Jump to content

ATH67

Players
  • Content Сount

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    23919
  • Clan

    [GBONM]

About ATH67

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

140 profile views
  1. Worse: I got almost no sleep for three weeks trying to get on the top 100 spot to make certain I get both ship and camo... And just like here, there was no leaderboard and I ended, pointlessly at 6th place. She was very tolerant and appreciative to learn what "OP" "fast torps" and "permanent camo" meant.
  2. Well seems the entire community except me has understood how it works. So here is the simple question: we get it, it is not average XP and it is "base XP". BUT: by base XP do we mean the highest SINGLE Base XP each player gets in each category OR do we mean the cumulative total base xp gained in each category (say, like the Kamikaze R competition where I almost lost my wife...)
  3. Dauntless is spot on: No one sank, the Hipper and the Deutschland were outfought by 4 DDs and ran away like chicken, one more example of large calibre guns being ineffective against DDs.
  4. I so not know where to start here, so many errors in your comment. Your comment about the US DDs getting so many hits meaning that it is not a combat worthy ships is at the very least ignorant. Those DDs deliberately put themselves in harms way in what is globally regarded as the most heroic action in the history of naval warfare and in doing so, saved the entire Leyte Gulf landing force, and dozens of ships since they were all that was standing in the way of the entire Japanese main force and the landing zones. Far from being combat ineffective, those DDs fought, by far and away, the most effective ships in the history of any navy anywhere. Three of them were sunk, but they did what they set out to achieve, save form certain destruction dozens of ships (including 18 defenceless escort CVs in the area) and thousands of sailors and marines from certain death. The US DDs were successful partly BECAUSE the Yamato big guns were not able to disable them, CONTRARY to what you so very wrongly assert. There is no case of a German or Japanese DD engaging enemy battleships for the simple reason that UK or US Battleships never ventured solo within range of enemy DDs. However there are plenty of examples of UK DDs circling German capital ships (Bismarck, Scharnhorst and as Dauntless very correctly says, BOTH the Hipper and the Deutschland) and in all cases ONLY one heavy shell hit a DD and that did minor damage. I watched the video you mention and of course real life shows it is a mistake: the Yamato, in the only battle in which it fired its main guns against surface targets and which lasted three hours totally failed to demolish ANY of the six DDs it faced with a single shell or a single salvo (contrary to what you say or what the video, obviously wrongly says). WG made an obvious huge unhistorical mistake in their video, why is that relevant to your point? By the way, Yamato's big guns were also totally ineffective against the 6 unarmoured Cvs it was shooting against scoring a number of harmless over-penetrations. There is no overstatement in me saying "dozens and dozens": the American DDs were being shelled for over two hours by over 20 ships and suffered multiple hits. IJN did not shoot cotton balls, but they did shoot too much AP, partly because they mistook the DDs for CAs. SAme with them shooting for three hours against 6 Bogue-class slow moving (18 knots) escort carriers) and achieving one kill only, Yamato's AP shots causing many harmless over-penetrations. Here is the point: 4 Battleships and SIX heavy cruisers were shooting for three hours six slow carriers and six DDs and all they achieved was one CV (the US DDs were killed by the Japanese DDs). The one CV was sunk mostly as a result of hits from the Chikuma, a CA and I think the Kongo, but there is no evidence of the Yamato materially contributing (though it did get a main gun hit on one DD which kept on fighting). The Battle OFF Samar shows clearly what a useless ship the Yamato was. Incidentally, there is evidence that the Yamato's guns may have been very bad in terms of dispersion and for a long time after the ship was put in service the IJN tried to rectify the issue. In any case Yamato's guns were directed by good optics but had no radar direction. The Battle of Surigao Straight (a few hours earlier), where the old WW1 US battleships scored hits on their first or second salvos showed that radar directed fire and well trained crews was far more powerful than Yamato's ridiculous and ineffective guns.
