fnord_disc

Fuso facerolls T4 ships if you play well simply because of the astonishing amount of damage you pump out. She scales less well against T8 because of the subpar agility and mediocre armor. Especially T8 carriers are very painful because you have bad AA and your agility is not good enough to dodge them long enough to shoot anything down. THIS.

If you played the ARP Kongo clones and liked them, you will like... basically all Japanese battleships Kongo and higher. They all play differently, but if you liked Kongo, then I don't see how you will hate any of them. Some people hate Nagato because they can't aim and need the 12-shot broadside of Fuso to roll them a random citadel here and there. Just don't be one of those people.

Don't listen to him. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Nagato is very good if you can aim well. The dispersion patterns are some of the best in the game (for battleships).

Stock Fuso is horrible - one of the worst stock ships in the whole game. Top Fuso is very good. The armor is kind of weak, but not as weak as Kongo. Fuso generally does well as a midrange (~13-15km) sniper because she has good accuracy and a heavy broadside with nice reload. Except for the T3/4 ships the entire IJN BB tree is very strong, but they all play quite differently from each other. It's hard to generalize.

The exact role of a producer varies from project to project, but in most games the producer also has a say in (broad) design decisions. In TV shows and movies producers are also often more involved than you would think. Being a producer isn't just pencil pushing.

The game needs bigger and more historically important navies first.

Unique Camo is very buggy and half the camos it applies should be for other ships.

I considered this and that's why the plots all have two curves. One including the impact angle and one without. The point is that the first jump is smaller than the second. Draw this on paper and try to fit a curve into them and youll see what I mean.

You have bad teammates. Enemy doesn't. I smell a conspiracy. A conspirow72cy.

How can your average damage go down if you say that the enemies are worse on the weekends?

I didn't read the entire OP. All I wanted to address is the RNG thing. Randomness and competitive play have nothing to do with each other. If a game with a large amount of randomization can't be competitive, what about poker? Blackjack? Are these less competitive than Chess and Go? A large amount of randomization moves the skillset for the player away from prediction and towards more fluid judgments. A Blackjack player might count the cards to weigh risks, a poker player might either try to look for cues or estimate chances as well. The point is that randomization alone has nothing to do with how competitive a game can be.

Well, that's 750mm effective, so at my curves you'd have to be at 150m to penetrate that. Don't think your personal experience contradicts my curves.

Submarines will not work in this game and any attempt to gainsay that is futile.

Nobody is going to win and that's the point. The carrier can't attack the sub. The sub can't catch the carrier.

No we don't. The DD wins this because he is fast. The sub is not faster.

So what happens if the game has a submarine left and an aircraft carrier? Carrier is like twice as fast. But can't do anything about the sub. Epic boredom ensues.

I'm pretty sure that WG made a mistake in the North Carolina video. Until medium ranges, penetration curves are always decay curves before gravity really kicks in at long range, so the data that WG put into the North Carolina video shouldn't exist. The shell loses 59mm from 5-10k, but 84mm from 10-15k. That shouldn't happen. The laws of physics dictate that at these fairly mundane distances, the second jump loses less penetration than the first. I will proceed on the assumption that WG made a mistake with the 5km point. So if a dev reads this, maybe they want to investigate the NoCar video.

Thanks. I'm not sure about this because the krupp variable in the game's code is in the range historically used for the krupp constant in Krupp formulas, ~2400. My personal theory is that Lesta originally wanted to use the Krupp formula, but was unhappy with the values it produced, so they switched to the USN Empirical. But they missed the ability to balance shells with an empirical constant that they could change however they wanted, so they said, okay, let's just divide krupp by the average krupp ~2400 and scale all the shells. If you wanted to use krupp to determine penetration loss from normalization, how would you do it mathematically? Do you have an idea? Thanks, I had Arizona already. New Orleans done: http://i.imgur.com/wZeT9oL.png (rho=0.8, source: Armada) North Carolina (sort of) done: http://i.imgur.com/J4sWi4J.png (rho=0.8, source: Armada) RichardNixon, your muzzle velocity for NO has a typo. NO looks great, North Carolina needs investigation.

There's nothing wrong with Frederick for T10. Nothing.

Imo Bayern will be a very fun ship. 13.5 detectability, good sigma, turns like New Mexico, good AA, good armor, pretty fast, decent guns, LOTS of 5km secondaries. I'm going to love Bayern.

Dunkerque has better reload, better penetration and better accuracy. So I don't think the guns are the problem on Dunkerque. Also very fast. What I think is a problem is the terrible armor and extremely high concealment. This will be a difficult ship.

These curves were made with MATLAB because I need to calculate the ballistic arcs too for impact angle and impact velocity. Excel would be absolutely horrible for that and I'd have to resort to really dumb macros. Also, I hate Excel / OpenOffice. De Marre is only a comparative equation - it relates penetration 1 of shell 1 to penetration 2 of shell 2. It would be very inelegant to use such a formula in WoWs as it would require Lesta to define some kind of ideal reference shell which everything is scaled from. This seems to me very silly when you have all the information that you need in the ballistic arcs you calculate anyway. Also, De Marre is known to be extremely unreliable when two shells of very different characteristics are compared, such as one small shell and one large shell. It can produce very outlandish values sometimes. Essentially, Lesta would have to create multiple reference shells for different weight classes and I just cannot imagine someone in their right mind would do that. edit: Kongo tests were repeated. Second test run produced higher-range penetrations. http://i.imgur.com/e9fHO57.png http://i.imgur.com/wcCv2gG.png Ranges above 10.7 consistently produced large amounts of bounces on the main belt, but this test might still be wrong. It's extremely hard to test battleships correctly with their awful dispersion and I won't test any 40.6cm guns from now, only guns smaller than 35.6cm. Next group of tests will be using the smaller shells on German battleships. In any case, I consider this corroborating evidence and in my opinion this all but proves that I have the correct formula nailed down.

The historical citadel roof for H41 was 150mm behind the 300mm belt. By the way, that's a thinner belt than Bismarck with much thicker citadel roof. So what applies to Tirpitz will apply to GKF. Breyer gives the bow as unarmored, so unless the armor model has been mined, I wouldn't count on bouncing Yamato frontally.

Strasbourg T7 and Richelieu T8.