DFens_666

Conqueror / Thunderer survivability. Only surpassed by Slava, which has 50%. Shikishima is same as Thunderer with 45,62% (stats from last week btw). Incidently, a lot of BBs seems to have higher survivability than usually, there are plenty with around 40% or even slightly more. But i think a drop in survivability wouldnt be too bad for Thunderer (or Conqueror aswell for that matter). Well, Bourgogne has same armor (except citadel is not as vulnerable), with less HP, smaller guns with worse dispersion, but 12 instead of 8, and the HE is not as potent. Bourgogne is faster, but less maneuvrable. Thunderer should just not have the same HE as other UK BBs. At this point, WG should probably look into removing the firechance entirely from BBs, because thats a big reason why this game is becoming so toxic.

So other BBs, whos HE is inferior to UK BB HE (which is everyone btw) also have no possibility to deal damage from range? Does AP have a range cap or something? 457mm guns are not good enough? 12,3km concealment on the Thunderer is the best on TX BBs. Compared to Yamato f.e. which only gets 14,1km, or GK which gets 14,3km. Even many TX Cruisers cant get 12,3km concealment... Do you think they have better armor than Thunderer??

Just wondering about this. Ive seen 6 BB games (so 12 total) a few times lately... mostly by watching streams or vids on YT. Seems quite odd imo, if there are too many BBs in queue, and MM should get rid of excess BBs it should be even more than 6 BBs , as we sometimes see like 9 or 10 even. But it has been 6... so hidden softcap "softening" so to speak? If there are too many BBs, put 12 in one game to lower the numbers from BBs in the queue? Anyone else seen this?

Well, but thats true for all IJN BBs. And Nagato has the 2nd best Sigma, same as Izumo these days, only surpassed by Yamato.

https://replayswows.com/ You can also just upload the replayfile on that page and give us the link. We can download the file and watch it ourselves. Ofc its easier for us if you record it yourself, but either way works. F.e. you can share the replay from that game (the last 20 replays should be stored by default in your wows folder).

Nagato is rather accurate. Amagi is worse, i liked Nagato, but i hated Amagi. But thats personal preference, i know others who love Amagi. If you want more help how to play it, upload a couple of replays so we can give pointers on what to do differently. Incidently, the large caliber guns tend to get more overpens when shooting at squishy targets (so T5-6 ships) and you can get more value out of them by also taking shots at angled target, because they can overmatch a lot of ships. If you, however, get only overpens on broadside ships, then you often aimed too high, or the shells didnt land on the citadel (or a very squishy Cruiser is very close to you).

Combine that with the false pretense "doesnt matter what I do, one person can not change the outcome of the game" and you get what we have now. We both know, that the below average players think that way (not all ofc, but i guess its quite a few). The problem with WoWs is, that there is an infinite number of options during one game. But both teams have those options, and people decide what they do. In the end, you can still point out specific decisions which cause a win or a loss. I want to use one of Flamus games from yesterday when he was streaming: Thats how it looked, and the enemies had like 830 points or something. There was ONLY 1 winning move, because his team needed to stop the caps AND get the kills to win the game. Killing both BBs in time was actually not an option. Flamu needed to go to A to stop that cap, and his 2 DDs needed to kill the Pommern, without dying, and then get the C cap. Incidently, the Pommern rushed into both DDs and died. Flamu thought he needed to go C to help his DDs kill the BBs. But the funny thing is, that didnt matter. If his 2 DDs couldnt kill the Pommern, it was also a loss. So did Flamu lose the game? No, thats kinda stupid to say. His team played so bad before. Id rather say, he didnt win the game by picking the wrong option. There are many winning moves during a game (assuming its not a roflstomp, because roflstomps are often caused by suiciding from one team), and sometimes, those moves are intertwined with other things, like the above example: - One of the green team dies = loss - Pommern doesnt die = loss - Flamu goes C = loss If you understand the option to win the game, you have to do the right move, while at the same time, you need to rely on your team to also do the right thing. They [edited]up = its a loss. You [edited]up = its a loss. Thats why, people are going "win harder" and then lose the game. Especially if the entire team pulls the win harder-option, LITERALLY every person has the choice to not go in and die. This means, everyone could decide to win the game, but they all [edited]up individually.

