Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About Ace42X

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ace42X

    Wait What...?! 6 DD's not a Surprise with Wargaming

    Thought that was the case. So much for:
  2. Ace42X

    Could anyone tell me a good Prayer for RNGesus ???

    I seem to recall the dispersion artificially increases at super-close range on them? At low tiers (3&4) BBs want to be ~10-12km from targets. Too far away and you run the risk of shots failing to penetrate the citadels or splashing all round your target; too close and you're probably going to get torpedoed, or over-pen what you're firing AP at. Fire full salvoes (double-click). You shouldn't need to waste 2 shells on a ranging shot if you're that close, and as such you can use the volume of fire on the target to guarantee a couple of good hits - and if you citadel a cruiser with AP, two's going to be enough to remove them from the game. BB sniping is a numbers game - you're only likely to hit with 1/4th of the shells in a salvo even with a good hit, so you need that high volume of fire. Make sure you've got extra information turned on in the game's control options, that will make sure you can see the travel-time in seconds for your shells on the HUD by the crosshair. Get the Nomogram dynamic crosshair from Aslain's modpack (and while you're there, the enemy ship stat panel too). With these two mods you can know what your target's maximum speed is (generally ~20, 25, 30, 35 kts) and read off the right lead distance from the crosshair by looking at the travel-time in seconds. This will significantly reduce the need to fire ranging shots even at long distance. If the enemy ship's a tad faster than your marker (22kts instead of 20; 32 knots instead of 30) aim for their front turrets instead of their middle; if it's a tad slower (18kts instead of 20; 28 knots instead of 30) aim for the back turret. As a BB you want to hit the enemy's broadside, head-on things get too messy and they present too narrow a target. Both your target prioritisation and your positioning should aim to achieve this. The horizontal line of your crosshair wants to be on (not just below) the waterline of a broadsided ship; if they're travelling at an angle, use the circular targeting indicator on the minimap and position it so it's just covering the tip of the enemy's icon on the minimap - that should be a good rough estimate for you to start getting a feel for leading angled ships. I'm guessing your ship's tier is too low to equip the upgrade that reduce dispersion - later on that helps a lot. There's no magic trick to lowering dispersion - just make sure you're "locked" onto the ship you're firing at (not one immediately behind it) as the game will elevate the guns to try and hit the locked ship, not the one your crosshair's on, and if you're "blind firing" (not locked on) it's the same as if the victim ship has the -5% disersion camo equipped. Speed you're travelling at, angle, etc have no effect on dispersion. Edit: Although I think the low post count and hidden battle-count threw me, and that despite the OP starting with "seriously" he presumably knows all this and I'm teaching my granny to suck eggs.
  3. Ace42X

    Wait What...?! 6 DD's not a Surprise with Wargaming

    I was more thinking T4. I ask because I simply don't find rockets reliable at that level. I've had Langley rockets devastate a DD who was broadside to my approach on occasion, and if I get a juicy hit on a T3, Hosho's rockets can sting. But these seem to be very reliant on RNG - with near identical shots whiffing or barely tickling. I routinely have shots that look "good" to me result in one or two of the 6 rockets landing, with the other five going either size of the ship. Is this just a "you need sight stab" situation? Or is there some technique to the approach / targeting that negates either the ability of the DD to angle / or else mitigates the issue of shells missing due to RNG?
  4. Ace42X

    Wait What...?! 6 DD's not a Surprise with Wargaming

    Sorry, it was an error on my part, it was @L0V3_and_PE4CE in this thread: I think I confused him with you because I think you've both referred to the concept of the DPM / Damage Race when discussing CVs in this context in the past - much for the reasons you've further elucidated here. Thanks again for your input. PS: While you're here, any suggestions for low-tier CVs trying to hurt DDs? Or does that change the equation somewhat in terms of weaker rockets?
  5. Ace42X

