Bl4ckh0g

Well, cruisers are dominating Destroyers

You know that the proof for 1+1=2 took 300 pages to write? So like, That reasoning doesn't really work against theoretical mathematicians

This is more like the Yari Ashigaru vs Yari Samurai in Shogun 2, mostly stat battle, one simply superior to the other, but yeah I get your point

Well, yeah to some degree I played a lot of Total war games and a total war battle and CV gameplay in here is based on the same principle Use superior positioning and unit management to achieve victory. You use your fighters and torpedo bombers the same way as you use the cavalry and infantry in total war. Main difference is the proper positioning of the torpedo bombers to execute a successful attack on an enemy ship, even that can be correlated to planing a cavalry charge against infantry, you chose the wrong angle and your troops are dead meat. And I do not really think Edwards said that CVs are OP, He mainly expressed his point that they should not be one attack-one dead kind of ships. If you would increase the spread of the Cvs and balance that out with lesser AA power and more torpedo speed and damage, or for example slightly adjusting AA power so the close ranged AA can prevent short drops that can destroy ships in one stacked attack. That sort of thing

Well, I have nearly the same number of battles in CVs and It's mainly because It is a horrible experience to play them. Frustrating, unrewarding and barely any fun. P.S.: I also have around ~1500 hours in RTS games as well...

The price can be justifiable If the ships have better earning potential than the tier 5 and 3 premiums in WoT, like those things are for collectors, you barely earn more on them than regular tanks. I would like to see some statement or some sort that actually lists the increased credit and XP rewards for the premiums, because yeah, the Atlanta for example is on the price level of tier 8 premiums in WoT, which is OK if the ships earn as much as them, but otherwise...naaahh

Aurora's got a nice sounding name in the Russian community. I kind of think of this, but What kind of credit and XP rewards you get from the ships? Like I'm perfectly okay with the price if the Aurora get like 85-90% the rewards the Murmansk gets, So It wouldn't be like totally obvious that they are cashing in on the name, you know?

First part is fire rework, Well, there has been quite a numerous topics about it, but this isn't really nerfing damage and such It's just slight modifications So idea is that there would be two kinds of fires, a serious one and a not so serious one. both of them would make the ships more visible as the current fire does, and their damage would not be that different either. So small fire first. These small fires would be nearly equivalent to the 1 stack fire we currently have, It would be a superstructure fire. Meaning that it would be caused by the shooting of the superstructure with HE shells, It is determined by the fire chance of the HE shell, and damage and duration would be the same as the current stack one fire, but this one could not stack. The other one is the serious big fire, difference is that this fire is nearly equivalent to the flooding damage/3 stack fire damage. The thing about this one is that You need to hit certain parts of the ship to cause it. These parts would be the airplane hangars on cruisers/battleships/carriers and the secondary turrets, torpedo tubes(I'm guessing they could burn nicely). So you would have these hit boxes on the ship, with little armor protection so AP would not really do much against them(Except maybe hangars and some secondaries) and they would have a certain percentage(based on the caliber of the shell, and type(HE more than AP)) to ignite a fire, a big one I'm thinking that the small fires damage should be around 0.5-1% HP/s ad the big one's around 3-4% HP/s So big fires would be like flooding, a serious threat to the ship, but small fires on the citadel wouldn't be as much of a threat. This would add some skills to setting ships on fire, would be more historically acceptable and would lower the chance of serious fires in battles Basically It would be like nicer and stuff That's it about fires, Next one: So I noticed that sometimes my secondary armament or AA get's destroyed on the ship and It is kind of hard to actually grasp the actual decrease in AA and secondary firepower, so I'm thinking it would be nice If we could get an indicator that would also display the AA's and secondary's status. Or well, like I think there is already such a thing in game, well at least it tells you that they get destroyed, but they could be improved somehow you know. So you could see the actual decrease in numbers or something. The third one: It would be nice to know how much time it takes for a ship to reach her top speed, like there is a module that increases acceleration, but without the actual numbers, based on "feeling" alone it is kind of hard to understand If I actually need one. It would be like a simple line in the speed stat in the port really. And I think that's all folks.

This means you will have a 9,8 km upgraded secondary range Damn, this is insane, Those ships have comparable secondary firepower to light cruisers main batteries Forget destroyers, these ships will be insanely good at taking out anything that's closer than 10 km

What? 7 km secondary range to Izumo and Yamato?

Well, I'd like to see at least 1 major content patch with some CV and AA balancing, Cleveland switch and overall performance increase( battle loading time) before OBT

I think Sharana said that 0.5% HP/s is the current damage of fires, but yeah 1% HP/s is seemed kind of high to me as well, Maybe 0.3-0.4 % is kind of better

I think the big problem is how fire works, not really the pure damaging of the HE shell, since they are working on that, nearly every small patch contained some HE, AP tweaking That's just pure number problem, not really game mechanic problem I think.

