nd (37,43) - mon idée preferée Speed boost des croiseurs de T8-X de +20% pour un vitesse de 37,2 nd (39,09) Probleme n°3: Le meme qu'avec Jeanne d'Arc, c'est a dire les lance torpilles ont été démontés et de l'artillerie anti-aerienne a été monté apres le passage chez les alliés Question: Torpille + AA faible Pas de torpilles + AA plus ou moin fort Si vous avez des idées a ajouter, n'hesitez pas PS: je n'ai pas de c+cedille sur mon clavier, je m'excuse et aussi n'hesitez pas pour les fautes de grammaires, je manque de correction.

Hey, is it any better to realease a ship without balance testing it and just unleash hundreds of overpowered ships on the game? And then when people who can't fork out money complain nerf them so that the people who forked the money out will complain? You can't have a balanced premium and not have testing. You will have to live with the fact that ships need to be tested before they are released. EDIT: but turn the question on its head: seeing as how ST ships don't earn achievements and their statitics don't register during testing, is it fair for the supertesters to use their own worked-for resources to run the ships in actual configuration to get actual valid statistical data out of them?

ST is voluntary and unpaid, the reward is that you get to play the ships early and whatever you earn off them (be that ridicuus amount of credits or mental disrders) you get to keep (there are other rewards, but none of them are monetary and I don't like discussing ST matters outside of ST). Ships get as many battles as they can to establish a good enough sample size, and given that there are literally more than 200 people doing the testing, that is not that difficult. There are goals set up to meet that insures that people play the ships enough.

I'm sorry, what? I bought the ship after supertesting it, and she's just as good as she was in ST. She is well worth the price, and noone is forcing you to buy a premium in a bundle with junk you have little use for. That skin looks horrendous, if you paid money for it, I can agree with the not worth the money statememnt, but otherwise the ship is a good dakkaboat. You're not gonna be carrying games in the ship alone, especially when bottom tier, but it's well worth its asking price.

you're doing it wrong, son

For Henri take a standard 6" CL build, for Algerie, Charlie and St. Louis take standard 8" CA builds.

I think since it cannot have zero HP on the clock (only when dead), it had a fractional amount of HP left (less than 0.5) that was rounded up to 1, and when you hit him, taking those 0.5- HP the dmage counter rouded those down, following the rules of maths.

I hate New York on account of its being slow Bretagne is a New York, but weaker.

Interesting. 1) thank you for pointing that out. 2) based on feel, Richie is still more accurate for me than was bisko or monarch. I don't even have a valid explanation as to why anymore.

All three of them have 1.8 sigma value and their dispersion at max range (in brackets) is as follows: Richelieu: 314m (25.27), Bismarck: 274m (21.21) and Monarch 242m (18.15). Reduced to 15km their dispersion is as follows: 168.39, 193.78 and 200 respectively. So all in all, mathematically, Richie is more accurate than Bisko or Monarch.

Pretty much this. Lots of people go "oh, bowtank supreme", but fail to realise that it's one of the fastest T8 BB's and has excellent over-the-shoulder angles, so you can kite for days. Not sure she's as accurate as she was on release, but I remember her being pretty solid. Sidenote: the one time bowtanking is foolproof is if you are facing people who don'T understand HE.

Also, yes, probably.

Well, I use a couple of mods that make life easier, but I don't think they could be considered wholly advantageous. One is a ship panel mod that lists off gun and torpedo ranges on the ship icons in the teamlists as well as maximum speed and detectability. That can be considered a benefit, but you could argue that someone dedicated with pen and paper can replicate that. Second I use the Green Lemon v1 reticle from Bowser, and the only reason I use it is because I prefer how it looks over the stock reticle. I also use extended tech tree and clear isin mods, but those are cosmetic.