    Wait What...?! 6 DD's not a Surprise with Wargaming

    "Learning to aim". Hmmm. What techniques of aiming do you use to: A. Reduce shell dispersion and thus make bullseyes hit the DD instead of landing in the water surrounding it; and B. Change the course of the shells in mid-air in order to react to evasive manouvres the DD initiates once they're airborne? I'd very much like to learn both. And if you don't readjust your sights, they won't be on / in the path of the target ship, and the rockets go into the water in a slightly tighter grouping. What DDs are you shooting at that see you performing an attack run and go "you know what, out of all the options I have to evade incoming fire, I'm going to pick the one single course that puts my ship exactly where he wanted it to be from the moment he first started positioning for an attack run"? Meanwhile, in reality, if I spend the entire match spotting a DD, he still survives instead of getting "farmed." As I said, this works in a DD's favour because on a smaller ship more densely packed modules represent a shield of non-HP that don't apply to shots which land between modules on ships where they are more spread-out.
  6. Ace42X

    Wait What...?! 6 DD's not a Surprise with Wargaming

    Alpha is better than DPM: Alpha stops a target dealing damage by killing them; DPM allows the target to continue dealing damage for the full duration of their health. The fact that Torps take time to reach their target is a virtue - it serves as area denial and a deterrence. BB volleys are a poor example for your case; no ships shrugs off full torpedo salvos; DDs are uniquely resistant to AP volleys from BBs. The cooldown on torps would be a more convincing argument if BBs didn't routinely lose ~30s on their salvos switching to HE because of DDs artificial resistance to AP. If you're suggesting that my BB should be allowed to fire 3x full main battery salvoes simultaneously in exchange for trebling the reload time to 90s, I'd happily accept that super-density for fire raining down on DDs for more reliable hits. Would you think that makes BB more or less balanced? Ship that is best in the game at capping CPs (the biggest deciding factor in matches) is "second to CVs"? Nope, just plain incorrect. Ipse dixit. If you've discovered a way for your planes to *hang around* and / or *provide spotting while flying back to the aircraft carrier* after performing attacks, I'd be eager to know the technique. For me, when I attack people with my planes, each flight returns to the aircraft carrier and immediately stops spotting. So if I'm scouting in rocket-planes in my T4s, I can perform *one* attack run, and then have to *stop attacking* unless I want the remaining flight to immediately stop spotting. I assume you mean DDs. And yes, I routinely see the team with the most ships alive losing a match on points because they can't / won't enter a CP to block point generation. It's certainly a possibility. I'm pretty sure if I spent the first half-dozen tiers playing as if smoke-screen immunity to damage, being able to shrug off incoming AP damage even if I don't manage to dodge it completely, never ever seeing a carrier, and deleting any ship in the game that isn't in a position to completely reorientate themselves, I'd feel entitled to that level of performance even in the top tiers battlegroup. Not sure that would make me *right* though... Just equally whiny and biased.
  7. Ace42X

    Wait What...?! 6 DD's not a Surprise with Wargaming

    Perverse way to describe the fact that shots against DD can't deal maximum damage due to absence of citadel; will generally deal a fraction of their damage because of overpen; force you to use a less damaging ammo-type to counter this, which means modules and saturation will reduce the HE damage you take. It's a poor reward for landing shots on the smallest, most manoeuvrable, and thus harderst to hit ships in the game using guns with enough dispersion to land all around the target without even causing a hit thanks to RNG. But apparently having a low health pool means that health pool should be worth *more* than a cruiser's health pool on top of being able to escape detection and avoid incoming fire too or something... Considering that, at T4 and T6 where players have ~6 skill COs the dispersion on the rockets is enough for bullseyes to get scattered in the water all around a DD, I'm sceptical that "good CVs" in those games are nailing meaningful hits on ships they can't know the position of that are in smoke; ditto for landing blind torpedo hits when they're firing 1 lone torp into the smoke each pass; ditto for hitting with bombs - let alone AP going right through DDs. At those tiers the amount of time taken to: Position to begin an attack run, perform an attack run, and wait for the ordinance to hit a target is greater than the time it takes a DD to turn 90 degrees and present you with a completely different profile. And, as already mentioned, the damage is often negligible even if you do get a hit because dispersion can simply no-sell your hits even if the DD doesn't evade effectively. @Cagliostro_chan pointed out in another thread that focussing DDs is generally a losing strategy precisely because it consumes too many resources (specifically, time and effort) for too little benefit.
  8. Ace42X

