Historynerd

Besides, the amount of firepower you lose each time a turret is destroyed depends on the number of the turrets you have. It's 33,3% if you play in a Myogi, an Iowa or a Yamato; it's 25% if you play the Warspite, the Nagato or the Colorado; it's 16,6% if you play in an Arkansas, for example. If the HMS Agincourt gets in the game, a destroyed lost would amount to a 14,3% loss of firepower.

He might guess when you're shooting at him, and he notices that the shots falling are less than they should be. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this. Although it's arcadey, it has some pretty strong connection with real life ships and battles. Besides, it's not why it has to be shoehorned in, since it DID happen historically, it's more why it has to be removed, as you suggest. I agreed that it has to be tweaked, namely that the chance of this occuring are significantly lowered. Why don't we try that first and see if it works better?

Yay, now with my Kent-class cruiser I will able to torpedo a battleship!

I haven't had experience with tanks in WT, so I can't say anything about it. I am not convinced, however. I believe that it should be possible to destroy a turret (which, I repeat, is not a single item and therefore does not outright take away your firepower, but merely reduces it), although seldomly. This is what I think, at least; you don't agree with me, I am fine with it. We are all entitled to our own opinions. And if WG decides to act upon the wishes of the majority of the players, I can but accept it, if it comes to that.

I disagree, at least when it's not in Domination mode. My impression is that it warranted more defeats than victories.

I've given up in determining what it happens. In Domination Mode it's dicey to me. However, normally it goes this way: even though as soon as it's recognizable I point out that perhaps we should do this the other way, pretty much everyone but me goes in one way most of the time, and not only I get pasted, but most of the time the lemming train does not manage to push hard or fast enough, so we lose. This is how I determined that this is, all things said and done, a bad thing to do.

I have to agree with the others, when saying that finding out the guilty party in a collision might be obvious for us players, but not so obvious for the game. This is an undisputable fact; unless OP recognizes and factors this, we won't get anywhere. And I think that if someone thinks that the current system is not working, the most logical thing to do would be to try and come up with a possible solution. Because otherwise the whole thing is rather pointless...

In WoT one-shotting tanks when you can penetrate their armor is not implemented because it wouldn't make a viable game, not because it wouldn't be fun. What would happen? "Oh no, my turret is destroyed, what do I do now?" Anyway, there there is no way of doing that because tanks have only one functional turret if any; here ships have multiple turrets, so losing one is acceptable. And if the chance is low enough, I don't see how it can be such a big issue. I acknowledge that it can be frustrating, especially if it's based upon chances and not skills, but I personally feel that this adds to the game. This is just my opinion, though.

So, I guess things like this can't happen? I stand my point: make it less likely, alright, remove from game, wrong.

Um... I don't want to be seen as callous, but perhaps it would have been better to wait for the anniversary to post this... Besides, it's a pretty well known fact... there were other times where as many or even more sailors or soldiers died on the sea, without having someone recording the fact for posterity.

I admit I don't know much about them... ...mainly because I am more interested in ships that have actual names, and most German DDs didn't...

It was just a friendly advice...

' Wow, I heard this one only 1'348'296'472 times...

I'd suggest you to edit the title of the topic before moderators do it for you...

I wouldn't say that, since they were designed to fire the "super-heavy" kind of AP shells. So, what they lack in destructive power (meaning the HP they'll take) will be compensated by the bigger chance of penetrating the citadel.

That is a rather peculiar case... Besides, in their case you can destroy their torpedo tubes, even if it's rare...

Why, if you can permanently disable their turrets?

It's hard to say, because the turrets and the barbettes usually were amongst the best protected areas of most warship types. I'd say we should consider a permanent destruction of a turret when a shell clearly punches through the armor and explodes inside. This shouldn't happen too often, I presume (but I might be wrong). Of course, just to make a scenario up, if someone goes and dances with an enemy ship with more powerful guns that are able to penetrate his armor, he can't throw a fit because one turret was knocked out. Just consider, though, that in some cases (destroyers, and even some cruisers) guns are not in turrets, but merely in shielded positions, so that makes this logic blurry... Anyway, my point is that we should consider that many things in the game are already better than IRL; torpedoes don't slow the ship down to a crawl or stop it outright, fires (while annoying and currently broken) don't risk blowing it up, with consumables you can have the ship pretty much as good as now even though IRL its efficiency would be considerably lower because of the losses in the crew. So, if once in a while a turret is knocked out, I don't get why this detracts from the fun... unless fun is when things go always your way.

If I'm not mistaken, work to fit Gneisenau with three double 380 mm turrets was started in 1942, but it was never completed.

I could agree to lower significantly the number of instances in which this happens. However, I am against removing this completely. It definitely should happen, no matter how "frustrating" it may be (besides, others have pointed out already that this logic taken to extremes would lead to absurd things).

Blame the guys who went around in the first place and designed ships with a ridicolous number of turrets, so high that it was inevitable that they would be very awkward to operate! :-P

Maybe the ones that will be on the Alaska-class cruisers won't be that old...

Technically it makes no difference whatsoever wheter a gun is in a casemate or in a turret, as far as range is concerned... if they have the same elevation, they will have both the same range.

Forgive me, but when I saw this topic's title, I thought about this: Anyway, chillax. It will come in due time.