LastButterfly

It didn't work the second time because WG chickened out at the last minute and added a generic boring configuration.

Comme tout cuirassé en ABXY avec des doubles qui superfire. Je suis plus questionné par le TDS qui descend à 36% parce que Wargaming.

Un AX avec des quadruples c'est au final similaire à un ABXY avec des doubles en superfiring... donc cuirassé classique hein. C'est marrant btw le TDS tombe à 36%

Suspecté ? Je prenais ça comme une évidence.

1. Qu'est ce que t'en sais ? Tu le connais personellement ? 2. C'est pas une excuse. Jeune ou pas, un action de la sorte doit avoir des conséquences.

Firstly : How do you know he knew the issue ? He may have never noticed. And it's not like there's a big "plz dont spam post button" on the front page of the forum. WG's not exactly advertising the issue. So you have no right to assume everyone knows. And secondly : ... just no. You're the type to blame the customer for no being satisfyied by the meager service you provide, right ? That's not how it works. He is right. It's not that the forum has some problems, to which users should adapt to. No. If there's a problem... it's WG's fault. Not the user. You can't blame users for the fact that the tool they use is dysfunctional. Just imagine, you have a computer, but the keyboard is a bit buggy, for it to register the key input, you have to hold the key down three seconds. And it would be the users' fault for not being patient enough, right ? By the way, the thing I did with the keyboard is called an analogy. It's the use of tangible example to make a point clearer when someone has difficulties understand the sole theory.

You don't blame the customer. The customer's right. Ths technical issue of double and triple posts have existed for ages. You'd think they'd have fixed it by now.

Très mauvaise manière de raisonner en période de solde... C'est pas "9€ par navire". C'est 875 ou rien.

"longue"

I'm curious. Were did you find two quadruple tubes on Holland ? She was, after all, known for being... the very first European destroyer completed without anti-ship torpedoes... right ? When you say hypothetical, you mean they weren't drawn back then before WWII, right ? Additionally, what's Mackensen doing in a Dutch tree ? Did they plan to buy some ?

Sorry, random duplicate post thanks to awesomely coded forum.

I compared standard displacement to standard displacements. Sure, Soldati had 2500t full displacement. But compared to foreign full displacement of DDs of the same year or so, she still ends up on the low side and I'd even say, amongst the lowest. And Soldati was amongst the heaviest DD in Italy. I didn't consider CMO because I thought we'd only compare actual ships that sailed, not designs. Although I'd be once again delighted to discuss designs, they can't be judged the same way, so I think we should ignore them. Sure, Italians had the intention of building larger DDs. But : they did not. To make things clear, I consider Royal Navy DDs to be the worst just after the Italians xD Sure, maybe some RN DDs had similar artillery power as Italian ones. But RN DDs weren't known for their artillery power... at all. And even tho, it doesn't make any less true the fact that Italian destroyers had nigh the smallest number of guns of any destroyers built at the time (5 and 6 were more common, 3 was very rare in the late 30s). OF course, good guns could compensate, but their guns weren't good either. I was damn sure I had read something about 1.8kg bursting charge but I can't find it again. Therefore, I take it back until I'm able to provide a correct source. You can have my apologies. About the RoF not looking bad, I'm afraid I have to ask you to look again. I think it was around 6 round per minute. By 1939, late japanese destroyers, which weren't known for their RoF, could confortably maintain about 8rpm for a good while. British destroyers reached 7 to 10, some later classes higher. Many German, American, and the Akizuki class exceeded 15rpm and could go as high as 20. Even the older russian guns didn't go anywhere below 6 and more commonly shot faster. So yeah, some DDs could, in their bad days, shot at the same rate as Italians. But none shot any slower and most shot much faster. Their RoF was amongst the worst. Only old French guns from 1923 shot definitely slower, and later French guns, from post-1927, shot faster. I apologize again. I never got around learning exactly in which conditions the trials were made. All nations cheated anyway. About the top speed tho, they started correcting the issue that hampered it after the MAestrale class and then retrofitted some older classes like Navigatori. But all non-corrected DD class had troubles reaching 30kn as a top speed. It's indeed enough to sail besides a battleship, but it's a top speed, not a cruiser speed, and besides, I don't think any foreign DD of the era had a lower top speed. 30kn is good enough - barely - for escort, but for nothing else. Correct - though that of the RM were particularly unstable, but that's more of a point of view. However, it's not because others had the same flaw that the flaw was any less problematic xD They had decent explosives, but in a lower amount than any other torpedo of the time. The amount of explosive matters. Having less means less damage and thus less chance for the damage made to be critical. Though difficult to quantify, because the quantity doesn't relate linearly to the power of the explosion, it's nonetheless a fact. But Italian toprs were more than decent anywa. That's just a funny point I wanted to note.

