Unintentional_submarine

It will always be bad in a gunfight. But having four guns allows for a reasonable alpha strike from the shadows. Say against a wounded cruiser or a destroyer slinking away. And it is always good against a carrier. That's why I advocated the 'gun' hull over the 'AA' hull. That extra little ground combat capability.

Looks like it was private, but also at least in contact with RN. The previous attempt I mentioned was entirely private that just happened to have a rear admiral present for private reasons (relation of his died aboard).

So they finally recovered it. Good. I watched a documentary where they found it and tried to recover it, but failed. So it is good to see someone stepping up and finishing it.

Exactly. Also while distance covered and speed have remained nautical miles and knots, ranges by guns have, in the game's timeframe, been measured in yards, meters, kilometers and interestingly in hektometers (the Germans). All of which are easily comparable. What would be really odd would be making range in nautical miles. Or should ranges be given in cables and fathoms? Neither of which have really been used for that. Yes, that means the system isn't 100% something or the other, but that's just the way things are now, and were then. Most people have no problem with that, even today. The simple thing is that the range measurements fit in with the speed and distance measurement.

But as noted imperial isn't historic for anyone but the British and Americans. Why should the many change for the few in this case? That's what the OP seeks.

You are right, but you are perhaps misunderstanding my point. Yes, fire per tier is the same 0.3% HP per second or tick (one or the other), with CV having 0.4%. Flooding however changes per tier, starting from quite a bit more than a fire, to much less. Fire resistance is a base reduction to the chance of fires, not to the fire itself. That's what I wrote. I remember something about Fuso having 33 or 35% reduction to the fire chance, or something around that (incidentally this is the number to which you add the Fire Prevention skill and the module to get the final reduction).

It really depends on the nations in question. For instance the Germans stuck with nice round cm values, like 38cm or 28cm. Usually we expand that to mm, but it remains that they used cm for their guns, and stuck with it. WWI and WWII both. France and Japan did the same, only they used cm and mm interchangeably it seems, and I believe both Italy and Russia/Soviet Union used mm which had fitting inch measurements. Like 381mm and 406mm (15 and 16 inches each). The only nations I remember clearly using inches are Britain and USA. But I'm not opposed to let the poor people that can't figure the metric system out, have an imperial option somewhere. Seriously though, the option would be nice, but I would prefer that the statpage have the local measurement always as basic. So USN ships have inches and Germans have cm, and French have mm and so on. Confusing? It's not really hard to understand since most of the sizes are rather even with each other.

Quite. Having watched players like DeprivedPickle (Canadian NA player), I'm inclined to agree. That guy lands citadels on a rate I can't fathom being fair. The only reason he doesn't get all the kills is because he can't see every enemy all the time. I think the reason the lower tiers feel somewhat weaker, is threefold. Firstly the guns are simply not very good in comparison. So many old testers came back to the old ships in OBT and felt incredulous at the accuracy, despite the accuracy being the same as before (even slightly buffed). Secondly, most people at the lower tiers are notoriously bad shots. I mean there is a reason they stick with HE. At least when it hits it gives some damage, but when you can land more shots AP is by far the best. Thirdly, at lower tiers the ships have less fire resistance. I don't know the specifics, but each ship has a base reduction to fire, and it increases as you go up the tiers, much like flooding is reduced in it's ticking value (though the actual fire remains the same).

Yeah, I was using the target's perspective. Hence the use of 'on the sides' for straddling. In fact I included the straddling to make my point more obvious. Seems I could have done that a bit better. In any case, the straddling 'topic' is by now fairly OT, and I'll bow out of it again.

There is also prediction errors and the enemy not running in a straight line. I estimate that upwards of half of my misses are due to my aiming or the enemy doing something I didn't predict. Hence I know I can get better, and I already do rather well in battleships. Also using the 3% as the success rate is not fair. Regular penetrations are 30% of max damage, and you can get absolutely devastating salvoes with no citadels (to the target it will look like it though)

It's not that bracketing is wholly negative, it is just more commonly used when the situation is frustrating, than straddling. However, straddling is by far the more common term in naval gunnery. I might also have misunderstood when bracketing is used (there isn't some clarification website for this). And it is when shells fall in front and behind a target, where straddling is obviously on the sides. But again, it is most commonly used when there is something not entirely right.

Well, you gain a couple of advantages, DP main guns, more AA and the individual guns are slightly better. However, I don't believe in DD AA. At most it can pop a plane here and there, and that's if you are lucky (Gearing AA is actually not that terrible tbf). So generally you want to compare the guns alone against each other, and there I find that the earlier hull has the advantage. Also, and this is something you can easily 'fix' your way out of, the DP guns are relatively long range AA. And long range AA tends to get you spotted. You 'fix' that by turning AA off, unless you get spotted anyway. That essentially loses a lot of the value of the DP guns. I'm sure there are some that prefer the AA hull, and good for them. But I don't, so I stick with the previous hull and guns.