Yeah, there's like a new topic about HE, AP every other day. I don't know I guess people are just run out of things to talk about or something

This topic is not for that discussion, Not to even speak about the fact that that argument failed at least on 3 occasions, So for the love of god do a topic on your own If you want to express your opinion do not hijack Deamon's AGAIN Cleveland as a premium is kind of unnecessary, the ship would be better off as a tier 8 on a parallel CL line There are some nice concepts with 12 x 8" guns that could fit into tier 10, I think it's on the first page

Yeah, I've never saw something like in my 9k battles in WoT, like yeah, nope I've seen things in WoT that might not seem realistic in some aspect, but yeah, RNG is that not big of a factor

Russian forums, Russian forums RNG is essentially trying to simulate the innumerable variables that are affecting a shell, It's penetration and It's damage. Now you can of course make a game where every variable is displayed that affects the shell, but only theoretical mathematicians would understand the game. A ship is an immensely complex fighting unit, There are occasions when a shell just travels through a ship and the only damage it does is a 40-50 cm hole through the canteen. And there are of course occasions when the Whole ship blows up from one shell or salvo. RNG simulates "luck"

Well, to be honest the difference between the 533 mm Mk 15-17 on USN destroyers and the Type 93 Mod 2-3 on most IJN destroyers is not that much IRL. The Long lance had 3-5 knots more speed than the Mk 15-17, It had exceptionally better range however. The type 93 Mod. 2 had 490 kg Type 97 explosive charge, the Mod 3 had 780 kg, The USN Mk 15 Mod 0 had 224 kg of TNT, the Mod 3 had 373 kg of HBX or 363 kg of TNT The Mk 17 torpedo on later USN Destroyers had 399 kg of HBX. The Type 97 was 7% more powerful than TNT, the HBX was more than 75% more powerful than TNT. IIRC the speed difference between the IJN and USN torpedoes is around 1-2 knots, which is a rather compressed difference, though most IJN DDs only get pre-WWII(1920) torpedoes which had nearly the same performance as the USN Mk 15-17 torpedoes. Quite simply the IJN DDs are bad because they have 20 year old out dated torpedoes Though Why do we have Mk 14 and MK 16 submarine torpedoes on destroyers is a really nice question..

The big D HMS Repair HMS Refit Mobil Chernobyl Sressex Tin Duck Uproarious Damn these are good ones

I am making this topic specifically for this ship, because previous ones are fell under the rant of people who do not want to see any kind of future CL tech trees in the game. The Oakland-subclass is part of the Atlanta-class light cruisers, difference between them is the removed 2 aft side turrets and increased AA suite consisting of more Oerlikon chain guns and Bofors 40 mm auto cannons. The ship retains the torpedoes and most other characteristics of the Atlanta-class. Based on the fact that the Atlanta is a tier 7 premium with slight re-balancing I am quite confident that the ship can perform in tier 6. One other possibility is the Juneau-class which is essentially an improved Atlanta-class without the torpedoes and 2 aft side turrets. The problem with this ship is the AA suite, I feel it is too strong for a tier 6 cruiser. Now, the Oakland is not a particularly older ship than the Cleveland, but since her main armament only consists of 5"/38 guns, I am reluctant to place her in any higher tier. Another tree would sprout from this ship which would be the USN light cruisers consisting of the Brooklyn at tier 7, the Cleveland at tier 8 and the Worcester at tier 9. After that either a paper tier 10 CL or maybe one of the 12 x 8" gun heavy cruisers I and Deamon earlier conceived on Deamon's topic. Now, the Cleveland would be moved to tier 8 with her historical AA and Rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute. <-The Cleveland will not be nerfed in this process. I repeat the Cleveland will not be nerfed in this process. There is another possibility which is a preliminary study of the Brooklyn class with less guns. Now, since the Oakland and the Atlanta is so similar and the Atlanta is already in game, In order to put the Oakland into the tech tree(Or the Juneau) The developers only need to modify the already existing model of the Atlanta, which can save immense time. One possible problem with this proposal is the similarity between the Oakland and the Atlanta, but I think the removed aft turrets and better AA justifies putting this ship into the game.

So the Cleveland will be moved, which is nice. It is pretty much confirmed in the latest Naval Academy

Still fire AP and wreck their turrets

I have a reaaaalllyyy strong feeling that it will be the Brooklyn. Well, It kind of looks like no matter how much I want the Oakland, she won't become the replacement. Any idea about the armor and AA?

I think WG is quite aware of the problem with the Cleveland, the question is, what kind of cruiser will occupy that spot after they remove the Cleveland from tier 6

I am just hoping that they switch the Cleveland before they release the game or even OBT