fnord_disc

The 1/4 cal rule for the HE penetration is incredibly powerful and perhaps people will understand why, in time, even if I would waste my time explaining it.

Sigma is tied to specific gun and hull upgrades. Colorado's sigma changes with the hull upgrade and Fuso/Kongo have different sigmas even with the exact same guns.

H41 has the same turrets as H39 and turret armor is a turret design aspect. The 42cm guns on H41 were bored-out 40.6cm guns and the armor on them is also the same. I don't have the 48cm or 51cm gun turrets and I doubt there are designs for them. Of course, who knows what those Russian triples actually have. I only have the twins from T9/H39 and they're 385.

I'm not disputing you saying the fronts are weak and easily knocked out from there. I have the H class blueprints sitting around here and the turret faces are 385. Yamato has 650 and Montana has 572. But turning the turrets to the side? Pls.

You can play against another human 1v1 in the training room. They're not single player. And turret destruction has nothing to do with ship HP. The turrets have their own HP pool which is so small any two BB penetration hits will destroy them instantly. Maybe, but that picture proves nothing. Yamato has 600mm turret faces, but if you turn the side or rear, you'll get the same result as that retarded chink stuff there.

All ships get their turrets knocked out from two hits to the rear or side.

I agree with that. And this made worse by the lack of communication from WG with respect to the shooting mechanics in general because the game's documentation there is poor and WG rarely explains why they use certain values.

I know, I've read that report. You can absolutely argue that ingame accuracy is a compound value not strictly related to historical dispersion size but also all the elements of fire control like stabilization, range finding, control solution... But that's exactly the point. Saying the game "misrepresents" historical accuracy and precision is a little strange because it functions so very differently. The quality and height of a ship's rangefinders already influence the range in the game, so does that have to be included again when the dispersion size is determined? Do you see my point? Arguing the game misrepresents history is bizarre when the game doesn't really represent history in the first place.

That looks pretty balanced, but if German ships have bad citadels, someone else will pop up and explain the power of Germany's armor layout, of which the whole point was to not get hit in the citadel. Besides, your accuracy balancing is less historical than the one we have now. You give the least accurate guns to the Japanese, but the Japanese had a lack of radar fire control, not inaccurate guns. In fact, it is very likely that the Japanese, not the Germans, had the most accurate guns in World War II, just as the game depicts it. Accuracy of guns is not the same as quality of fire control. To this end, I quote from the after-action reports from the battle off Samar, 1944: USS Franks was the main target of IJN Haruna. USS Hailey was with USS Franks and observed the impacts. USS Haggard describes the same impacts. And finally I quote their commander, Admiral Sprague: This also tells you something else that's very important. Having accurate guns doesn't matter historically. Maybe it does in World of Warships, but historically it was a disadvantage to have extremely small pattern. Both very big and very small patterns are bad. To me it looks like you're trying to have your view of history implemented in the game, your vision of history, not how history was.

I don't think anybody is arguing that premium ships should be stronger than regular ships, neither in this thread nor in any other. I don't think anybody disputes that if a premium is stronger than regular ships, it is a balancing mistake. But a premium should still be similar in performance to the ships on its tier, and I'm also fine with a premium performing better than the weakest ships at its tier. They can always be simply buffed because they're regular ships. Some people like me only have a small amount of premium ships, and if I buy a premium ship, I want it to the a ship I really enjoy playing and which I think is competitive in a game. Of course I play it for the training and the money, but if I don't enjoy it, why even bother? I can just play Nagato ten times instead. There are a lot of premium tanks in WoT that I consider to be significantly underpowered and which I would never enjoy playing and would never buy. That people rush out to grab overpowered premiums is because we're all human. I don't want overpowered premiums in this game either, but why shouldn't I buy them if they appear?

They are, but you understand that not everyone was using premium ships there, right? MK and Atago, two ships widely seen as not really balanced, were common. But nobody important was using Tirpitzes and the destroyers weren't premiums either. Your logic is a little bizarre because it proves exactly what most people have been saying. A few may be too strong and too competitive, but most are fine.