    Little quality of life change for CV

    Planes should attack with entire squadron in one pass, so AA reduces alpha proportionately and there's no planes left alive to "slingshot" or prematurely bank back in the carrier. AA strength versus a flight's potential alpha should be balanced vs each other, instead of abstractions like "if you can maybe deplane the carrier if they throw planes agains the same rocks again and again".
  9. Ace42X

    OMG, the absolute horror............

    Is this the case, or are you employing irony? Because my inclination is to use torps to beat the hell out of BBs with my low-tier carriers, but I find that a decent DD player will just wreck entire team / flip a load of uncontested CPs and then come for CV if they're left to others to deal with. Would you say that racking up damage vs BBs and other targets of opportunity is more important than spotting and harrassing DDs even at low-tier play?
  10. Ace42X

    Are we going to have CV refund?

    Yep. You could advance a theory that ships which fall into one class but behave closer to another give you some insight into the relative strengths of the two classes: For example if you're in a match of all battlecruiser BBs vs heavier traditional BBs, you could possibly tease out the relative value of cruisery gameplay; if you had a match of all light cruisers vs armoured cruisers, you could maybe tease out the relative value of Destroyer-ee gameplay vs Cruisery. But it would still be filled with a load of confounding variables that would obscure any truth you could glean from the exercise I think. My guess would be that's at least partially down to draws (which don't count towards winrate, and are evenly split between both teams of carriers). So the loss-rate would also be ~48.3%, leaving 3.4% "draws or other". I suspect a fair bit of "other" just because I really don't see that many draws at all (I am not sure I've even seen one over the course of >2000 battles, looking at my summary). Other could be stuff like non-mirrored game-modes potentially being included in the statistics; or glitched / incomplete games awarding losses and no wins.
  11. Ace42X

    Wait What...?! 6 DD's not a Surprise with Wargaming

    So what you're saying is that being right or wrong about a subject isn't down to whether what you've typed is true or false; but is determined by whether or not you "perform reasonably well" at a game? A novel approach to epistemology. Let's look at the words I used regarding 'easy-ness': Their manoeuvrability gives them the best possible use of cover – easier for them to avoid beaching themselves on tightly packed islands, easier for them to manoeuvre amongst them and thus evade incoming fire, easier for them to lay devastating torp ambushes. So you think that ships with worse rudder shift time, worse turning circles and worse acceleration are equally as easy or easier to manoeuvre? Well good thing you've played all those matches with all those classes so that you can tell us that the game's hard-coded mechanics behave directly opposite to their defined functions. Sorry, you think using the word "factitious" makes a sentence artificially complex? I have sympathy for people who aren't native English speakers, but it's not like you can't simply use Google (like I said) to learn what the word means even if your vocabulary is on par with that of a child. I don't have sympathy for someone who repeatedly misunderstands what is being said to them, and then has the nerve to insist that means the person using simple English isn't being coherent.
  12. Ace42X

    Are we going to have CV refund?

    How can winrate give any indication of CV performance vs other ship types at all? There's always a CV on the other side to match it, so even if any given CV is worse than the alternatives in its tier, the winrate for CVs as a whole is always going to be 50-50, excepting draws.
  13. Ace42X