One more post to illustrate a thing I mentioned in my previous post: Here are a picture of the 15" Mk I (wire), the 14" Mk VII (built-up autofretted), the 460mm (partial wire), the 16"/50 (built-up) and the french 330 and 380mm weapons (built up from fully autofreted components). Notice how much thicker the walls are proportionally speaking on the wire guns compared to the autofretted ones. The 460 and the 16" are sort of copouts as one is a reproduction, the other has its tampion in, but the others are quite well distinguishable. 15" Mk I 14" Mk VII 460mm/45 Type 94 16"/50 Mk 7 330mm/50 Mle 1931 380mm/45 Mle 1935

Nah. Way too big to be bilg pump outlets, plus they go directly from the weather deck down, while bilge pump outlets were a bit above the waterline but not up on high. The square shape also indicates that it is more likely to be a solid material chute (square profiles are more advantageous for ditching solids, circular profiles are better for fluids or fluid-likes as in grain)

The construction technique can easily be regarded as obsolete full stop. However, it was a technique that could be used to bypass some industrial limitations, such as the maximum size of castings and forgings able to be produced by an industry. Pure wire winding gave guns really good radial strength, but lower axial strength (greater droop along the length of the gun) and successful guns were usually a combination built-up/wirewound design. Wire winding also limited the length of the barrel somewhat, as it was really difficult to build a wire-wound gun longer than 45 calibre (42 in case of the 15" Mk I and 47 in case of the 9.2" Mk X) while keeping the barrel profile light enough. Both of these guns were rather successful, as they were a combination gun rather than pure wire wound, but still had some halmarks of wirewinding. The good thing about British weapons in general however is thatthey were almost all designed to be relinable, so they needed to be built once and then they could be relined as part of a refit or repair (either to the individual weapon system or the entire ship). You mentioned the 460mm/45 of the IJN, well, surprise! It was also a partially wire-wound gun, because of the dificulty of manufacturing such a large calibre gun. Noone would call that gun obsolete though, right? The 16"/50 Mk 7 was a purely built up gun with many autofretted components, in terms of manufacturing technology very largely surpassing the 460 and the 15". The 14" Mk VII also contained a large number of autofretted components. Funnily enough the French 380mm/45 and 330mm/50 guns were built of purely autofretted components making them technically the most advanced construction weapons in the Allied arsenal. Barrel wear was obviously significantly worse when firing supercharges out of the gun. To give you an idea, I lifted the definition from navweaps directly: So if a regular charge is 1 EFC then a gun rated for 240 EFC can fire a full load 240 times before needing relining. If a reduced charge or half charge is 0.5 EFC, the same gun can fire 480 rounds at reduced charge. Supercharge is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 EFC. One thing that is important however is the current state of the gun when firing. In case of the 15" Mk I (as with most naval guns actually) there was a very noticable difference between a freshly lined, an average and a worn-out gun's muzzle velocity both with standard and supercharges. What we have in game with Vanguard is a freshly lined gun velocity (804 m/s). The british solution to barrel wear was basicaly to reduce usage, reduce charges during practice and the aformentioned relinability. I'm sure they would have tried coming up with cooler propellants had Vanguard kept in commission, but the entire point is moot as the large naval gun infrastructure of the UK went away after the second world war.

