Bl4ckh0g

there's still one as well about angles http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?act=findpost&pid=185745 So yeaah That being said. A ship's IZ really only affects whether you get citadel penetrated or not. A Fuso in close range can citadel penetrate a Nagato but a Nagato due to it's 410 mm guns can citadel penetrate a Fuso from rather far away. So Big guns bigger pen- easier citadels from greater range. That's why small fast firing guns are more effective in closer ranges.

As far as I know they currently operate an effective range method. Meaning the guns are capable of firing 30-40 km, but you do not have the FCS in order to fire that far. This means that when the shells reach a ship from 21 km they arrive at a flat trajectory. For some guns like the 6" this can be 30°, for some bigger guns like 36 cm IJN that angle is 19°. Though while you watch the shells fall they appear to arrive at an angle exceeding 45°, but that's just a visual "illusion". Currently you really do not have a chance to citadel hit someone through the deck with such big guns. Reducing the shell velocities, well I do not know whether they'd seriously change these numbers. It depends how much speed reduction they receive. The info about the shells was told by this Dev on this topic :Progress in this game doesn't make any sense. Edit: I really should've linked the actual post :http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?act=findpost&pid=185584

This is just a quick post about some CW stuff. Yeah I know it's awfully early to even think about this stuff ,but I'm curious about something. Do you think Some Cw commander will prefer tier 8-9 ships compared to tier 10s? I'm mainly thinking about picking an Iowa compared to Montana or Yamato due to the fact that she's really fast and can keep up with most if not all cruisers. ( and she's not far off in firepower compared to a Yamato) Do you think that this will be possible in the far future?

You know I'm starting to think that the topic is so deserted ,because I actually explained most of the possible issues so people do not really have to say anything.... Damn my thorough planning and explanations!!

Or rather USN and RN, We will yet to see how the Russians will perform

I mainly though that If you'd like want to make a fast flanking then you'd pick like 3 Des Moines for their long range strong AAA, ROF and such, but like if they'd suddenly face 2 Yamatos then would they win? 3 DM vs 2 Yama or 2 Mon And you know you'd like put 1 or 2 Iowas in place of a DM then your Flanking force would not lose speed and stand a better chance against BBs. Or if you want to make a really fast rush with BBs then might be better to pick Iowas with their 33 knots speed If they'd like be stronger than Des Moines. the whole thing only stands ofc if the Iowa's would be stronger than DMs

Is the Des Moines that strong? Shouldn't a Fast Battleship have an advantage over a Heavy cruiser? Like If you'd want to pick one ship which is fast, a fast battleship would might the ideal pick. Though I did not played a single match in a tier 8+ ship so I'd leave this to more experienced players.

Xmasbeer, on 25 April 2015 - 10:25 AM, said: However the RNG could be explained as the simulation for entropy like wind, warhead weight and gunpowder variations. If I'd say every parameter that influences the shell impact point I'd double the size of my posts But yeah that's what RNG is trying to recreate main problem is that of course that RNG is much more noticeable in a battleship than any other class. A question If I may ask. Would these changes increase your overall performance in battleships? What do you peps think? (actually I ask this to keep the topic in the main page, hue hue hue hue)

Uh... Umm.... What? Like I'm confused. Why Is my reading skills faulty? And Why exactly is my idea bad? Like I'm really asking, so far the only problem that actually had to do with anything decreasing shell velocity was Skullcap's with the trajectory problems and such. Or are you referring to the troll guy trying to pull a straw man in hopes for some lulz? Yes that's true, but you forget that a tank cannot see an artillery shell coming. You do in WoWs. You can dodge a salvo. Consciously trying to avoid incoming shells is a thing in WoWs, that is impossible in WoT. And that makes a rather large difference. Edit: REPHRASING: You can try to avoid incoming shells in WoT by pulling some maneuvers but you Do not see the incoming shells and you cannot move out of their way is what I meant. That idea was as I said, an idea. I did not thought that seriously. It is an interesting thought nothing more. And I think I said that clearly in my previous post, If I did not I apologize for that. Why would this be a troll thread?

I actually thought about it That the current Scope UI might not cut out for the increased shell travel time because you'd have to give more lead than currently. I think that WG could reconfigure the UI so it would be easier to give proper lead. Like shrinking it down or something. Also an interesting idea, that I played with is the targeting computer for BBs. It would be Essentially a lead-mod. You'd first need to select the target, keep you crosshair on it, and the TC would start to calculate a lead, it would be like a zone that's shrinking as time passes. After let's say 10 seconds you'd have a minimal "zone" at around 300-400 meters in diameter instead of a red X. The catch is that you'd lose the targeting progress if you perform more than a 10° turn, and even under that the progress the TC made would degrade. It would be like the SPG aiming in WOT, but would come at the price that you'd be vulnerable while doing so since you cannot dodge if you want to use it. It's really just an interesting idea nothing more, and probably the effort/worth ratio would be incredibly high.

This topic is sooo deeeaadddd Why is it soo deaaaaddd?? I thought this at least spark some arguments other than straw man trolling. PEPS Why are you not arguing about this?!?

