fnord_disc

Theoretically this is true, but all ships currently in the game decrease linearly to the same horizontal dispersion at 10km. It could be different for Dunkerque, of course.

Almost no skill is wasted on Nagato, except maybe the torpedo skills. Isn't the question whether it's better than the alternatives? I think BoS is better than BFT, but your mileage may vary.

You need a level four skill to unlock level five, so there is no reason not to have AFT. It's by far the best T4 skill for Nagato.

One is a T4 skill the other T5. Not sure how it's an either or question.

7% lower dispersion increases total damage per game more than the secondaries upgrade. I love the secondaries and have the Manual Secondaries skill on my Nagato, but you still do a lot more damage with the main guns than the secondaries.

correct, but they were fixed and couldnt turn and no fixed torps are implemented on any ship in the game whatsoever.

There is no limit and if you aim well, you will get 100% citadel penetrations. I advise you to check where the citadel hitbox actually is.

I'll be honest with you, these kinds of tests are completely useless. Just recording a large number of shell hits from long range tells you... what exactly? There is no randomization in the damage calculation. Getting the same damage several times in a row is normal. "the actual chance to hit with the main guns"...? What does this mean? Do you think the game rolls a dice and says, welp, it's a 1 so the salvo goes into the bushes? Every shell receives a physical trajectory that will take it into some dispersion ellipsis and then the shell trajectory is checked for collision with hitboxes and armor plates. For me to answer this question, I would have to know: The range The length and width of the target Both accuracy parameters for the main guns Then you can overlay the target hitbox into the dispersion ellipsis and calculate ship_size/ellipsis_area, although you would have to also: Weigh ellipsis_area by the normal distribution curve Consider angle of impact - the non-zero height of the target causes it to cast a hitbox "shadow" with everything that sticks out above the water All this can be calculated and it isn't even very difficult in my opinion, but you have strange notions how this game works.

I wrote a post a long time ago at the end of CBT about map meta and nobody paid attention to it. Basically, the problem is already that the maps have pure reflectional symmetry and never rotational. Map design has been poor from the very beginning in WoWs and it has never improved at all.

Yeah. Imo the low tiers are cancerous and the high tiers need a zen-like mentality. So I enjoy T7 and the tiers you meet from there the most.

Two skilled carriers working together are guaranteed to kill one enemy of their own tier or lower per sortie except maybe Yamato and Montana. Being guaranteed to kill at least half the enemy team is unacceptably powerful in my opinion and would give them win rates over 80%.

Because people in the higher tiers are more focussed on winning, know the game better and want to survive as long as possible, even if it means playing more passively. I don't think the meta is very different at the higher tiers and I don't think the game is more punishing by design. I just think the players are better and punish your mistakes more harshly. There is no doubt the higher tiers are more punishing, but just not by design. Encounter distances increase because, for example, sigma increases. Sigma determines the dispersion depth and only makes a difference at longer ranges. That phenomenon of a salvo landing on both sides of the ship and your lead was perfect is a result of poor sigma, and higher-tier ships have much better distance accuracy and can hit those shots. Also, ships are much less maneuverable and it's easier to predict their movements, so the ranges at which you can realistically shoot go up. But the characteristics of the game, the things that are bad and good, don't change. Why do people go bow on and reverse? This is essentially a survival and delaying tactic. You can't do it in lower tiers because the people around you will die long before you do and then you will die too, bow-on or not. There is no advantage to doing it because it relies on your team not evaporating around you and the enemy going closer and killing you. If the players in lower tiers were better and wouldn't get nuked, then bow-on would be just as viable at whittling down the enemy. The only argument I can see being made is that higher-tier ships have more guns in front compared to their total number of guns. Ships like Fuso would sacrifice much more of their firepower with bow-on than a Yamato does, and I think this makes a difference. But I think the bigger difference is that battles in lower tiers are so much more chaotic due to the unpolished skill of the players there. You can never be sure whether the flank you're on isn't just going to disappear in two minutes just because the players are horrible, so doing a bow-on maneuver there would be suicide.