Well, if we talk weapon system instead of elements of it, Vanguard is even better off. Vanguard at the time of completion had one of, if not the best firecontrol system of any capital ship ever put to sea. The one shortcoming of the firecontrol system was not having RPC for elevation. Still, a lot of people forget that just because a gun barrel was built earlier it doesn't mean it is obsolete. Basic gun technology hasn't changed significantly since the end of the 1890's. Bits and bobs changed of course, but the basic setup of cradle, barrel, breech (either screw breech or wedge breech - BL or QF) and recoil mechanism are largely unchanged. Once you build your main components and define its pressure limits, you are left with very little to play with unless you have overbuilt your gun, and what you can play with is your shell. There are guns from different times that have almost the exact same muzzle enrgy, but have significantly different ballistics all on account of ammunition technology. (A good example for that would be the british-built japanese 15cm(6")/50 41st YT firing a 100lb (45.36kg) shell at 855 m/s and the british 6"/50 Mk XXIII firing a 112 lb (50.8kg) shell at 840m/s - the japanese gun has actually better muzzle enrgy at 731kJ vs the later gun's 705.6 kJ, yet the british gun has way better ballistics.) The 15" Mk I was one such weapon in both regards. It was massively overbuilt due to it being ordered off the drawing board and could take massive overloads (IIRC one pilot gun was prooftested with a triple charge and after relining remained serviceable), and with ammunition and propellant development basically obliviated the need for development of a new 15" gun for ballistic reasons. Now if the "Monarch" *thing* in game had happened in real life, a new gun would have been developed regardless because of advancements in manufacturing technology (the 15" Mk I was wirewound and thus quite heay weapon, and in the meantime several manufacturing techniques have appeared that made it possible to build lighter but just as strong barrels in a monoblock construction - the 14" Mk VII is one such light but strong weapon). That would have mattered for a treaty battleship trying to keep to a set displacement limit, but for a ship that had no limits imposed on it (Vanguard), the 15" Mk I was every bit as serviceable. One more note: Vanguard was a ship fitted for-but-not-with supercharges. Supercharges were originally a measure to increase range on ships that hadn't had higher elevations enabled, however as you might imagine that also increased their penetration power. Vanguard was made ready to take them on (cradles, recoil buffers and mounting brackets strengthened), but they were to be issued only in wartime. So it's "semi-accurate" that she'd have them in game, and I'm pretty certain that she wouldn't have used supercharges to fire HE shells (unless trying to reach as far inland as possible).

Afraid not. They do mean the gun is obsolete, even though several ST's (myself included) have raised the issue. Unfortunately the general perception is that a weapon from 1915 can't possibly be adequate for the last battleship to ever launch, even though I have demonstrated with different sources that the 15" Mk I (praised be its name) when supercharged pretty much overpowers the 38cm SK C/34 carried by "muh Bismurk"

A fire. With a Fiji. I see you like to let your secondaries rip

Waaaait a minute... Yu are not proposing escort D's, you a re proposing Polish DD's

The thing is, with the combination of overmatch mechanics, BB penetration and the forward bulkhead, you just can't achieve an angle at which your citadel is t going to be vulnerable even at close range against a BB. If you can bait them into shooting your belt at autobounce, sure, you are gonna just laugh it off, but if they have any sense whatsoever, they will recognise the autobounce and shoot at your bow, behind which is yur forward bulkhead which is NOT going to be anywhere near auto- or even possible bounce angle and you'll eat a citadel through the nose. Dule rudder helps with that if you can keep them just at arms length and turn your belt as they fire, but that requires a lot of concentration and is actually really mentally tiring. The longer shooting range is also sort of a curse in that regard, as you think you have cosed the range, but in reality you are still in a range where shots have significant downangles, thus opening the possiblity of them lolpenning your deck.

Yes, but this isn'T the Minotaur. I ditched concealment mod for double rudder, becaus this ship excells at two things: spamming the HE like nobody's business and catchng stray 15, 16, 17 and 18" shells and eating citadels from null angles like you wouldn'T believe (something you wouldn'T have necessarily noticed on CM because top tier your armour heldbetter against the bottom tier BB's and when bottom tier you'd have been more cautious anyway). What you can tank with your armour are cruisers, but otherwise you are reliant on not getting hit, for which purposes double rudder is what you ust go for. Now that entails certain compromises, like being spotted farther away than some BB's (but since ideally you are piling on the rate of fire anyway, that matters little) and thus you will need to select our choice of consumable (hydro or DFAA) very carefully, depending on how much you trust you can keep your HP until later and thus develop agression in the late game, or how much do you think scattering airdrops on BB allies that might be useful for them to be meatshields later. Your range is sufficient enough for you to pick the reload module, and the loss in turret traverse is not inconvenient enough to make that option unappealing, as it only becomes problematic if you are very heavily maneuvering, ie, dodging a lot of incoming, in which case you should cease fire anyway, or when you are dodging a wall of torps where you have other problems than guns on target).