I think WG learned with Atago how much of a boost that is, so it's unlikely to happen again. Even if it would be amazing. Radar is a distinct possibility imo, but we will see.

Yes, good luck actually being able to pay [edited]doubloons for it. Then I'm sure your conversion from the 100€ doubloon package will work. The code gives a price tag, but it doesn't mean the ship will be available with doubloons. It just means that if the ship is available without a bundle, it will be ~38€ from the base conversion of 10-2500. But thanks for the demonstration of 4th grade math skills.

Scharnhorst will be 9500 Gold => ~38€, as you can already see in the files.

If I defend the Flint now, will you remember me and help me defend the next OP premium I buy? Recruiting allies, bonus points if you have a twitter bot.

USN cruisers have by far the best cruiser AP in the game in terms of raw penetration (though Germans have better damage and arcs) with much better ricochet angles and generally 25% better penetration than similar shells. This really makes itself felt against angled cruisers. You can citadel 45° angled Myokos easily with USN cruisers and Myoko can't do the same to you. I'm not saying USN cruisers are amazing, but their AP shells have clear strengths that you can't deny.

Sieht aber noch ziemlich verbuggt aus. Das Schiff ist ja mal mindestens 1m zu hoch im Wasser. Warscheinlich hat WG eine zu niedrige Tonnage verwendet. Ausserdem hat die den 19 Pkt. Captain nur in China. Der chinesische Server macht, was er will. Würde ich bezweifeln, daß wir den auch kriegen.

How does one buy a ship that isn't even in the standard game client?

Secondaries Turret HP is the same as any other battleship, so the thicker armor ones are fine. There are no secondaries on any ship that don't get knocked out from AP eventually.

Aye, it is. That's completely true. Lol? Because WG make a lot of money from having boring American and German ships, their two biggest single-language markets outside RU? Dude. I'm not a big fan of the way WG is handling some game design decisions either, but it clearly is just plain wrong decisions and not a conspiracy. Are you saying: WG is making German ships weaker on purpose WG is making German ships less accurate on purpose ? Because the first is simply not true. German ships are not weaker than those of other nations and perform statistically average. Is it the second? That you think WG is making American and German ships inaccurate because of some conspiracy to deceive people on the internet into thinking German guns were bad WW2? If that's the case then this discussion is over and I will not respond again to your tin-foil hat insanity. I'd only like to add that right now it looks to me like you're the one with a political agenda here. Anyway, just for you, out of the greatness of my heart. It makes a lot of sense, actually. After all, what weakness would you pick? What woud you choose as the weakness of the German line? If WG makes German armor weak, people complain about muhwotanstahl If WG makes ships slow, they complain about muh 30kn If WG gives them bad AA, they complain slightly less If WG gives them low HP, people complain about muhgermanengineering So, bad AA. Okay. But that isn't going to cut it. Japanese-level accuracy with better armor than paper ships like Fuso, Kongo, Amagi? And still 25kn+ and armor at least as good? Where is the weakness? Design me a German ship. Any tier you like, give me ingame values, dispersion, dps, etc. I'm curious.

It is North Carolina. The writing says 北卡罗来纳级. Also re:those dispersions. I've said it before, but that dispersion is roughly the same as American ships and couple with the better sigma at most tiers, they will be slight more accurate. The accuracy on German ships will definitely not be as horrible as some people think, just not very good either.

I think that very few premium ships are truly P2W in WoWs. Most are fine. And I also think that premium tanks in WoT are too weak. A premium vehicle is mostly there to make credits, yes, but that also means I have to play it a lot. Really a lot. Premium vehicles should not be stronger than the average on their tier, but they should be interesting and fun to play. I don't see the point in torturing the player with a bad vehicle in the name of making credits. The most problematic balancing offenders are the ones where the premium was released before the line (MK, Gremy), but I don't think there is a problem with premiums that are competitive.

Kongo is a much better sniper than Fuso........................... Fuso is such a misunderstood ship, it's painful.

I play battleships and I don't have a problem with a ship based around armor, secondaries and speed. I would much rather have that than some boring 20km sniper ship. So, speak for yourself.

lol wikipedia