Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


About WyomingNavy

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia
  1. WyomingNavy

    US Navy CV Changes

    It would be nice to have some info about the AP bombs penetration details. For shells, I can activate detailed ribbons, so I can see when a shell over-penned, penned, shattered, bounced, or citadeled. All I know now is that a bomb hit. (Although when an AP does 800 damage, you can guess over-pen). I'm curious to know if AP bombs could be over-penning through the citadel at this stage. To quote from the AP bomb Q&A Thread : As coded, the AP bombs have a very narrow range, 70mm to arm, but only 184mm penetration. With fuse delay, does the shell explode inside the citadel or exit the ship (thereby over-penning through the citadel)? Not to mention ships where there doesn't seem to be a 70mm plate from between the deck and the keel. I'm just speculating at this point, because it isn't clear to me how AP bombs are behaving. In any event, if the AP bomb is molded on an in game 305mm AP shell, its arming threshold is way too high. Even 410mm AP does not need 70mm to arm. 305mm AP shells should arm somewhere in 40mm range. As a practical matter, most t7+ BB decks are 32mm so the AP bombs should arm at that level. That would help their general utility as well. From the wiki
  2. WyomingNavy

    General Feedback

    Just a couple of ascetic comments about the ship viewer. Regarding the armor viewer, would it be possible to rework the display a bit for T8+ US BBs to bring out the armored deck above the citadel? Currently, on the you have a thick layer as the "Casemate Armor" that starts at the 38mm deck (taking the Iowa for example) and then the citadel viewer which shows the citadel splinter roof of 25mm. I'm pretty sure there is another armored deck (that was visible in the viewer before the citadels of high tear BBs were lowered) between the deck and the citadel roof. Perhaps the upper part of the current "Casemate Armor" could be called "Auxiliary Space" armor in the viewer?
  3. WyomingNavy

    Autobounce angle

    ​I'm kind of mixed on that reaction. It seems like long range camping happens no matter what. If penetrations occurred more at long ranges, at least people would be damaging each other with all that craziness... ​I have heard that as well. I wonder how bad it was. In any event, playing with the auto-bounce angle seems like a more elegant solution than doing something with overmatch (which is what WG was thinking about doing a few patch cycles ago when they wanted to nerf bow armor.)
  4. WyomingNavy

    Autobounce angle

    This is a bit of a thought exercise. How much would it change gameplay to change the auto-bounce angle from its current level of 30 degrees to 10 (to choose an arbitrary number.) As many know, deck penetrations and bow penetrations on BBs are impossible in-game unless the shell is large enough to overmatch because the impact angles are always below 30 degrees. The result (in my opinion) is a lot of ineffective long range firing and a lot of inconclusive short range bow to bow confrontations. Lowering the auto-bounce angle to 10 degrees wouldn't be unreasonable (a US 406 cm from a Mark 6 pens 77mm of deck armor at an impact angle of 11 degrees IRL) and it would apply evenly across all ships. Of course the net result would be more penetrations (although not necessarily more citadel hits), but would that be a bad thing? All this AP invulnerability from the front gets boring after a while.
  5. WyomingNavy

    Hitting the Citadel of a Scharnorst/Gneisenau

    ​Pretty picture ! Question, does angle of fall as visually rendered actually equall the angle of fall? I was under the impression that the visual effect was exaggerated. As for getting a cit hit on a German BB through the barbette, I think there is another way as well. If you are angled off the bow or stern around 30-40 degrees, I think the bow plate can be hit at a non-auto bounce angle (due to its curvature) and the shell can then carry on through the front bulkhead, which is quite thin. The shell has to hit just right though.
  6. WyomingNavy

    Changing autobounce angle/overmatch

    I'm not sure I agree that it rewards strategic play. Within terms of the game mechanic, I agree it's the smartest thing to do from a safety standpoint, but it tends to fix BBs. 2 BBs locked in a bow on duel can stay stuck for some time, which makes them useless for moving with the flow of the game. (Not to mention the irony that having your T crossed is about the best place to be in a naval game). I'm not for nerfing BBs in general (I'm primarily a BB player). I'm for punishing static gameplay. Lowering the auto-bounce angle would tend to do that because it would improve penetrations through the bow and through the deck on BBs. Currently, no T+8 BB (except perhaps the Yamato) can penetrate the deck armor of another, even at max range, because the shells fall at a too shallow of an angle to not auto-bounce but the armor is just thick enough to prevent an overmatch. (CA drivers don't get this luxury, and can easily take citadel hits from BBs through the deck.) If the auto-bounce angle were flattened to a point where BB on BB deck penetrations would happen at 20KM+, that would also help penetrate through the bow. That would take the safety factor away from hanging back bow on at distance, because people would start taking citadel hits at long range. Hang back = get killed. (Or, if people want to keep hanging back....at least this would let them kill each other!)
  7. WyomingNavy