  5. The German Destroyers at Narvik were not at ideal conditions at all. They were caught by surprise in confined waters with refueling and rearmament issues. And Warspite was not alone. On the contrary Surigao and Samar showed that DDs were very hard to counter by BBs and that in fact DD torpedoes can totally stop a superior BB force in it tracks. In Samar six DDs and their torpedoes stopped in their tracks 4 BBs, 6 Heavy cruisers and twice their number of light cruisers and destroyers. The fundamental point is that BB main guns struggled to cripple fast moving DDs. I did not claim that DDs could solo it V BBs in open seas but the whole point is to acknowledge that WG's note is fundamentally correct: 18 inch shells are huge and can cause massive damage, even when over-penetrating; but mroe likely than not, big guns are ineffective weapons against DDs, and this was clearly recognised as far back as before the onset of WW1. You mention the experience of WW1. Well, in fact the very term "Destroyer" was meant to refer to a ship whose sole original purpose was to destroy fast and agile torpedo equipped ships which would otherwise attack BBs with near impunity.
  6. There is no BS on this. Other than when DDs were caught by surprise at point blank range (second battle of Narvik and cape Matapan) DDs have ALWAYS survived for a long period when engaging Battleships and Heavy Cruisers, none sinking or being disabled from one hit. BB AP shots can cause massive holes but will overpenetrate and US DD designs (e.g. Fletchers) had boiler rooms and machinery spaced out such that no single hit by any size shell could disable the ship. That is why Off Samar the combined force of Yamato, Nagato, Kongo, Haruna, six heavy cruisers, two light cruisers and 11 destroyers could only sink three US DDs after scoring dozens and dozens of hits on them and not just "one hit" as you claim. For example, Johnston was hit by three massive shells from a main gun salvo from Yamato and continued the fight against Japanese cruisers and battleships for another hour and a half, scoring huge damage, before been taken down mostly by gun fire having been surrounded by cruisers and DDs. Hoel and Samuel B Roberts had a similar experience in the same battle.
  7. Wargaming are right to point out that DDs are hard targets for BBs. Warspite caught them in confined space at point blank range. Point blank was the range at Cape Matapan as well when the British BBs blasted two italian DDs (together with two Italian heavy cruisers). But there are plenty of instances where BBs struggled against solitary DDs when these were moving at full speed, at ranges of their own choice: at Leyte gulf US DDs caused huge damage to the Japanese Centre Force and it took large volumes of concentrated fire to take them down (only Kongo and Yamato scoring large calibre hits), with over-penetrations by large calibre shells failing to disable them. If anything the 'tin can' ships in the Battle Off Samar mentioned in another post showed the difficulty of BBs (in this case, Yamato, Nagato, Kongo and Haruna) engaging DDs. Same happened a few hours previously with the southern force where Fuso and Yamashiro were obliterated while being relentlessly attacked by DDs and US BBs, at least one of them sinking from the DD attack, whilst neither Japanese BB causing any material damage to any DD. Finally, the sinking of the heavy cruiser Haguro, (which was accompanied by our beloved Kamikazi) at the straights of Malacca shows the difficulty in causing material damage by large caliber gunnery to a fast ship like a DD. Haguro was destroyed after being smothered with fire for an hour and having received as many as 9 torpedo hits. In return, during the whole period Haguro obtained only two hits on one DD, causing minor damage. The Kamikazi ran away having also caused no damage. In our game, if we placed the Haguro and the Kami versus 5 tier VII DDs, I bet the Haguro will score at last two kills, potentially up to five... There can be no doubt that even taking into account the arcade nature of the game, the way that distances and time are artificially shortened, if anything, our game makes DDs more vulnerable that they were in real life, BOTH from BBs but as well from heavy cruisers, since, other than the Des Moines class (which historically was a real OP ship of a different level of capability to anything else afloat) there is no instance of a heavy cruiser with 210mm calibre guns successfully engaging DDs and destroying them with ease (for example the Hipper, in a perfectly clear day, could not stop the British Glowwarm from ramming her and torping her from close range (which sadly missed, but that is another story...). Wargaming are fundamentally right in their note. No, it is not true to think that a BB or a Heavy Cruiser can just obliterate DDs at will. Warspite did it because it put itself into a position where enemy DDs could do nothing other that wait to die. It, and the point black salvos on Alfieri and Carducci at cape Matapan, are the exceptions because the DDs had no freedom of maneuver and were caught with their pants down.
  8. ATH67

