Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About AB_Cunningham

  1. AB_Cunningham

    Depth charges on the quarterdeck

    Hi folks. This may be quite a nerdy point to make, but I'll make it anyway. There is depth charges on the quarterdeck on many ships in WoWs, and while that is historically accurate for a general operational role, most logs I've read seem to indicate that those where jettisoned before or at the start of surface engagement, as one unlucky hit could blow up the whole ship - or certainly the stern. In a fleet engagement DDs might possibly have kept them, and also on escort missions: I know from reading the logs and report from Achates and the Northern Gem in the Battle of the Barents Sea that many of Achates crews died when her depth charges blew up as she sank - though, its not clear if that was mounted depthcharges or from her magazines. However, larger ships that would be expected to play a direct part in the engangement, like the british CAs, would have jettisoned all mounted depthcharges as they where readying their ships for battle, as Ajax, Exeter and Achilles did when they engaged Graf Spee. As our ships is quite clearly going into battle and as fire or direct hits on the quarterdeck in WoWs don't produce the catastrophic results it would have if the depth charges where there, I think you should consider removing them from the ship model. Have a nice day
  2. AB_Cunningham

    Royal Navy Cruisers Feedback

    I think some of you folks, and WG, have misunderstood the "light" in light cruisers. The distinction stems from the washington naval treaty. Light cruisers of WW2 where not less armoured than heavy cruisers. It is only the guns 6 inch vs 8 inch that differs. NOT armour. And on the contrary, many light cruisers where better protected than heavy ones. Two examples: T8 Mogami: Had in reality 3,9 inch plate belt, 1,4 inch deck and 1 inch on turrets. T8 Admiral Hipper: Had 2,8-3,1 inch belt, 0,79 inch -1,97 inch deck and 4,1 inch on turrets Compare that to the light cruiser HMS Belfast (T7): She had 4,5 inch belt, 2-3 inch deck and 4 inch turret. Oh, and there is no historical basis for removing HE shells from british ships. But there is a historical basis for giving british shells better AP capacity than german and japanese ships - but only from 1925 onward. The british had perhaps the worst shells (of the big navies - so this exclude less important and technologically inferior navies like the russian navy) up to 1917/8, when the green boy shells where introduced. (Though the phasing in took some time and not all ships had the new shells in 1918). After 1925 they arguably had the best shells.
  3. AB_Cunningham

    NERF German BB Armor !

    I have found no problems with german armor at higher tiers, if remember correctly I have citadelled everything from t7 to t10 with my Iowa, but at lower tier it seems a bit excessive. It should perhaps be pointed out that german armor preformed very well in world war 1, but that was more down to superior ammunition handling (no magazine explosions) and the poor performance of british shells, when the new greenboy shells where introduced (in 1918 - I think) the armor was not that good. To quote from BL15 firing test against Baden (Bayern class BB) after the war: Source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.php So, at 14.000 meters an upgraded Warspite firing at an angle of less than 20 degrees should in almost all circumstances penetrate both turret armor and belt armor of a Bayern. Especially when one considers the warning that firing with reduced charges over a short trajectory (as was done in these firing tests) leads to unsteady flight of the shells and therefore reduces the penetrating capacity of the shell. If it does not, it is either for gameplay reasons or because of chauvinism from WGs part. Edit: It should also be noted that the british upgraded their shells several times in the interwar era, and had perhaps the best performing shells in the second world war (though, if my memory serves me correctly, both the US and Italy had very good shells also). At that time the only nation still using WW1 technology shells was the Japanese, who where stuck with something resembling greenboys. That is one of the reasons the 18 inch guns of the Yamato was not as impressive as some people would like to think.
  4. Wow.. This derailed quick. Back to topic: If wargaming really wanted to do something special with the RN line they could have dropped the cruisers and given us a pure battlecruiser line. Other than that I agree with SgtToad. WG has a tendency to make anything british a bit crap, and that is simply not historically correct. Warspite as she is in game is nowhere near what she was in real life. Oh, I'm not british, and I'm not old ;)
  5. AB_Cunningham

    Warspite in need of boosted range with matchmaker mod

    This sums up why I think she needs a range boost. That said, I tried both her and my t5 destroyer yesterday and in both games there where warspites grouped with t5s, so perhaps wargaming have chosen the other option - grouping her with older ships. Not as historically correct, but still, it makes her playable again.
  6. AB_Cunningham