    Changing autobounce angle/overmatch

    Back last summer, WG played with the idea of nerfing BB bow armor levels so that T8+ BBs could overmatch each other from head on. This was seen as a way to address the bow on stalemates that frequently develop, which is a laudable goal IMO (as a disclaimer, I am a frequent NC and Iowa player, so the bow on approach is one I'm often forced to use). The idea was dropped, but couldn't the same thing be achieved, in a more elegant way, by simply modifying the auto-bounce mechanic and or the overmatch calculation. Currently shells that land at a surface angle of 30 degrees bounce. If that number was changed to say 25 or 26 degrees (which after accounting for shell normalization would lessen the angle further), then the "safe" zone for bow camping would be greatly reduced. In addition, it would open up the possibility deck penetrations via plunging fire. A similar thing could be achieved by playing with the overmatch system by reducing the coefficient from its current level of 14 times the armor thickness, however that would probably be a more brutal approach. I'm curious what people think.
  8. WyomingNavy

    Advanced Firing Training?

    It has been a while since I played, so I was wondering, did advanced firing training get nerfed and only impacts AA now? I run a NC with Secondary Battery Mod2 and a captain with AFT. I was under the impression that the skills stacked (as in +20% for the range of secondaries from both). The base range for the Secondary Battery in a NC is 6km, so you would think it would be increased by 40% to 8.4, but in game it shows as 7.2. I burned some doubloons to dismount the SBM2, and range went down to 6km. I can only assume that AFT no longer increases the range of the secondary battery. Has this been other people's experience as well?
  9. WyomingNavy

    Defensive AA consumable?

    Well given how long it is taking the new update to install, I have some time to contribute my two cents. At the end of the day, I'm against the AAA consumable for CVs. If the justification is that CV sniping is a "bad" tactic that ruins the game for everyone else because it allows your team to dominate after 2 mins, I say do a better job protecting your CV. When I run a strike Lex, I figure it is my job to dominate a game, starting with taking out the other CV. (Usually my first strike is always intended for the other CV). I can tell ya, it only takes 1 high tear CA escorting a CV with the good sense to maneuver to break up my strike. And for those of you who say it condemns a CA to babysit the CV for the whole game, it usually is an issue only for the first 5 mins. If I don't get the other CV in the first 5 mins, i usually switch targets because there are more pressing things to go after, so the CA doesn't have to ride the CV for the full 20 mins. (In any event, CAs sticking with CVs often get action in the form of DDs that slip through the line.) I tend to see upper level battles as AAA hell anyway, because more often than not the ships stick together for AAA protection. This is just going to make it harder to not loose a boatload of planes in high level airstrikes.
  10. WyomingNavy

    Lexington squadron setups...?

    I'm actually coming to the conclusion that the AS setup is the most consistent. Stock is under-powered (if balanced), and strike is feast or famine. With the DB bluff, the two squadrons can be pretty strong, and you can fight off the wings of a strike Lex pretty simply. If I see a strike Lex these days, I push my fighters out to harass his squads from far out, while I burn him up (it generally takes a second strike).
  11. WyomingNavy

    Secondary Batteries

    Well that's the way it should be, that is what secondary batteries were designed for! In all seriousness though, I get the need to balance, but the balance is too far in the other direction. Competent DD capts aren't scared by secondary batteries at all. 4km is close enough that DD torps are hard to avoid, and secondaries just don't do enough to dissuade the in close attack. They should be effective enough to keep DDs at a certain distance.
  12. WyomingNavy

    Secondary Batteries

    Does anyone else think the BB secondary batteries need to be buffed up a bit? As it stands, the 4km range limit makes them pretty useless in their primary role...to ward off small ships that get to close. Even when they do fire, they are pretty inaccurate. Take the New York class for example. It's secondary battery was made up of 127mm (5") guns with a range of 15,000 yards (9miles 14.5 km), well in excess of the arbitrary 4km limit. Given that many destroyers and cruisers main batteries of similar caliber and range, a BBs secondary battery of the same size should be able to match that range. As it stands, secondary guns are so useless that BBs are simply destroyer bait.