    Wait What...?! 6 DD's not a Surprise with Wargaming

    Someone clearly doesn't understand the concept of being factitious, even when they're explicitly told that is what is going on. Here are some synonyms you can discover by simply googling the word: bogus, fake, not genuine, specious, false, counterfeit, fraudulent, spurious, trumped-up, sham, mock, feigned, affected, pretended, contrived I can grab a screenshot if you think this point is contentious. I just figured from the way you were sounding off that you had enough experience in the game to know that unless you're paying Gold to accelerate training, or farming XP on another ship, you're not going to have a 10sp captain on a fresh T6 ship. So what you're saying is that the fallacy of cherry picking is acceptable because it's based on you deploying the fallacy of specail pleading. And actually, I don't see Belfasts (unsurprisingly, because they're premium and not readily available) in many T5 matches at all irrespective of what ship I'm floating. It's stat-shaming. Because, unless you think me doing worse in my DDs somehow edits the game code and changes the detection range, speed, torpedo damage, armour values for all DDs in the game for everyone, you sure as crap didn't bring it up to actually address the points raised. Straw man. Learn to read. Except you haven't actually rebutted "what I'm talking about". All you've done is criticise my stats, which is an ad hominem and thus is impossible for it to contradict anything I've said. If it's nonsense, how come you haven't actually refuted a word I've said? All you've done is trot out logical fallacies one after the other. It wasn't about whiney bitches? Then how come the first sentence in my first post was a quotation of the following text?: If all the DD whining about radars and CVs was taken too seriously, even more cowards would be hiding in this class, avoiding to be spotted all game. And that post ended with me saying: I really don't get the whining, other than that they can't abuse island-camping as hard as some cruisers can - which is the worst part of the game in general. How can you be so confident that I was stating a "bunch of nonsense" when you can't even recognise the words used in those posts, let alone understand the point being put to you?
  14. Ctrl-click the "cog" setup icon in the corner of your minimap while in game to toggle these on, if anyone doesn't know how. Use = and - keys to change map size if it's not clear enough.
  15. Ace42X

    Wait What...?! 6 DD's not a Surprise with Wargaming

    A few reasons: I intentionally play badly in them so that when someone on the forum tries to deploy stat-shaming as an ad hominem fallacy, I can discredit their retorts and disqualify them from discussion straight out the door; my "other T5+ ships" tend to have captains with more than six skill points invested in them, and many of them have upgrade and enhancement modules in place; my "other T5+ ships" tend to have more than a dozen matches played in them. Perhaps you're arguing that DDs are weak because they are only played by people like me who haven't yet gotten the Concealment Expert CO skill and thus DD players can never fire torps from concealment? But, disregard my first factitious point of rebuttal: Let me guess, I'm horrible at T5+ DDs because my winrate in Icarus is 5 victories, 6 defeats, and thus a shockingly bad 45% winrate or something; whereas a 76% winrate in a Shenyang over the course of a greater number of matches doesn't count because... Ignoring Tier 4s is essential to your cherry-picking or something... I made a series of factual statements that I brought to this discussion; I think it's rather telling that your first reaction was to ignore these statements and instantly reach for two logical fallacies *just so you can white-knight a class of ships in a game* for crying out loud. Way to prove my point about DD whiners; gratz on being the second person to do that today after the guy who intentionally camped behind our Enterprise the whole match today without firing because "2 CV match, and I don't want to quit and go pink..." despite their CVs completely ignoring the other DD and ships because they were trying (and failing) to focus my Amagi who ate up 40 of their planes. I refer you to the post you were replying to: Maybe I'm doing stuff wrong (in which case, any advice is gratefully received) Share this competence, plz. Because I don't know what "competence" can stop my shells hitting the water *all around my target* with only one shell in the middle actually landing and doing negligible damage. Also not sure how you delete something you literally can't see on the map or on your screen because they can fire torps from outside concealment range. Nor how you make your shells change direction whilst their mid-air to hit a target that has changed direction *after you've fired*. Because when I think of BBs deleting people, I think of a salvo landing a citadel or two and wiping out a big chunk of HP; not having to land far more shells on a much smaller, faster, and more evasive target to *much less effect*. I meant to fight against, not fight in, sorry if I wasn't clear. But you're right, I don't find their playstyle to be particularly fun - I should certainly give them more chance. I think my main issue with DDs is trying to brawl other DDs on the cap (with mixed results) early game because I know that if I don't contest it entire team's going to slow-boat around the edge giving free victory points to the enemy all match. I think patience and counter-capping uncontested CPs late-game is probably a better path to victory, in retrospect, but again, not really my preferred playstyle given how much of a match gets decided in the first quarter.