Are you implying the meta for Nagato is brawling at torp-spam range? Because it really isn't. Nagato can do it, yeah. She's good at it. The agility is impressive and it has nice secondaries. But if you could choose the ranges at which to fight, you wouldn't pick 5 kilometers. You'd pick 10-12km. 900/770 => Yamato has to travel 17% more distance in its turn. Yamato is also 27/25=8% faster. You really think a 10% time increase affects the meta a lot? This is a pretty marginal difference. And even if it was 50% longer - it's already easy to hit people in a turn at T5, so obviously it's easy to do it in T7 or T10. None of this changes the meta. Showing broadside is in meta terms just as bad in the lower tiers, but most people neither care nor exploit it. You can show broadside in turns at T5 because nobody will be aimed at you waiting to turn, not because it isn't deadly. "Meta" does not mean "things people do". It means "things that you have to do or not do to win".

What does that have to do with the meta? Ship torpedoes have longer reaction times and do less damage due to the silly TD at TX. That's absolutely true. The lack of aircraft carriers skews the balance. But there's camping in the lower tiers too, just less of it. The reason people camp less there is not the presence of CVs, it's that people are less afraid of getting nuked. I agree that the lack of aircraft carriers in the high tiers amplifies a certain playstyle, but the same playstyle is rewarded regardless. The reason lower tiers feel so different is not because the meta is completely different, it's because people don't play according to the meta.

The meta is the same at high tiers in both games. It's just that more people give a damn in the higher tiers. All the mechanics that make high tiers slow and campy are technically in the middle and lower tiers as well, but most people don't know or care that they could get nuked to the moon. I can't think of a single part of the meta that isn't more or less the same at the lower tiers too.

That's good, but it's not impressive. I'm surprised at those values because the dispersion looked better than that in the video. It's basically American dispersion in slightly better due to the sigma, but still nowhere close to Japanese dispersion.

The opposite is true: damage and penetration are more deadly at the lower tiers. Some examples: T5 Kongo broadside damage is 8x10200=81600 T10 Yamato broadside damage is 9x14800=133200 81600/54100=1.508 => Kongo broadside deals 151% of its own health pool as damage 133200/97200=1.370 => Yamato broadside deals 137% of its own health pool as damage It's true that higher tiers tend to have slightly better penetration relative to the armor at that tier and tend to have slightly better dispersion, but since ranges are longer, this doesn't make much of a difference. In fact, when the longer ranges are taken into account, I think that penetration relative to tier is worse in T10 too. Cruisers have similar HP pools relative to battleship shell damage when you compared T5 and T10. Furutaka needs about 3 citadels to die and Des Moines needs 3.5. Only Zao has very low HP. But T10 cruisers also get the self heal, so... If you compare torpedo damage and HP pools, T10 is much, much lower. A Minekaze torpedo is ~14k damage and even Shima doesn't get above 23k? or something like that. But at lower tiers, nobody has torpedo protection and around two Minekaze torpedoes will sink a cruiser. Shima will not sink any cruiser with two torpedoes ever, and Shima's torpedoes reload much slower. Honestly, I think it's the lower tiers that are much less forgiving. It's just that people can't play the game properly there.

The lower tiers just feel more forgiving because they have more bad players. The game mechanics are the same. If you're a good player, you can delete bad players no matter the tier they're on.

The game is free to play. You can pay whatever you want. Nothing if you want. That's the whole point of this business model.

A single hit or a single salvo? You understand that the game shows you salvo damage and not shell damage, right? If an enemy shoots at you with AP and gets 3x penetration hits for 4000 damage each (12000 citadel damage), then the game will tell you the enemy did 12000 damage. But it's not a citadel hit.

It's basically the same height as the old WW1 funnels.

That Bayern hull looks fine...

lol thats better than some cruisers