ColonelPete

Loading HE from the start is a gamble. Yes, you have the right ammunition vs DD that might get spotted early, but your damage vs BB and CA is pitiful, especially when you consider that many ships try to position themselves in the beginning and often show a lot of broadside early on. Therefore, unless I expect an enemy DD to get spotted soon, I load AP, as this is the superior choice. Even when my target angles, I can still select another target that shows broadside and after that I can change to HE and go back to the orginal target, if that is a focus target. Otherwise I continue shooting AP at broadsides.

Siegfried is a very strong cruiser and has around 1/3 less armor and 1/4 less firepower than Prinz Heinrich on Tier VII... When you make Prinz Heinrich a cruiser, you can put her on Tier X and still need to add 3 more Tiers of ships... And I do not think it is healthy to fill the cruiser slots with ships that outclass the regular cruiser. For a CL this can be like having to face 8 BB in total. Not a good idea.

That depends on the shooting ship, its gun size and the range. But yes, when your AP does not work, you use HE. That is the way it is designed.

I have no problem with HE. I enjoy keeping my ships longer afloat. And as I explained often enough, angling works. Feel free to test it out with a bow on Kremlin getting shot at by Haragumo and the Kremlin showing broadside to the Haragumo. And yes, armor thickness matters. That is why the difference in thickness of deck plating affects the survivability of ships. As stated multiple times, you are supposed to use HE vs angled ships instead of AP. But when you feel that HE is too much for you, feel free to show broadside and get shot at by AP

Against broadside targets, AP will give better results, even when teammates shoot HE. Against angled targets, where AP barely works, you are supposed to use HE. But even then the target lives longer than showing broadside and getting shot at with AP.

Er kann sich auch einfach vertan haben...

Willing to engage does not mean you are willing to understand. So this might be a waste of time. I said they work. Success rate is a statistical value, you know after the battle. Depending on RNG, one time SAP has the advantage and the other time AP has the advantage in the same situation. How is my statement wrong? How this wrong? So much for your complaint about making statements and not bringing arguments... When you cannot say, before a salvo, with some certainty, which shell type will perform better, one shell type gets redundant. Yes. As I said, you do not know in advance if you hit the citadel. After seeing the results of the salvo, you might come to the conclusion that SAP was the better choice. When you hit the citadel, AP was the better choice. The same applies to shooting an angled Kremlin. The worse dispersion of the RM BB makes targeting specific areas difficult. When you aim for the superstructure, but RNG tells you you hit the side armor, both shell types can give abyssmal results. As I said, you know that after the battle. The next battle it might be the other way around. You cannot rely on it, as the statistical difference is rather small. It is even possible that my evaluation that AP is statistcly stronger, might be wrong, because I just got lucky with AP. You supplied an example that SAP works even against completly angled targets. So where does SAP not work. but AP does? Yes. As I said, you do not know in advance if you will hit the citadel. After seeing the results of the salvo, you might come to the conclusion that SAP was the better choice. When you hit the citadel, AP was the better choice. The same applies to shooting an angled Kremlin. The worse dispersion of the RM BB makes targeting specific areas difficult. When you aim for the superstructure, but RNG tells you you hit the side armor, both shell types can give abyssmal results. What has this do with hitting citadels with AP? When you do not understand what I write, then yes, it does not make sense to you. SAP can give better results, but so can AP in the same situation Yes, AP is better, WHEN you hit citadels, when you do not, it is not better Yes, when AP does not hit citadels, then it is often inferior, but not always Yes, according to the average damage of the shells over multiple battles, AP did more damage for me, but it possible that I was just lucky with AP, the statistical differences are too small to be certain Yes, when you do not get citadels, it would have been better to use SAP, in hindsight, but that is something you know AFTER the battle Your problem is that you do not understand that the results of AP and SAP are heavily RNG dependent, thx to the dispersion of RM BB and the very similar performance profile of the shells (best damage vs broadside targets, worse damage against angled targets). And since it is so heavily RNG dependent, you do not know in advance which ammo choice is better. At best, you know that after the battle. A bit late... Nope. So when someone makes a new post, old arguments disappear? Interesting...

That ships that should be using AP, become less effective by using HE is not nonsense. That cruisers get countered by BB and therefore have trouble winning an 1v1 is not nonsense.

It is a BB, you are a cruiser. It counters you.

When other BB player decide to be less effective, it is only to your advantage.

We will see in a few hours. Differences up to now: better stealth more speed torps at higher Tiers Possible differences: more precise main guns faster rudder shift

They tell you which ships earn more credits.

Hier sieht man es in größer:

Den in WW2 modernisierten WW1 US BB wurden die Kasematten zum Teil entfernt.

@YabbaCoe @Sehales In the past some developers on the RU server gave out statistics on damage by type for each class in the game. The numbers are a bit outdated now. Could we get an update? This is from 2015: This is from 2017: If possible, could you supply data which ship types do what damage to different ship types. That way people could see which ship types are really dangerous to their ships.

Es ist die einzige Möglichkeit. Siegfried ist mit 3x2x380mm Tier IX und schon sehr stark. Der neue Tier X BB hat etwa 50% mehr Panzerung und 4x2x420mm. Wie soll das als Tier X CA passen? PEF passt prima als Tier VI BB.

So you did not notice that airborne torpedos hit MUCH more quickly than ship torpdos from kilometers away? When you get hit too often with ship torpedos, you should improve your WASD skills.

It is around 18 months...

No. The Tier X are just like silver ships with perma camo.

Gut so. Aber wie Du schon richtig gesehen hast, must Du Deinen Abgang planen. Wenn da ein Yolo raus wird, ist was falsch gelaufen. Richtig. Du bleibst auf der Flanke auf der Du bist, Flankenwechsel kostet nur Feuerkraft. Standardgefechte sind die Ausnahme, wenn die Basis bedroht wird. Überleben ist besser als das Schiff wegzuschmeissen DD>Kreuzer>BB, im Detail geht es im Grunde nach den Trefferpunkten. Ein BB mit 4.000 HP sollte eher Priorität sein als ein Kreuzer mit 30.000. Kommt auf den Nebel an. Man kann ihn sowohl offensiv, als auch defensiv nutzen, ist beides gut. Kommt darauf an was Du besser kannst. Radar auf UK CL kann sehr wirksam sein, ist aber extrem schwer zu spielen. Wenn Du regelmässig gute Ergebnisse erzielst, nimm Radar. Wenn Du ständig drauf gehst ohne viel zu machen, nimm Nebel.

Looks like the high Tier ones will be 420mm guns.

That was not the question.

German Battlecruisers I personally would have ended the line at Tier VIII, because afterwards the concept was obsolete, since normal BB had the speed of BC. But I can understand that you continued the line as the high Tier ships earn the money. The usage of casemate guns beyond Tier VIII is a bit strange, as these usually got removed later, when ships got modernized, since they are weak points of ships and less efficient. The appearance of the Tier VIII is more than strange. There are enough months left to change the main superstructure to something more typical. Maybe think about it. THIS looks much better: The Tier VII is the Ersatz-Yorck Class, which was actually planned. Rest is paper or even fantasy.

The fire resistance depends on Tier and class (in case of CV), not on individual ship or plating. Bismarck burns easier than Petro, since she is a Tier VIII, not a Tier X. Yamato burns the same as Petro. https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Fire#Fire_Resistance

Schlachtkreuzer - Super! Schlachtkreuzer, die nah ran muessen - Gut bei der PEF funktioniert das ganz ok, aber ich weiss nicht wie die Panzerungen der anderen Schiffe aussehen.