I guess the St.Louise has so much health because she is so slow that she cannot run away from Kawachis, maybe?

auto-collision system you can turn it off in the settings if you'd prefer that way. Sometimes it can be creepy like your ship is sailed by a 300 yr old ghost captain from the grave trying to sink your ship and reqruite your dead crew as his undead legion or something

Yeah but she's still a pretty big ship with rather weak armor. She's 245 meters long, longer than the Kongo and slightly shorter than the Amagi. The 38 cm German, the 41 cm Japanese and the 16" British and American guns are/will be pretty common in tier 8. Making her a rather, easy kill. You can only run away to some extent, 33 knots is not that much faster than 30 knots.... Her speed in wikipedia is listed as 31,4-33, so Wg might even decide to make her only go with 31 knots. Tier 8 might be too harsh for her. Especially that she's not really designed to face other battleships, she's a cruiser killer. And in tier 8 the faster battleships start to appear, Why would you need a battleship sized cruiser with weaker armor and armament when you can have a slightly slower but more armored and armed fast battleship which is better at killing cruisers? Like compared to the North Carolina, the Alaska is not that appealing. The NC can do 27 knots which is at best case 6 knots slower than the Alaska, but she have bigger guns with more damage and penetration and armor to withstand battleship caliber hits. The Alaska would be just a much bigger less maneuverable cruiser there. In tier 6 however. The tables are turned. You have the New Mexico which can do a whooping 21 knots and has 14" guns. Why would you even consider picking the New Mexico over the Alaska? The Alaska is waaay faster, has basically the same guns, though fewer of them but with greater ROF and precision, and her armor is still barely viable against 14" guns. not to even talk about the clearly superior AA. Soo yeah... tier 7 seems the best option so far I think. She might get her AA nerfed though. Or they could nerf her into tier 6 but that's really not to my liking. She's really like the Patton or the Centurion Mk 9/1 in WoT actually.....

Well, might be. But She had a 9" armor belt with 3-4" deck armor, She's only really protected against 8" guns, the bigger ones in tier 8 might rip her apart. She's also speedy, which is kind of diminished when the faster battleships appear, though even then the Alaska is a fast ship. She's an overgrown cruiser essentially. And her guns would do around the same damage, probably slightly more than the Kawachi's. I'm thinking tier 7, when the bigger guns start to appear but the faster battleships yet have to make a debut. She's around the Hood's level maybe? fun fact: Those guns of her costed 1,550,000 $ each making them the most expensive weapons ever made by the USN

Imagine a faster Kongo with tier 9 level AA suite, with 1 one more faster firing, more precise gun although it has little less punch but with better penetration. Re-skin it into an Iowa, paint an american flag on it. And you've got the Alaska.

Afaik Hood is at tier 7 as the Admiral-class while KGV is at tier 8. I might be wrong though,

You are sailing a 21 thousand ton metal body with 21 knots or 39 kmph into another metal body of 35 ,600 tons. if the Kawachi floats and the damage does not reduced it's weight by a couple of thousand tons, then probably both of you will sink. Even the smallest DDs in game weight around a 1000 tons, maybe a bit less. It will do serious damage even against a battleship if such a heavy thing hits it at 70 kmph.

Hmm Would be nice LMAO watching my friend utterly fail in his destroyers

Hood vs Birmarck is WoWs might not be as epic as you'd think. It will be a tier 7 and tier 8 BB against a tier 8 BB and a tier 8 CA. You'd have to make the Bismarck helluva OP for that to work out nicely

Yeaaahhh after yesterday's troll hunting I think it would be the best to actually continue discussing this topic. I'd love to see something about potential problems regarding this idea. And So far I've only seen one. So any more thoughts?

I'm not against a good argument, hell I love 'em But try to actually say something other than quoting specific lines because it makes you look like helluva nitpicking troll because picking out the juiciest lines while ignoring the context, in which I often state or imply otherwise is a really poor argumentation.

This is a secret but I'm actually thoroughly enjoying this like literally I had wet dreams about these kind of arguments

And I yet again Ask. Do you know what context means? Why did you thought that I was referring to anything other than skills required for long range gunnery in the first place? Any semi-competent piece of life being lived long enough in the deep pits of society would know that I, in fact referred to skills tied to long range gunnery since the whole context of the argument was about long range gunnery. And So far I'd like to see any viable arguments other than taking specific highly ambiguous lines and deducting false statements from them. And Can I ask you Why exactly do you think that SPGs in World of Tanks and Battleships in World Of Warships are so different? Battleships are moving, yes and they take hits as well, as I said Excluding the fact that they are armored and have lots of HP, why again are they any different? They both have high alpha guns with horrible accuracy and long reload. How exactly are they different in terms of the context of this topic, which is Long Range Gunnery? They both calculate a lead on their target, aim with their slow moving turrets/ bad aiming time, fire then pray for RNJesus for a good hit, wait for 30 seconds and do it again. So yet Again Why they are so different exactly? For me they seem pretty same in the fact that RNG playing a really heavy role in their success. So for the Third time WHY ARE SELF PROPELLED GUNS FROM WORLD OF TANKS AND BATTLESHIPS IN WORLD OF WARSHIPS DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF LONG RANGE GUNNERY DAMAGE DEALING, EXCLUDING THE FACT THAT BATTLESHIPS ARE GETTING HIT IN RETURN AND HAVE THE LARGEST HEALTH POOL IN THE GAME WITH GOOD ARMOR COMPARED TO ARTILLERY PIECES IN WORLD OF TANKS? If you can actually present any viable argument, I may even consider replying to you.....

Do you even read half of what I wrote? Do you know what context means? I made a novel about how to change the game play mechanics of long range gunnery and you thought that I refer to skills like situation awareness and teamwork? I really have to make things like these clear? And why do you even think that I "advertise" long range gunnery? I ask again, Did you even read what I write? How is decreasing shell velocity in ANY WAY promotes long range gun fights? HOW? It is also very interesting, Why exactly are you quoting single lines from walls of text?