fnord_disc

Because this is not done outside of academic texts. Tokyo is transcribed Tokyo and not Toukyou or Tōkyō. Osaka. Etc. The only ones who use macrons are academics and nerds who think they could be academics.

Akitsuki would be a complete departure from IJN DD philosophy. You'd be getting an AA gunboat, flat arcs, range, RoF. Only a single quad torpedo launcher. The most reasonable solution is a branch-off at T8 and then back to SMKZ.

Well, they had a very peculiar view of what "superior" meant. I wouldn't really trust that word too much. Basically, they were willing to compromise in a lot of areas to be a few knots faster and have a few guns more (or larger ones) than other nations, and their cruiser designs were just overweight and poor seaboats. Take Ise/Fuso: they were longer and heavier than American ships to put more machinery in and have better hydrodynamics, but to keep that speed they had to use a thinner belt. Now, you can argue that Japan also didn't have the industrial capacity to produce steel thicker than 300mm, but heavier armor would also have made the ship as slow as standard types again, so the larger size would only have paid for an additional turret and nothing else, which really isn't an accomplishment. This idea further deteriorated when departures from the standard types are considered. Lexington was the contemporary of Amagi and had two barrels and 80mm of belt armor less, but was 3000 tons lighter and 3 knots faster. Kii was the same size as SoDak20 and had two barrels less and 50mm less belt than SoDak20 but was a blistering 6.75kn faster. What this illustrates is that for any given ship designers strove to outdo American ships in specific aspects and greatly compromised in other areas. That doesn't make them bad ships. But it leads to a motley fleet where each class is easily distinguishable from all the others because of its complete lack of standardization and uniformity. This is a hallmark of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The air arm had numerous wildly different aircraft carriers, with the Shokakus being the only class where two ships were actually built to the same specifications. All other carriers were either conversions, one-offs or heavily modified. I really like that scatterbrained design philosophy from a personal, not professional, point of view. It gives the different ships a lot of character and individuality.

Teams should be balanced. Perfectly! Not just by tier/ship type, but also by ability and playing style. The matchmaker should clone the player 23 times so they can play against 23 of their own clones. GIVE US FAIR MATCHMAKING WG!

You can kill destroyers in a battleship if you have experience playing destroyers. There aren't many things a destroyer can do to attack you. If you anticipate their movements, you can dodge their torpedoes, get close (7-8km) and shotgun them. Sometimes I get owned hard doing this, but usually it works.

Well, to be fair to the Japanese, the Fusos were their first locally designed battleship. Three of the four Kongos were built in Japan, but to a British design (modified HMS Tiger), so the Fusos were the first entirely Japanese class. In fact, I think it's a testament to the willingness to learn of their designers that it only took them a few years to weed out all those endless problems for the Ise and Nagato classes, and it is not generally questioned that Amagi/Tosa/Kii/#13 would have been good ships. Ships with unusual priorities perhaps, but certainly not bad.

Yes, stability is something else entirely. And I'm not sure the Fusos were unstable. The Japanese cruisers were all known for their lack of stability, but frankly I haven't really seen much stability complaints about the Japanese battleships despite their absurd superstructure. The pagoda masts were basically unarmored and most of the additional weight that was added during the reconstructions came in the form of bulges and armor, which improved metacentric height, not made it worse. I never thought of the Fusos as particularly unstable, just bad in a lot of other ways.

"Fuso bled an unusually large amount of speed in hard turns during her sea trials and the blast from main battery fire damaged parts of the superstructure. [...] When the third turret was fired 55° to starboard at 5° elevation or the first turret 135° to port at 20° the blast was strong enough [note: probably due to constructive interference at the superstructure] to rip hats and notebooks off personnel in the forward fire control director and hinder their work. Similar but less extreme problems were reported with the second turret at similar angles. When broadsides of all 12" and 6" guns were fired, the shock was so great that all rangefinders were inoperable. [...]" From here. Sources: 「丸 2013年8月号」 『戦闘射撃 1(6)』 From the same article in various places: "Little damage control equipment was fitted; for example, the main turrets had no sprinkler system." "Smoke from the smokestacks was so intense it entered the forward fire control director when the wind blew from aft. Fitting caps proved ineffective." "Rudder equipment was completely unprotected against shellfire." From here: "Rudder equipment was insufficient and the hull shape was flawed. Seaworthiness was the worst out of all Japanese capital ships and even holding a straight course was difficult. When the rudder was brought hard over at full speed, the ship crawled to a stop at around 180° during its turn." The best book on the Fusos and their design is Battleship Fuso by Janusz Skulski. It's an amazing and very balanced book but also quite expensive. I don't have access to it right now, otherwise I would cite from it. If you see it for an affordable price somewhere, I recommend it. The other two books by the same author on Yamato and Takao are as good or better, especially Takao, and they should be cheaper.

