fnord_disc

I can't judge from the stats I see whether the HE will be better than the AP. I have to test it in the training room because the damage model is too opaque for me to estimate it without tests But the jump from 1/6 to 1/4 is very significant and greatly buffs the HE shell damage. Whether it's enough to outclass the AP - I don't know. edit: One of the main things I can't really tell is how often the HE shell will splash through the citadel roof into the citadel on cruisers and whether these still count as citadels (they should). This would make a pretty big difference against cruiser at short range because you could just blast their upper belt, above the citadel where it's thin, and the splash through the citadel roof to get 4-6 HE citadel hits. Hitting citadels at very short range can be tricky with AP unless you hit the barbettes.

A full answer? To this silly-[edited]topic?

Usually in the US, the location of the seller is important, not the buyer. So if the state that Amazon ships from has no sales tax, they don't post it and don't pay it, even if the buyer's location has sales tax. There are some states that still require Amazon to add a sales tax later, but it's not the majority.

Yes, because that's not the whole story for AP. Even if the fuse is trigger, the shell can pass out the other end of the ship before it explodes and still overpen even if the fuse is triggered. That's why there is a fuse_delay variable in the code. To test this wild hypothesis, shoot a DD flat on, 90°. It will all overpen. Now angle the DD 60°+. You will get penetration hits for 33% because there is a longer line through the DD and the fuse has enough time to detonate the shell. Make sure you use a DD where this isn't caused by fused/not-fused due to angled armor though or you have the same effect for a different reason. Also, HE can splash into the citadel even if the citadel is below the waterline. You can't do that with AP. edit: On the other hand, you can get underwater penetration and overpenetration hits from AP and HE will explode on the surface, so I guess there's that.

In my opinion the dangers of large air groups are their damage potential against targets that don't manage to shoot down a whole lot of them quickly or manage to maneuver. This is different from Saipan because Saipan can only ever hit you with 3+3 torpedoes anyway, but if Akagi has 6+6 torpedoes or Yorktown 8, you have to balance the spread size really carefully or we have the situation from the beta again where people get blasted to the moon. I mean, I really, really want a Japanese premium carrier, and this suggestion is good in my book. But it's also riskier than the Saipan variant imo. Otherwise, as far as unique premium mechanics are concerned: Different ammunition (JP dropping AP shells for instance like during Pearl Harbor) Special airplane variants or "veteran" squadrons with different stats

The upgraded hull has better accuracy on Colorado. Not as good as Nagato, but better than stock.

Except for the turrets that's pretty mighty armor tho.

Cool, let me know if you want me to help.

Hey, can I request a historical skin for the manga Myokos? There's a no-manga mod but I would prefer to have something with a bit of paint on instead of the standard Myoko. I'll help you with digging up camo schemes if you're interested.

The perpetually offended are back.

(*1) They are talking about dispersion, not about doctrine. The USN report on JP fire control only concerns itself with technical details like their dispersion reduction equipment. It does not talk about doctrine at any point in the report. Please read it again. Also, in English, the word fire control is normally reserved for the technical side only, not doctrine. Shell grouping is the same as dispersion - these are synonyms. Seriously, please read the report again. It never talks about doctrine. (*2) They trialled their own ships extensively, but yes, they never trialled others. But they did review the technology used, which apparently was enough for them. That said, they did take out Eugen's passive sonar and trialled it separately, so I guess they were interested in some things. (*3) Seitenvorzündwerk is not RPC. Höhenfernsteuerung is RPC for elevation and Seitenvorzündwerk is an automated firing circuit once the turret is aligned towards the correct deflection. Please read your books again what SVZ does exactly. It does not turn the turret automatically in the way HFS elevates the guns, it only fires the guns once they have the correct deflection. It has been argued that this was superior to full RPC in terms of the German doctrine, but I don't buy it. You can try convincing me if you want.

Zao AP Pen. Should be pretty accurate, so Montana citadel is only penetrated at ~4km. Give or take a few hundred meters.

I think the problem is that a lot of people don't understand the power of Hydro anyway. Hydro is really useless unless the player is also pretty good and pays attention to the ships he can see and can't see. You need a pretty good idea of where unspotted enemies are to get the most out of your Hydro, and the same isn't really true with radar, for example. The skill level necessary for radar is lower. I see German cruisers with Defensive Fire so often... the power of Hydro is really not appreciated by the majority of players. It requires a lot of positional intelligence to be effective.

The secondaries are amazing and at short ranges where hydro works, they will shred everything and you will not get torped. And you won't miss with your guns at 5-10 kilometers, whatever the dispersion. The hydro lets you engage torpedo ships at such short range and almost always win. That's the point. You don't really understand the strengths of the ship, apparently. You can use HE or AP, it doesn't matter. It's enough for cruisers.

With no other changes this would make the T8-10 ships very funny battleships. Incredibly strong against cruisers and destroyers, subpar against other battleships. Hydro makes them such beautiful ships.

That will be so cool with Hydro. So. Cool.

Yes, this answer is correct. But it's not important which sphere the shell is in because those are smooth transitions. More height -> less density. Gravity at height is also lower, but that effect is negligible compared to the drop in air density.

Disclaimer: this isn't actually how you win as a destroyer. Don't imitate it.

It is academic, of course. But it still illustrates that the "BBs will win against DDs" crowd can't be right. Besides, who's tying up whom here? If the destroyer has stealth torps, then the BB has to do a lot of maneuvers all the time to survive for ten hours and probably can't really do much else. So it seems to me like it's the other way around and the destroyer ties up the battleship.

A competent destroyer player will always win against a battleship. It might take ten hours, but they will always win. The only exception I could see is with a destroyer that can neither invisi-fire nor stealth torp, but there aren't many like that.

Dunno, I kind of agree that balancing isn't a reason for fantasy stock hulls. After all, what does it matter how weak and underpowered the stock hull is? People are managing with Fuso and that ship is painful stock. Balancing is king for the top hull, but stock? At least that's what I think.

Yorck: 5rpm*2900dmg*8barrels = 116k Fubuki: 6.7*2100*6 = 84.4k

T7 is the sweet spot for me, hands down.

The USN report explicitly states that the Japanese groupings were unusually tight. They would not have commented on that if American ships at the time had had the same dispersion. They also use this dispersion as an argument for why Japanese gunnery was almost on par with the allies, and they couldn't have done that if the Allies had had the same dispersion patterns. At the very least American guns historically had more dispersion than Japanese. This report was made after the war and the USN had American, British and captured German equipment to compare if they wanted. The bold part: No. German ships didn't even have remote power control for bearing angle, only for elevation. To say it was the most automated of the war is wrong. Did the lack of RPC for bearing affect accuracy much, though? No, not really... The part in italics: Hm, yes, that is probably true. But that's your own definition of what the game should represent from the complexities of gunnery. What's to stop WG from ignoring all fire control because you, the player, you are the fire control and the firing doctrine. If that's WG's logic then the only thing that matters for ingame dispersion is historical dispersion, nothing else. That logic is just as valid as yours.

I have 150k from just playing, unconverted. I could convert about a million from various ships if I wanted to.