invicta2012

But we have sloops. Escort DDs could be a thing...

I thought it was the Varyag?

I can't keep up with all this annoyance. What are we cross about this week?

They have noticed that the community does not value signal flags as a commodity. Therefore they will make them value them.

It could do with a concealment buff, I think. It would do better with base concealment of about 6.6/6.5, so it could do more sniping. That would be better balanced, because you'd be able to pick off damaged ships but would have a problem if you got too close to full health ones (as you're not going to wipe them out...)

You are right! I should have said that they have an even number of shafts in order to provide the necessary space (as four could be distributed evenly where as the centre space on a three shaft design would restrict space necessary for magazines). Having dredged through my copy of Norman Friedman's "British Cruisers" I can find it mentioned in reference to the Leander design ("DNC found that he had to provide four-shaft machinery (rather than lighter-weight three shafts) to provide centreline space aft for magazines and shell rooms under the turrets...."), post war variations on the Tiger design ("As in earlier attempts at three-shaft cruisers, the magazine for one twin 6in mount would present problems, and it might have to be raised."),

A great deal of that wiki entry reads like Norman Friedman to me... quite a distinctive prose style. Anyhoo... the point, I think, is that there is limited value to a 360 degree turret as there would inevitably be restrictions on the firing angles caused by the superstructure of the ship. Even with lower calibre, high elevation weapons which could potentially make use of the full 360 traverse the practicalities of making those weapons work was significant - they normally needed a higher position on the hull, causing top weight and instability issues, and the space needed to accommodate such weapons caused an (often) unacceptable growth in the overall size of the ship, given the clearance (and resulting increased hull length) that each turret might need to rotate freely at speed.

Well, you chaps will have to argue it out with whoever wrote the Wikipedia entries.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-,_K-_and_N-class_destroyer "These mountings were capable of 40° elevation and 340° of training. Curiously, 'X' mounting was positioned such that the blind 20° arc was across the stern, rather than the more logical forward position where fire was obscured by the bridge and masts anyway. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_and_M-class_destroyer "As ordered, the ships were to have six QF Mark XI 4.7-inch (120 mm) guns in Mark XX twin mountings in 'A', 'B', and 'X' positions. The 'X' mount gave an estimated arc of fire of 320 degrees at low elevations and 360 degrees at elevations above around 20 degrees."

Destroyer turrets generally could rotate 360 (or very close to it, as you can see on the British J/K/L/M/N class ships in the game, where X turret is only blocked from firing into the ship's superstructure). With cruisers and battleships the concerns were about.... a) safe positioning of the magazines - you really don't want one of those in the bow of the ship where it could be ignited by a mine or torpedo strike b) shell handling methods - whether navies had a "short trunk" turret design, where shells and charges were moved from a magazine, into a handling room and then into the turret (takes more space) or "long trunk" design where ordnance was sent direct from the magazine to the turret (more compact, but still with concerns about a hit on the magazines) c) Esp. with rear turrets, whether there was enough space for all the turret and ammunition handling space and the prop shafts to drive the ship. British cruisers, which were extremely tight designs, always had twin shafts because there was never enough space for three and the number of guns the Admiralty wanted. Where you had no internal ammo structures and single guns (with ammunition being take from storage lockers or moved along the deck by ammo parties) you could put the guns where the heck you wanted... that's why Hawkins has that ludicrous rear gun on the Quarterdeck. Apparently the skipper of that ship regarded it as being hazardous to the morale of his crew to have that gun manned - the exposed position and vibration from the propellers was said to be terrifying, even for experienced hands, in anything but the flattest sea.