The Fusos had a lot more problems than stability and even very sympathetic Japanese sources consider them gravely flawed designs. Hell, even historically they were considered design failures. Originally four Fusos were planned, but the last two were never approved and redesigned as the two Ises to cure them of the worst issues. I don't really know that much about the Colorado. We can talk about Fuso's/Yamashiro's relative merits if you want. They are interesting designs to analyze.

As far as I know, only the destroyers had their name written on the side. I don't remember seeing that on larger ships. As far as I'm aware, cruisers were distinguished by rings on the funnel, but don't ask me whether they put marks on battleships.

Philosophical question: can an AI bot somehow not be an aimbot?

I agree that Germany is a poor choice for a line with a high skill requirement, but I honestly don't believe that every single ship/tank/whatever in a game has to be balanced. If the ship is fun then players will like her despite the flaws. The problem with the low tiers is not that they're bad, it's that they're bad and not fun. Different playstyles and strategies lead to different results and in theory there is nothing wrong with having ships that only fit a narrow profile. Should Germany have been the nation to get such exotic treatment? No. But with the AP buff, the higher tiers are competitive in my opinion, if you play them right. It's like Nagato. Played right, she is fine.

Well, I don't test anything nowadays. I'm just a normal player now. Ask the supertesters.

No, but it's not a big problem either. The lower tiers in WoT are also not exactly balanced, but it doesn't really affect the games much one way or another. It's the same here. Sure, T2-4 sucks. But those tiers are not a particularly harsh environment and you can still get decent results in a bad ship and advance up the line to ships that are less bad. Of course this isn't good. But does it break the line? No.

What I meant was: with flags, decent results and daily bonus, you only have to play 5-10 games in the lower tiers per ship before you get to Kberg, which is a decent ship. Surely you can play 5-10 games even in a bad ship to grind the line. Ask people how they grinded through Izumo to Yamato if you want to see things in perspective.

Dunno, with the AP buff the German ships look competitive to me. Difficult to play, but competitive. Lower tiers are bad, sure, but who plays those?

The German fire control system is called "FKS [other stuff]". I'm assuming that when this was translated from the Russian or the English, "fire control system" was taken and literally translate to Feuerkontrollsystem. This is not the correct German translation, which should be Feuerleitsystem or Feuerleitanlage. Basically, the K has to be replaced with an L.

If you just ignore any post with a smiley, emoticon, picture or video in it, this thread is actually really reasonable and intelligent. It's also a three-minute read, but hey!

Well, being sunk and losing all your HP in WoWs is not the same. The loss of all your HP represents the loss of combat capability, like it says. Many heavy cruisers in real life were rendered unfit for combat by a single battleship salvo or torpedo, so it's entirely realistic. Also, the number of shells it takes to sink someone doesn't say much about the resilience of the ship unless you look at the circumstances. 12 shell hits don't necessarily make a ship sink faster than 1 shell hit. Unless you look at the damage control reports and the flooding progression, it means nothing. Maybe the first shell hit would have sunk the Zaras, but sinking takes a certain amount of flooding and before the Zaras could flood, they were hit again. Eating ten more shells when you're doomed anyway doesn't make the ship more "resilient". I mean this in a hypothetical way. I don't know what the first shell hits did to the Zaras. I'm just saying that claiming they "needed 20 battleship hits" is misleading when they were hit so quickly they never had a chance to actually sink first.

The penetration performance is better than most other nations' even after the velocity was reduced. The only guns that were indisputably better were the American super heavy 20.3 and German SK/C (and this gun was much bigger). Japanese, French and British guns all had lower penetration, but the Italian guns had horrible dispersion. There is a certain lower limit for useful dispersion, of course. Generally speaking, it makes no sense to have guns that are more accurate than the fire control equipment; in fact, it is beneficial to have a certain amount of dispersion so that fire control errors don't make the whole salvo miss. It was often commented on during the war that Japanese cruiser performance was somewhat unreliable because their dispersion was so low. If the fire control system performed well and the weather was good, they had amazing hit rates. If the fire control system had problems giving good solutions, then they often missed horribly.

Wehraboos are just the worst people alive.

I played it with Taiho plenty of times in CBT. Yes, you die miserably sometimes. But not always, not nearly always.

Some of my best carrier games have been on Hotspot with cross-spawn...

Stop closing your eyes to the fact that you're simply a bad player and that because you do badly, you get low XP.

FloRead, on 16 October 2015 - 03:49 PM, said: Nevermind that the T4-8 IJN carriers will now benefit from an accuracy buff that will make them overperform even more and attract the dev's attention for another overreaction? I see a nerf there, not a buff. Who cares about dive bombers if the torpedo bombers get nerfed?