    Wichita: Bruiser Cruiser

    Interesting. The gun schematics in the WG text are wrong re the AA guns: They are supposed to show 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikons, but instead of the 20mm single barrel Oerlikon they depict the 3 inch naval AA gun in single mounting form , which is several times larger... Presume the error is just in the drawings of the text by WG (WG must have been confused by the single mount of the 3 inch gun drawing) and not in the actual ship. Wichita (unlike Des Moines, Salem and Worcester), never carried the 3 inch AA weapon. Just game balancing. in real life reload of the 8 inch gun (not exactly 203mm, but close) was bad, though not as bad as the Japanese weapon, which is why the US placed higher value on 6 inch equipped light cruisers, favouring reload speed to weight of shell. That bias to fast reload led to the design and implementation of the best gun warship ever built which combined heavy shells with crazy reload, the Des Moines. Before Des Moines, all warships weapons with calibre of 203 and higher just had awful reload speed (15 seconds at best, in practice worse). Its good that WG does not replicate to the letter reload speeds (e.g. in some ships reload becomes significantly slower if guns are aiming at a long range), though this comes at the expense of relegating the real life monster called Des Moines into just another tier 10 cruiser (when in fact it was a far superior cruiser to anything built or fully designed by any navy ever).
  9. ATH67

    Naval Battle: Clans Competition

    There are two minor objections that have already been expressed: (i) this is simply a game mode to encourage more play rather than really more good team play; and (ii) it is too complex and probably not well enough articulated. But these are minor points and as mr Conway said they will see to improving the text (though I should note that this time around the text is far better than the truly poor text of the original trial event last year). That said, as a Deputy Commander in my relatively active clan I can welcome any rewards offered. The main reason I may not perhaps push for the clan members to spend time on this is that to be efficient we would need to coordinate who plays what ships/classes and that adds to the various coordination and other activities a clan faces in training new members and in preparing/training to clan battles. So when I can get 15 clan members at the same time I can organise which ships to take to play random battles for these events OR take them in a training room and e.g. fight Stalingrads with Henris and learn from it, but unlikely to be doing both. I just don't think it is productive to mix to this extent clan rewards through a random format, since it ultimately conflicts with whaty clans focus in discord which is the preparation and training for clan rewards and that clans see division play as fun time outside the central clan organisation. As a player I really don't want my Random division play to be organised/driven/regimentalised by Clan and as a Deputy Commander I don't think it would be good idea to encourage clan members in this direction. There is one more thing to say: at a personal level I have probably invested more time than most (by far) in just about any reward related activity since the game started. On occasion my involvement has reached fanatical levels (e.g. to obtain kamikaze and its camo..). But this is the first time I have no interest whatsoever in a competitive/rewards event . I get it that the previous similar one-off event was deemed a success but I suspect that this appraisal probably reflects selection bias: it is those that chose to participate in the first place that found it good; by definition those that were not keen did not participate and made no comments. In the same way perhaps that CV rework selected beta testing by CV players came back with enthusiastic response before the rework hit the real world of the general population...
  10. Yes, I suspect that they meant to say 5,000 Free XP, someone made a mistake and added a zero and they are too embarrassed/proud to admit it and would rather persevere on this.
  11. I posted this elsewhere but perhaps it belongs here, about the absurd Black Friday Combat Mission Part 3: I had to do a double take. No they did not REALLY mean THAT. MUST be a MISTAKE. So I decided to play till I got the confirmation. Nope, my eyes have not deceived me. Wargaming have officially LOST IT. Yeap, the third Black Friday containers mission requires 50,000 FREE XP. No mistake on the zeros. No mistake on the type of XP. No, it is not Base XP. No, it is not Commander XP. It is Free XP. And not only will you not get the container unless you are prepared to destroy your life with 24/7 gaming, you will also not qualify for the super easy (comparatively) next stage of 50,000 Base XP. Bizarre. Perhaps there is an explanation, which has to be one of the following options: a) Certain WG staff are psychotic sadists and have evil intentions. They take pleasure out of this kind of stuff. b) Someone has a problem with their basic arithmetic. Like, take 1200 base xp, multiply by 5% (it is 60). Then take 50,000, divide by the number of the previous result. That result (833) is the number of games required to achieve the mission. Assume three games per hour. Then compare with hours per day, and days per week: 3x24x7= 504 games per week, non stop (i.e. no time to sleep, go to bathroom, eat, drink or engage in pleasurable activities). SO you need ten days of that, or thereabouts, to get your mission accomplished. But we have 12 days to get there so no problems, 10 days flat out and two days rest in between. Yeap... Children at primary school should be able to do this math but perhaps not the persons who designed this mission. c) Basic error, they saw it after the launch of the patch but would rather not admit to a mistake so they left it there. Since game launch there have been only two other times when they failed so miserably in designing the criteria for achieving a