    Warspite in need of boosted range with matchmaker mod

    Just to recap, my no.1 problem was not that the Warspite is uncompetative, but that in a fast paced t8 battle with multiple points to hold, she is just to slow and has to short range to actually contribute. Then, a few more points: Some people seems to suggest that Wargaming is not fair on the british. I do hope this is wrong, but it might seem that way. If so, I suggest they read a few more history books. Warspite should NOT be anywhere near Baden. The modernized QE ships (QE, Valiant and Warspite) went through a complete upgrade before WW2, and apart from a slower speed she is more comparable to Bismarck or a KGV class than to a WW1 battleship. So a QE class ship from WW1 would perhaps belong in t6, but there should be no reason not to place a fully upgraded one in t7. If they had kept the (historically accurate) slow speed of 24kn, and given her a more realistic range, kept her accuracy and perhaps boosted the turret turning speed, she would have been competitive at t7. If they then had kept the other QEs at t6, they would have given another reason for gamers to purchase the Warspite also ;) And then the most important consideration, especially from Wargamings viewpoint: Why should anyone want to pay for Warspite in her current condition, and, even more important: If Wargaming is not willing to make sure that the premium ships remains enjoyable to play, why would anyone want to buy any of them? I now play the NC and Iowa, plus Nicholas, Phoenix and Mahan, all free ships. Unless Wargaming demonstrates that they give extra consideration to their premium ships, I'm not going to buy any more - I have more than enough of standard ships, and some of them is always going to be competitive.
  7. AB_Cunningham

    Warspite in need of boosted range with matchmaker mod

    Just to underscore my point again: Yes, Warspite is not competitive in the battles she is fighting now, but that's really not my main problem - someone will always suffer when the game is tweaked - and now it is the tier 6 bbs and warspite in particular. The main problem is that because of a combination of slow speed (she is up against the NC and Tirpitz) and short range, you cant really contribute to the fight the way you could in another bb. If I play e.g. the NC. I can fight for A at the beginning of the round, then quickly get to c/d and fight there towards the end. But in the Warspite, that's not an option. If I go to A and help to secure that, and most of the enemy team heads to the other side, I'm left playing catchup. Unless both teams play a defensive fight I won't get a chance to enter the battle until the fight is over. That's not fun for me, and it's not fair for my team who plays with one bb less. My suggestion would be to move warspite to T7 (though i guess that would be impossible because they have probably already made RN BB line and placed the QE at T6). The reasoning for this would be that they would then be able to boost her range (and perhaps do something to the turret traverse speed). She would be slow, but she would be formidable with good guns and good armour. And that suits the QEs fine. In their upgraded version with the "Queen Annes mansion", new internal layout and improved guns and ammunition the QE has no business fighting the Bayerns and it is incorrect to put them on the same level. The Warspite of 1917 would probably had a rough time against a Bayern, the Warspite of 1940 would probably have dealt with a (unmodernized) Bayern without much difficulty. So, boost her up to T7 and improve the ship to make her competitive - and that would also be a good idea for Wargaming: When the RN BB line comes out, you could let the standard t6 battleship to be a QE class (lets say the Barham - who never got the mid 30s upgrade), then you could get the 20s upgrades of better armour and ammunition, but not the full 30s upgrade. Or you could get the premium Warspite and have a QE at t7, fully upgraded and ready to take on Scharnhorts and Bismarck - though with a slight disadvantage of lower speed.
  8. The new matchmaker modification has its ups and downs, and I dont want to complain. But it has destroyed Warspite. What was once a good ship is now just a guarantee that you will be bored. When I play the Warspite Im almost always grouped in a battle with t7 and t8 ships. Its annoying to always play the underdog, but I could live with that. The worst part is that you dont even get to play. With 24 knots and only 16km range, Im usually left in the wake of the other ships desperately trying to catch up and unable to contribute. This has now happened so often that Ive completely given up on playing Warspite - why would I want to play her when I have NC and Iowa? I can't see why this is good for either gameplay or - as Warspite is a premium ship - business? The 24 knots is ok, and it is historically accurate. But in my opinion you should consider increasing the range of her guns. I dont know where you have gotten 16km from, but Warspites main guns had a range of over 30 km. (The secondaries had a range of 19 km, but I guess giving BBs realistic secondary armaments would destroy the gameplay for cruisers and destroyers). So, I hope you do something to make her more competitive. Rumours have it that you are saving the range boost for the QE class of British BBs, but even so its unfortunate that Warspite now is something that I would never recommend buying.
  9. AB_Cunningham

    Any tips on North Carolina?

    I agree, I have nothing against the Tirpitz Also, what you mention is mostly historically correct. The AA defense was not as good as comparable ships. And the main battery was fast shooting. (But don't underestimate them, there isn't that big difference between the 15 and the 16 inch guns in WWII - good shell design made sure of that. I've actually seen them, impressive guns ) Thank you all for helpful replies, much appreciated and I'll try to do my best
  10. AB_Cunningham

    Any tips on North Carolina?

