Unintentional_submarine

I had an amusing battle where a Gearing got killed by a carrier when about 2km from him. How? Secondaries? Nah. He got bombed enough times to finally get sunk. He refused to use his torps because he wanted the fires to progress, and got pretty mad at the guy that called him out on that bad play (the guy in question simply called it really bad, to which the Gearing got super salty). I had to laugh, because we were already winning. However, had we been losing and the Gearing been the only teammate near the carrier, I would probably have been pretty mad.

So we are likely to get more late 50s ships... instead of ships like Somers, Porter, Gleaves or Allen M. Sumner. The first two even provide a different approach to the firepower situation of the USN DDs, and then there were the Gridley with 16 torp launchers (8 on either side) at the cost of a main gun. Why even bother with yet more Soviet ships that so far haven't been terribly popular? Instead of known and actually popular lines?

I did it in the two first battles after picking it (one in each, once with Iowa and once with Tirpitz)... Apparently I'm either incredibly lucky, or I'm a different sort of player.

Special EU reward.

Met Aotearas and Live 85 today. Was my first battle in my new Gneisenau. Stock and untrained. "Carry me plx"​ 'Twas fun banter though. I wish I had been able to engage in it more, but the enemies seemed like they wanted to fight me. Who was I to ignore their requests.

Heh... Well this is awkward. Finally had the money to buy Gneisenau today (thank you for the extra creds WG). Stacked up on captain retraining benefits and XP flags (having both Dragon flags and FTW camo is quite nice, just needed a 200% weekend to top it all) and took her out stock. Well, I ran into Aotearas and Live85, on my team thankfully. What then happened was something I couldn't have expected. Yup, that's Skerki Bank 4 I finished there. And I was a single penetration instead of overpen from a Kraken. That's pretty nice for a stock ship I would say. Ok, I expected Gneisenau to be good, but this looks awesome in the extreme if I can keep it up.

Well these news were a mixed bag to be certain.

Something is certainly up. Got those camos of course, mounted them (but didn't auto-resupply in case they might be deducted automatically), but then I tried to mount the speed signals on my new Kagero... well colour me confused. The signal gets deducted, but the ship doesn't actually mount it. Not visually, and not statistically (same speed as before in port view). Demounting it (which I can do) returns the 'lost' signal to the stock. Weird! [EDIT] Even weirder... I did the same for Fubuki, there the signal shows up as it should. Only my Kagero has this issue. Turns out that it is indeed the premium camo that is causing issues. I demounted it, could then apply the signals, and they would stay when the camo was remounted. Clearly the game has issues dealing with it.

Yeah last battle in original Fubuki gave me a nice 8 torp hit and top of the score battle. But it was significantly overshadowed by Takao getting Solo Warrior earlier in the evening. That was my first Solo Warrior actually. Never really had those battles where the enemy team is that much better, but doesn't actually cap. I included the credits and XP to show I got a mission done, otherwise that score was crazy. Anyway, it was on Trap, enemies went C, we capped A and B. Team steadily folded to their ships, until it was just me and one Atago left. I pushed up to assist him in C, but he got knocked about by the Neptune. And then the race was on. In a rather long stern chase, under attack from the Neptune, Kutuzov, Takao and Belfast, I had to employ all my best evasion skills. I had little health left and no more Repair Parties. The Kagero kept me spotted, but I managed to knock the Belfast out, taking away the greatest threat, as he was the closest and on my flank (his end also gave us some much needed points, so I didn't have to run so much longer). Neptune was fortunately to my rear, so lots of ricochets initially, and as range increased I was comfortable able to evade his shots, especially when the Belfast died and allowed me to evade more erratically. I also left a few good marks on the Neptune. Could have killed the Takao but the risks were certainly not worth it. Finally ducked behind an island and spent the following minute or so evading over-island shots. I think that run to the south lasted over three minutes, and it was quite stressful, but honestly it was great fun. Neptune was a good sport about it and congratulated me afterwards in personal chat. So kudos to him.

The vodka shells got buffed back up to 8% some months ago, but the Anshan wasn't. Reason: The Chinese shells are licence shells (made to the same specifications). Apparently Chinese shell factories are incapable of following the blueprints. Anshan does indeed get access to that modification, but as I noted earlier, it drops the rudder shift to 4.56 seconds (0.8*5.7 = 4.56).