mission but I suspect this one tops them: firstly in the Q1 2015 (or was it 2016) missions when they asked for 3200 base XP in single battle, which is not doable for non-premium players unless super lucky (even if super-unicom). They never did that mistake again of such a high target. Secondly when the 2016 Kamikaze missions came with very hard demands (I just about saved my marriage) and the sadistic "first 1000 people by points gained get a free camo" with no indication how bad or good you were doing. But I suspect that this 50,000 base XP really tops the lot. I have been a regular player with over 20k battles since game launch and I feel angry and insulted like never before. This is not the kind of mistake that one attributes simply to poor judgement, or to poor understanding of statistics which we see often (see the Yueyang nerf where good ship statistics were misinterpreted to mean OP). Nope. This is the special, truly exceptional kind of mistake where you can only attribute to severe lack of brain cells or just to plain evil design. CHANGE Black Friday Combat Mission Part 3 NOW before the rest of the community wakes up to what you have done. 
  12. I had to do a double take. No they did not REALLY mean THAT. MUST be a MISTAKE. So I decided to play till I got the confirmation. Nope, my eyes have not deceived me. Wargaming have officially LOST IT. Yeap, the third Black Friday containers mission requires 50,000 FREE XP. No mistake on the zeros. No mistake on the type of XP. No, it is not Base XP. No, it is not Commander XP. It is Free XP. And not only will you not get the container unless you are prepared to destroy your life with 24/7 gaming, you will also not qualify for the super easy (comparatively) next stage of 50,000 Base XP. Bizarre. Perhaps there is an explanation, which has to be one of the following options: a) Certain WG staff are psychotic sadists and have evil intentions. They take pleasure out of this kind of stuff. b) Someone has a problem with their basic arithmetic. Like, take 1200 base xp, multiply by 5% (it is 60). Then take 50,000, divide by the number of the previous result. That result (833) is the number of games required to achieve the mission. Assume three games per hour. Then compare with hours per day, and days per week: 3x24x7= 504 games per week, non stop (i.e. no time to sleep, go to bathroom, eat, drink or engage in pleasurable activities). SO you need ten days of that, or thereabouts, to get your mission accomplished. But we have 12 days to get there so no problems, 10 days flat out and two days rest in between. Yeap... Children at primary school should be able to do this math but perhaps not the persons who designed this mission. c) Basic error, they saw it after the launch of the patch but would rather not admit to a mistake so they left it there. Since game launch there have been only two other times when they failed so miserably in designing the criteria for achieving a mission but I suspect this one tops them: firstly in the Q1 2015 (or was it 2016) missions when they asked for 3200 base XP in single battle, which is not doable for non-premium players unless super lucky (even if super-unicom). They never did that mistake again of such a high target. Secondly when the 2016 Kamikaze missions came with very hard demands (I just about saved my marriage) and the sadistic "first 1000 people by points gained get a free camo" with no indication how bad or good you were doing. But I suspect that this 50,000 base XP really tops the lot. I have been a regular player with over 20k battles since game launch and I feel angry and insulted like never before. This is not the kind of mistake that one attributes simply to poor judgement, or to poor understanding of statistics which we see often (see the Yueyang nerf where good ship statistics were misinterpreted to mean OP). Nope. This is the special, truly exceptional kind of mistake where you can only attribute to severe lack of brain cells or just to plain evil design. CHANGE Black Friday Combat Mission Part 3 NOW before the rest of the community wakes up to what you have done.
  13. "Two of our commanders needs to be.." and "The two who gets". Really? Is the idea that we disrespect our community so much that (i) we can't be bothered to conjugate verbs in the plural (ii) not being able to speak English is a job requirement for whoever wrote in the WoW "Official Channel" or (iii) we can't be bothered to correct elementary errors which any spellchecker would in fact had clearly highlighted. In case it is (ii), here is a short lesson: Just like any language on the globe, verbs are conjugated depending on whether they are in the singular or the plural. If you have one person (e.g. one commander or the number 'one') that is singular, but when you have two or more persons (e.g. two or more commanders or any number higher than one), that is plural.
  14. Very good article. A couple of minor points to add: Warburton-Lee deserves the highest praise on so many grounds, not least for clearly ignoring the Admiralty's order to send a night patrol at the mouth of the fjiord, because doing so was likely to spoil element of surprise. Unlike the Germans who dispersed their forces and took their time, he acted with utmost speed, focus and determination. It was not Warburton-Lee's fault that the powers that be denied his force the light cruiser HMS Penelope, which was initially to accompany the DDs in the Fjiord. Had they done so, the entire German force would have been annihilated. It took the Warspite to accomplish that, a few days later. Erich Bey, who led the German 4th Destroyer Flotilla in the Battle (as well as the subsequent Battle that WG will tell us about on Tuesday) is the same officer who, as Rear Admiral, commanded Scharnhorst at the Battle of North Cape where he shared the ship's sad fate.
  15. ATH67

    Update 0.7.5 General Feedback

    Mission 3 Task 8 remains broken, a few days later, yet another unsinkable that is not credited. Five lost achievements so far, equivalent to almost one more Mission star wasted.
×