I wasn't aware of that one - shame if we can't have either 'stralia because of that. Delhi was mooted a while back when WG were talking about expanding the game into India, as was Mysore. The Pakistan Navy had some distinguished ships too, although with the, er, competitive nature of relationships between those two countries and their population it might be more than the game can handle. However, if they did, then Tippu Sultan, otherwise known as HMS Onslow, would be my pick. A decent little Tier VI DD with a distinguished service record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Onslow_(G17)

Hmm. I'd prefer an original Sims with sensible torpedoes (they originally had 3 x 4, like Mahan), a Porter class leader or one of the Bagley/Gridley class (Maury, maybe?) as a Tier IX with more speed and slower torpedo reload. They'd still be able to kick out 16 torpedoes but it wouldn't be spam spam spam....

Maximum damage from a six torp Visby salvo is 37,200, and most Tier V BBs will have at least 10% damage reduction, so you can't really whack a BB unless it's got less than 34k health, and from experience so far I would say 30k is the limit (allowing for saturation, etc). The key to getting the most from these ships is whittling down the strength of larger enemies before you make that torp run - then you get full benefit from the speed and the super-narrow spread.

I've played Visby enough to get the Three Crowns camo, and I think it's a viable ship. What I think people need to realise is that these ships change the role of other ship classes - there's no point sitting at the back shouting "DD go spot", because it won't be there for you for long to do that if you don't support it.

There's all manner of fun in that tree. I quite fancy the Chilean Almirante class DDs. They ended up with Vickers 4 inch guns capable of firing every 1.2 seconds. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNCHL_4-62_Vickers.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almirante-class_destroyer Spam spam spam spam....

Sierra Mike, Victor Lima, India Delta signals - boosting speed, flood chance, and heals - are very useful. And yes, flank and torp works well. Don't brawl unless you can be sure the DD doesn't have support. HE damage you can heal, cruiser damage is the problem.

I don't think it's horribly bad... just requires a bit of care in the approach. It's probably easier to die early in this low HP ship than in any other DD nation, so it's definitely about maximising your HP pool by dodging and kiting, using torps and fires to snipe and harass and maximising the value of your heal and speed boost. Rather like the low tier British ones, I suppose, but without the get-out-of-jail smokescreens.

The Trabant's shell was a work of genius - it was just the fact the engine was derived from a lawnmower which was the problem....

Just unlocked a Visby with tokens from today's Europe container and first impressions are a bit... hmm. Not quite sure what this ship is good at. You can't gunfight other DDs, aren't great at harassing anyone, and while you can take out cruisers with those torpedoes you certainly can't do the same to a BB. Like the speed and manoeuvrability but the ship feels as if it is constantly trying not to get into situations it can't handle, and there aren't many it can.

You could always just play them. DDs are the best fun class at low Tiers, and everyone seems to skip the early ones. Even in Co-op - which I'd recommend because of the Hosho plague - you can still have fun. Vampire, Valkyrie, Fusilier, Clemson, Isokaze, Derzki... just some good honest derping around torpedoing things.

It has an aeroplane on the back of it. Just because it's not flat doesn't mean it's not a CV.

I has also been taking the risks #Noris Kno Game - anyone with a score of less than five in the PT indicator is clearly a proper Noris

Also worth considering using AP if you've got the angles to do so. It's not the improved AP that Jutland and Daring have but it can be effective.

Noris Kno Game? Who is Noris and what does he kno?

I think WG still works on the basis that Tier V DDs aren't meant to have 10pt + captains. Naive, yes, but you can't blame them for it. They made all the low Tier French DDs a little OP but obviously no-one notices that these days.... I've seen a few Visby's in action and people are finding that combination of Tier III health and no smoke a challenge. They were getting chewed up and spat out, especially by Jaguar (Mine has a 6pt skipper, before you ask...)

Yudachi disagrees with you. Really. 15k is much too far for any game mode, they are a complete hazard to shipping. Anything fired at any angle other than straight in front of you... if it doesn't find the target you can affect team mates on the other side of the map. Now I have TA cap skill and the TTM1 module I've got 12k, 65 knot torps, which is much more usable. I'm not sure I'd push Fubuki's torp range down, though. She's not quick and with the shorter range you risk not being able to escape from an unsuccessful salvo. 10-12k seems optimal for an IJN DD...