I'd take russian destroyers only as a proof that Italian designers weren't trash. But they had the wrong priorities and weren't excellent either. At the time of their release, the Soldati were amongst the lighter and smaller destroyers in major navies, especially Europe. That's one thing. Italy never had bigger vessels than 1600t classes. The British were building up to 1800t by the time, German reached 2000t, French had long exceeded that. So it's difficult to say to what should we compare them ? But we can get facts without comparison, just with raw knowledge. For me, i can think of Italian two main flaws. -Main guns, which were in low number (4 on most classes, 5 or 6 only on Maestrale, late Soldati, and Navigatori). Besides that, there guns were also rather inefficient : while having slightly better penetration thanks to higher muzzle velocity (which on a destroyer hardly matters much), they had terrible rates of fire and lifespan with shells having mild destructive power at most. -Engine. Because italian engines were good, but bad. Their super- high speed is often discussed, with claims like they tested the speed before construction was finished (all countries cheated in their own way tho). But besides that, structural and stability problems prevented the engine to do its work, resulting in very low practical speed. They started correcting them on later classes and the Navigatori but too late and not enough. Their torps are noteworthy for good speed and reliability but low power. It's not a flaw but more of a choice, I kinda like it so I mentionned it.

I guess the analogy can be correct in some ways. But then again it depends on when in WWII. Are you talking of the fleets in 1939, or 1943 ? Technology changes a LOT during war years.

If it's to out of topic for ya I'd be more than glad to discuss it in PM =3

I'd say ex aqueo. France had more tons. Italy more vessels. They were separated by such a narrow marging we could totally say their fleet were arguably the same size. I'd argue how that way or reasonning based on capital is stupid, but I'm much more curious to know onw which basis German capital ships outclassed most Italian ones. Seriously. Italian destroyers were trash beyond measures. Probably the worst or close to the worst by the time. But on European standards they had awesome cruisers and excellent battleships.

You guys are lucky to even have people to play Danmaku!! with. I have tested and, sadly, I must confess it's not a very great game to play when alone. I have no friends into this stuff. On another note, I'm curious @El2aZeR, where did you get the Fantasy Maiden War games ? I remember playing the first one a while back, but the others, I could never even find them. I've pretty much given up on playing them in english by now, but I'd still like to give it a try (even tho it must be less enjoyable) in original language. Could you tell me, if you know, where I could lay my hands on them ?

It strangely reminds me of Ferdinando Cassone. They have nothing alike... appart from being ultra-large battleships designs from the 191X with a totally unrealistic speed for such design for the time. Naval engineers were pretty much all drunk in the 191X. The collection of the stupidest most unrealistic designs come mostly from this era. Wasn't Incomparable from 1915 ? And the Tillman Battleships, too.

These are invented, what-if designs, right ? I didn't find any source material for Dutch heavies like that even after lengthy researches. Even in a regular line, I'm pretty confident you could totally squeeze Kijkduin at tier VIII. Then again, it all depends on which plan you choose. The original Kruiser 1938, the war-modified Eendracht design, the german KH2 refit, or the post-war De Zeven Provinciën actual ship ?

Which means that dozens of classes from about every navy (excepted maybe America which maybe doesn't have a full dozen) could go faster than her. Fastest British doesn't mean fastest of WWII and being amongst the "100 fastest" classes doesn't make you amongst "the fastest". Appart from that, mines, yes, why not. A couple of countries have high-speed mine-layers or converted ships that could form a mine layer group, or had mines on regular vessels. Of course, it'll never get implemented cause tomatoes will die on mines then rage hard and WG will either nerf them to death or remove them. But it'd be awesome to have this strategical possibility.

I hear the current president in France wants to bring it back. Thanks gosh if it happens by that time I'll be 21 and thus officially out of age range. And if that's not enough I'll just have my engineering stage in a foreign country. Like, say... Australia. Or Luxemburg. Something like that. Not that I'm scared, I'm just not really good at... following orders like a brave little dog. Also PCMasterRace

Bah quoi. C'est un jeu de bateaux. Et la mer, bah, c'est salé.

Vous vous gourrez tous dans l'analyse des CL IJN. C'était des gros DD, leur point fort c'était les torpilles, pas l'armure ou les canons. BIen sûr qu'Agano pourrait être TVIII, hell, TIX, si on lui donne des torp OP. Mais ça WG le fera jamais donc effectivement ces croiseurs n'ont plus de raison d'être.

"Constructif", c'est pas "positif". La plupart du temps les commentaires constructifs sont négatifs. Quand vous postez un article en public, et une idée de projet, attendez vous à des retours négatifs et je dirais même, espérez les. Mais vous plaindre tout tout commentaire qui ne dit pas "oh mon dieu vous êtes magnifique votre article est magnifique votre idée est magnifique" c'est stupide et ça ne mérite pas considération. Si vous sentez que vous allez pleurer dès qu'on fait une remarque négative ne postez pas en public. Gardez ça dans un évènement interne, point. Certes, les commentaires négatifs sont parfois - voir dans ce genre de communauté, assez souvent - teinté d'une touche délicate d'acidité et d'agressivité. Mais si vous avez pas envie de les recevoir et de les traiter posément, poster quand même et s'en plaindre ne fera que vous rendre ridicule. Quant à Storm, c'est pas forcément un mec que j'aime, il fait des erreurs, et effectivement je trouve la traduction du wiki nulle à [edited] mais pour en avoir discuté avec lui je sais que c'est pas - entièrement - de leur faute et quoi qu'il en soit lui et son équipe ont bossé et il en tant que personne n'est pas mauvais. Donc il ne mérite pas de petite pique qu'il est encore plus lâche d'éditer 5min après que de laisser. Et c'est toi qui viens nous dire que vous avez de la franchise.

Si, si, tu as raison. Richelieu avait la meilleure protection anti-torp de son époque.