I used the base stats, that is without the camo. Since the camouflage benefit is dependent on the base detection rating, I think base detection is better, as you can then apply whatever benefit you wish. I could list Gremy being Soviet as an advantage as she would have better access to higher ranked captains, but that is a derived advantage. And using rudder shift modification reduces Anshan's rudder shift to 4.56, which is still slower than Gremyashchy's. And it doesn't affect the turning circle at all (610m is nearly 20% larger than 510m, which is considerable). In this scenario a 1v1 is most certainly applicable as while the ships are more different than most think they are, they fulfill the exact same role and play the same. Gremyashchy simply does it better, at a tier lower. I would agree it wouldn't make much sense to compare Nicholas to Minekaze in a 1v1, as their roles are pretty much contrary to each other. However, it is a fallacy to claim it doesn't work for ships of a similar role with so many similarities. But I could also say which is better versus battleships, which is clearly in favour of Gremyashchy too, due to better HE, fire and detection. I simply can't see a general scenario where she isn't better. Sure, you can mention situations where the Gremy can't turn enough to use the third gun (the fourth gun has a perfectly fine arc), or must traverse the guns without using the rudder. Under such very specific situations the Anshan holds a minor advantage. For everything else, Gremyashchy is better off. The HE is 18.75% better, not even counting the fire chance. That's not just an advantage, it's a huge advantage. For Anshan to make up for that she would need to have a reload of just slightly more than 4 seconds, compared to 5 now. It is quite significant. To put it into perspective, even the very popular T9 reload modification wouldn't make up for it.

The point is, how many percentages of ship health have you done in damage. It really is only real metric in terms of damage. It's how we are awarded income from damage. Flat damage isn't considered. Of course ships with Repair Party can take more than 100% damage, but the people doing the damage are still awarded per the base percentage. It's just that the ship can give more than 100% in rewards to people shooting at it. It is simply making the old saying of "Killing two destroyers fully is much better than doing more damage to a single battleship but not killing him" more clear.

And we should be happy they are that day ahead in the patch line. Remember how NA got fecked over with the huge UI bug and we managed to dodge that bullet because the patch was pulled from EU before it was uploaded? So for this EU is certainly benefiting, while NA are the Guineapigs.

Yup, have been wanting this since... well around OBT I guess. The flat damage value has always been hard to use because it says very little about the effectiveness of the damage.

3 and 4. 3 for destroyers, 4 for the others. The four being: Bow, middle, stern and superstructure. Destroyers lack the superstructure section (it's part of the middle section for them). All ships used to have four sections, but destroyers had the superstructure section combined with the middle section, probably because it would quickly soak up damage from being depleted (50% depletion obviously reduce damage a lot), as well as the incredible ease at setting two fire on a destroyer by just hitting it in the middle.

Ahem, Anshan has worse HE and fire chance than Gremyashchy. Ok, I'll list all the differences, because while they are quite similar, they are not as similar as people think they are. HP: +1300 for Anshan Torps: +5kn and 100m longer detection range for Anshan (amusingly Anshan torps are 5x the costs at 250 per torp compared to 50 per torp) Rudder shift: 2.2 seconds longer for Anshan (5.7s vs 3.5s) Turning circle: 100m wider for Anshan (610m vs 510m) Surface detection: -200m for Gremy (7.2km vs 7.0km) Max speed: +1kn for Anshan (38kn vs 37kn) HE damage: +300 for Gremy (1600 vs 1900) Fire chance: +2% for Gremy (7% vs 9%) Turret traverse: +1 degree/sec for Anshan (6 vs 5) AA: Mildly in favour of Anshan, but she faces better CVs somewhat more *both are pretty paltry though* Turret arcs: Considerably in favour of Anshan, having 34 degrees off the centerline as max forward angle, compared to 53 degrees for Gremy. This is the main advantage of Anshan over Gremy. Overall, I would argue that Gremyashchy is simply better than Anshan. Unless Anshan manages to surprise Gremy, Gremy will win a confrontation through greater firepower and greater maneuverability.

Exactly. Akizuki appears to be the best case we have for why HEAP is a bad skill to pick when you have small guns. HE damage might be nice to have, but it is the fires you want.

In fact the Kamikaze class shares more similarities with the Mutsuki class than the Minekaze class. Such as placement of torps and guns, and the shape of the bow and bridge.

It's greater than. Otherwise 150-152mm guns would be able to generally penetrate the hulls of T6-7 battleships. And they can't. Meanwhile 155mm can penetrate that with 26mm penetration. Thus the conclusion is, the penetrative power needs to be +1mm in order to do damage.