    Thanks again for helpful replies. But i must admit it's more than a bit infuriating. Just finished a game now - 41 AP hits and only 50k damage done. Most of them where good hits near the citadels and most were hits on the broadside and I just KNOW I would have gotten three times that damage if I had used the colerado or Warspite. (Thats just counting the hits - NCs spread means I would have gotten far more hits than 41 if I had played with a different BB) Its both annoying and frustrating really. You feel completely powerless and unable to make a difference in the game or help your teammates. I'm going to stick at it until I get all the upgrades, but if it still sucks I'm going to leave the US BB line, and play DDs until the RN line comes (which I hope won't be too long - if its to long I'll leave the game all together ). Thanks for a very good reply Stuntman. I guess you have all seen it, but this is quite enlightening with regards to armour: Bismarck class vs. KGV. (Pay attention to how deep the magazines are in the KGVs) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/KGV_Tirpitz_armour_and_underwater_protection.png Btw. this is also interesting: http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm To my view the devs has been influenced more by myths than reality when giving the Tirpitz its qualities. But I guess that could also be said about the Yamato - a brilliantly armored battleship, but lost most of that because of the Japanese legendary lack of damage control. But I guess you have to make ships that feels like people think it should feel, not like it actually did.
  11. AB_Cunningham

    Any tips on North Carolina?

    Sorry, but I have one more question. Its regarding armour and guns. I know the armour is terrible unless you angle it correctly. But how come my guns aren't doing any damage? Take Tirpitz as an example. I've experienced many times hitting it right where I want from 6-10k and just get 5-8k damage. I know from experience that I would got at least twice and probably 3-4 times that if I had used the colerado. While the Tirpitz does almost 30k damage to me? I know Tirpitz is a premium ship and that the Bismarck class has a lot of unfounded myths about their abilities, and I guess a game has to live up to both of those things, but that is just not right.
  12. AB_Cunningham

    Any tips on North Carolina?

    Thanks for helpful replies
  13. AB_Cunningham

    Any tips on North Carolina?

    Hi folks. Warning,noob question coming up! Does anyone have any tips on playing the North Carolina class? I hate whining, so I'm sorry to be a whiner, but since I got the NC all the fun in the game has disappeared. Guess it gets better when its fully upgraded, but right now its just no fun. I try to angle the armor, and fight with only A and B turrets, but I still get a lot of damage, and while I used to hit well, everything is off with the NC - and even if I hit the shell dispersion is so high I don't do a lot of damage. Anyone got some good tips for a noob so I can get back some of the fun? If not I'm going to terminate my premium and delete the game
  14. I find the fire hazard and damage from from fires the single most unbalanced and strange thing in this game. It also breaks with almost everything we know from history. I've read my share of naval history, and I can't remember a single instance of a USN or RN battleship being destroyed by fire. In real life ships from the QE-class and upwards would be completely immune to attack from cruisers (excluding torpedoes and damage to upperworks and less well protected areas of the ship), so I do understand that for gameplay and balance reasons there is a need for a way for cruisers to destroy battleships. But the mechanic now seems unbalanced, and it also ignores all real life cruiser tactics. From my point of view cruisers can stay at long range and burn down battleships, in real life - especially in the RN which had the most aggressive (and successful tactics) - cruisers would try to close range as fast as possible to negate a battleships range and firepower, while battleships had all advantages at long range. I would suggest a few alterations: 1: Introduce damage from near-misses for 12 inch and above. Battleships where practically immune to damage from near-misses, but this was a grave threat to cruisers and destroyers. 2: A lot of battleships, especially German ships of WWII (and KGVs before they got rid of the teething problems) had a problem with reduced shell output and accuracy in battle. (If you don't believe the part about German ships, read the report from the german officers here: http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12444 and the quote from Scharnhorsts gunnery officer in the bottom of this post). Make it easier for cruisers to disable BBs main and secondary batteries - yes, this is not historically correct - cruisers could not have penetrated BBs turrets, so make them able to disable them. 3: Make fire a lot less damaging. Fires are ok, but even quite large fires could not have done much damage to the ship itself. It could however hamper fighting efficiency. Instead of letting fires do a lot of damage to the ship, make it reduce shell accuracy, increase reload time and increase rudder traverse time - that would simulate a general decrease in fighting efficiency. The last suggestions in 2 and 3 would compensate for less dps damage from cruisers, and also increase the cruisers chances of survival if she fought well.