Not at all the same thing. You added in a 'base chance' which isn't there. You only had additive values (plus and minus). It isn't the same at all. Multiplicative and additive are not the same. The value you see in the gun stats, is the base value for HE for that gun. Easy enough. Well, each ship has a resistance. You don't subtract from the shell's value there, you subtract from 1 (which I sadly forgot to add in, my apologies) and then multiply. B: base chance for fire C: skill bonus b: base resistance c: skill resistance m: module resistance X: actual chance to fire (B+C) * (1 - (b+c+m)) = X

He is more right than you are (the devs have posted on this a few times now, and there isn't room for interpretation), but he is slightly wrong. The fire skill that adds 3% fire, is additive. A 12% chance to set things on fire goes to 15%. However the game has a built-in resistance to fire in every ship. Someone posted an example of Fuso sitting around 35% I think it was. But let's just use 35% as the target ship's resistance (the base value itself isn't important). The Fire Prevention skill is than added to that resistance. Thus it goes to 42%, and add the module, it then reaches 47%. Thus the final result is (12+3) * (0.35+0.07+0.05) = 7.95% chance to set things on fire per hit. Provided that there isn't already a fire going on in that section of the ship (ships have four sections, bow, mid, stern and superstructure).

It is simply a very badly thought out skill meant to even the fight between different tier fighters. Seemingly no provision was made for the bad fighter progression (so that Ryujo by far has the worst fighters ingame with this skill). or the intra-tier balance between them. I hope that it will be removed and replaced with something that is reliable under most circumstances or isn't downright stupid.

3x3 actually. You might be thinking of the Scipione Africano, which was quite similar.

Surprisingly, this is true. I have knocked just shy of 20 planes down with it. It might not look like a lot, but at T5, it is borderline OP. The stats don't really say it has good AA, but play experience certainly says so. Against a great CV skipper, it's AA will not do a hell of a lot (but it will still kill a few planes per attack). But against people just learning how to do attacks, it will rip squadrons apart time and again.

Animated? As in the secondary turrets turn and engage targets? They do. There might be a few that does not, but most do indeed turn towards the target. Haven't looked close enough to see if they also elevate, but I would assume as much. DP guns in AA service don't however, and I'm not sure they ever will. All AA engages a target, regardless of position on a ship. Arguably it would be somewhat odd to have the full benefit when half the guns are not able to train onto the target.

Oh don't worry, they have their fair share of "goodness that was an atrocious spread" situations.

Lady Lex is really Saratoga (which I think we can all be happy with, or else there would be issues). And New York is Texas (or so I hear). I wouldn't be too bothered by these things, as long as it is a ship that is most commonly marked as being one of the same class. Will be interesting with the Germans. Which Deutschland superstructure will they use? And might the Nürnberg really be Leipzig (doubtful as Leipzig was really just a modified Königsberg while Nürnberg was different from either)?

I guess I have missed those in the post-battle report spam I get, which I'm usually not that bothered with since I check the report screen instead.

Sharana, on 09 August 2015 - 02:06 PM, said: I have the feeling that IJN planes are spotted later then IJN and it can be ~6.5km instead of 7.5-8. But I couldn't get more info and the last one from the OBT launch was - there shouldn't be changes with planes visibility. All right, will run a few other tests and post the results informally. Unintentional_submarine, on 09 August 2015 - 02:52 PM, said: All right, will run a few other tests and post the results informally. So ran the tests. Yes, USN planes get spotted at about 8km. Slightly less, but I will put that down to rendering again. So I wondered. Maybe it is because of the bigger squadrons. And maybe each plane adds a bit of detection range. So 6 planes are 8km, and 1 plane is 4km. That means that if it is a linear progression, each plane would add 0.8km of detection (adding 5 planes increases detection by 4km). So if we take the 4km for one plane as the basic range, and then add the value of three planes onto that (IJN squadron have three planes more per 'squadron' than scouts), we get 6.4km. Which would fit nicely with my observations in my IJN tests. Thus presumably, when you get the T5 skill Air Superiority you get more detectable fighters and dive bombers. In any case, I feel the numbers add up nicely.

I seem to remember not having my targeting reticule over the target, but used the Ctrl free cursor to hover over the target to give the command. Will test it out again.

Really? Because people have mentioned in chat that they have given me compliments, but I have never noticed such pop-ups. Admittedly they could have been lying (seems unlikely) or I could just have overlooked it. But still, if anyone has a screenshot of it I would love to see it.

I would love to do it more. But it is seldom that I get the chance. It happens now and then if an enemy is a good sport and makes light out of a rough situation. It is a small thing, but I think that should be rewarded. I don't often compliment enemies for playing well, as it is generally very hard to see if he played well the entire match, or just those few seconds against me. The same often applies to friendlies.