If you have to insult, make it a good one, and make it relevant to what has been said. Otherwise you just come off as needing to have a comeback, which makes it backfire. See, what I wrote wasn't actually an insult, it was a basic deduction from your behaviour. It could have been wrong, which, if you had indeed proven me wrong, would have required me to take it back. Unfortunately it seems it still applies. It's a bit sad that I wasn't wrong. So you were in the USN, and you never even once considered what the number on the bow indicated? Like the 47 on USS Ticonderoga (CG in that case)? Now I will freely give you that calling USS Ticonderoga CG-47 in general parlance wouldn't be common, but not knowing what CG means? Or most of the commonly used abbreviations... It is sort of like an airforce person not knowing that the (Fighting) Falcon is also known as F-16. It's baffling. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but now I am certain. You are here to ruffle feathers. But if that is what you want to do, I suggest looking up SkyBuckFlying, now that was some quality work. And he was dedicated too. That's the sort of level you have to contest with, and you are quite far behind it so far. And with that I will do what I suggested we all do earlier, stop posting here.

*Waves* And I can say this much. Despite it being the Royal Danish Navy, if I had asked any of the crew I served with, who weren't conscripts (and even then...) what BB would mean, not a one of them wouldn't be able to tell me. Well, there might have been that one guy. You know the type. He might have been able to give me the big question mark above his head. So unfortunately what I can determine here, is that our illustrious OP might have served in a navy, but either it was for such a short time, or he was that guy. I don't know which helps the most and which helps the least, but it certainly doesn't look good from my perspective. Let's just let this topic end as it should. Things have been told and answered, and have been rejected. There is preciously little more that anyone can do to move this along. It is right now, little more than a troll vs countertroll scenario which helps very few people. But aren't I now part of this? Yes I am, morbid curiosity I must say.

There was of course also the famous misidentification of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen at the battle of the Denmark Strait, because Prinz Eugen sailed in front of Bismarck. But the best case is the multitude of phantoms and mirages the Russian Baltic Fleet managed to conjure up during the quite epic journey to Tsushima... As well as misidentifying English trawlers as Japanese torpedo boats (that one still baffles a lot of people, including me).

See that's the thing, the game deals in modules. Don't hit the module, you don't affect it's function. Don't hit the magazine, you don't hit it. There are no magazine related modules. The turrets (which include the barbettes) are a separate module and hurting them knocks the turret out, not the magazine. The game is simple that way. There aren't concentric circles or expanding areas. The modules are set. If you don't hit them you don't impact them. Thus there is nothing related. In any case, it's not as if the 130mm AP could penetrate Yamato barbettes anyway. So even if they had included a functionality where turret penetrations could lead to Detonations, the Khabarovsk could never achieve that. The AP in question simply doesn't have the penetrative power to get into anywhere where they could possibly have ammunition.

Hitting the magazine directly increases the chance of Detonations, but it doesn't cause it directly, nor is it the only way. Torps hitting the very tip of the bow can detonate battleships. I have personally suffered that one. And in return I have detonated a battleship with 140mm HE (Katori vs South Carolina, just a speculative shot over an island), and been detonated by HE landing on the aft deck well behind the turrets (it looked like a hit to the flagpole). But the worst one has to be this one. It should be noted that Yamato's magazine is entirely encased in it's quite comprehensive armour. Also the magazine is entirely within the citadel space, so any hit to the magazine would have been a citadel hit. AP also doesn't have the secondary AoE effect that HE, torps or bombs have (which has been used in the past to argue that HE can set off the magazine through the armour if next to magazines). And there are of course the non-hit Detonations for extra BS sauce on top.

Let's switch one win for a loss, would this thread have descended into total anarchy with pitchforks and all, like it seems is happening on the Putin server? I mean I would expect a lot of pointing fingers, but I would expect a lot of non-salty content as well, with people looking inwards. As it was noted in the stream, the Russian teams had a plan, and when it didn't pan out as intended, they looked incredibly confused, even that last win against TTT. Dragons' DDs sort of milled about, back and forth when they lost control of the middle, looking like they had no idea what to do next. Simply speaking, the Russians were well drilled and well planned, but inflexible. That OM lost all their matches looked to stem from them playing the 'Russian game' in a sense, and were simply outmatched in that regard. ALN in particular played a very different game from their opponents and it was clear they had no tactical response to it. I'm surprised that they would get that salty. When you lose, your first task is to look at yourself, and the few bits I have seen from OM suggests they are doing just that, but the Russians aren't. Hybris and Nemesis.