Full secondary power. You could take something else as first pointer, since Narai is just the same over and over, you should know if you want to have HE loaded or not (thus making Gun Feeder a bit useless). Might aswell go with AP all the time, i usually dont shoot HE in Narai anyway. Even PM could make sense to not lose torptubes, they break so easily. Last 4 points you could take whatever. Even taking Vigilance could make sense if you play really aggressive so you can dodge better. I doubt that you need FP or extra heal in Narai. For randoms, if you wanna go tank build, im not really sure if that makes a lot of sense. Sure, MM sucks, but if you wanna sit back, then why pick Scharnhorst in the first place? Id just go with a secondary build and wing it from there. The only important skill to have is FP. Extra heal is negligible. You could theoratically take CE, and only take TGG to buff your mainguns when you have a ship in secondary range (then not taking manual sec ofc). Question is, if that makes a lot of sense. I guess that would look something like this. I would not go without ASM in 3rd slot. I dropped secondary mod today on my Pommern aswell, and it works much better. You still have 8,33km secondaries with this build (with flag), and you get a buff to your mainguns. You dont have BoS, which is not necessary anyway, because running DCP mod in 4th slot + fire flag is good enough against fires. Secondaries are a bit less accurate, but i guess it would work. You can play a bit more passive at the start and hope for an opening to close the distance, so you can use torps/secondaries and improve your mainbattery reload.

They watched all the YT-compilations of Austins melting a ship in 30 sec - took them 10 minutes of research time

I was just hoping to get some secondary action in ranked with my Pommern... get Greece twice, and we know how that goes: People camp at islands, so you cant use secondaries. If you go around, they just torp you to crap, or even worse, go for the ram. Still had to absolutely hardcarry the 2nd game

Told you

A lot of times, people have suggested, that HE should not start fires when it shatters. While they claim this would make sense, it doesnt make sense from a gameplay and balancing perspective. It would cause ships, that rely on fires, to get much less fires, while on the other hand, high-pen ships like Thunderer would still cause fires all the time. So what makes more sense? The opposite! Penetrating HE shells should not cause a fire, while non-pen HE on the other hand, should cause fires. - Instant balance for HE slinging BBs, because they can still cause 10k HE salvos, but they wont cause a fire with every salvo. If they want to start a fire, then aim for the belt, but get less direct damage - IFHE would balance itself, while it does not need any fire penalty at all anymore. You increase HE pen = you get less fires by default, unless you choose to shatter your shells deliberately. So the ultimate tradeoff: Direct damage OR fires - not this RNG-fiesta we have now, which needs heavy nerfing to not get out of hands (ofc this applies only to Cruisers, BBs like Thunderer are allowed to get everything). The whole IFHE rework could be reversed, as getting 32mm HE pen with Cruisers would already be a tradeoff. - Much less RNG - Aiming matters more - DDs and Cruisers would receive less fires, not sure if that is breaking any balance, as DDs would basicly not burn at all anymore, since any HE shell can pen them. - Idealy this should be applied to rockets and HE bombs aswell, however while it could work with rockets, it would basicly mean HE bombs dont cause fires anymore, which then makes them inferior AP bombs. Alternatively we could finaly get rid of AP bombs, by giving some CVs high-pen HE bombs, which dont cause fires, and others low-pen HE bombs, which do cause fires... allright, im dreaming again But apart from the CV stuff, everything makes sense.

I wanted to say, they are the same, then i realized, Monty doesnt have the 38mm bulges. But that doesnt actually matter. If you hit the torpedo bulges, it will shatter because behind that is the thick belt armor. Back in the day, those always resulted in 0 damage pens, luckily WG changed that to give a better feedback.

Well mostly depends how the ship is angled. And what kinda upper belt armor it has. F.e. a broadside US BB, the higher pen from the smaller guns will probably not result in more damage at all, or only very little if they hit the bow/stern. But a broadside french BB with 32mm armor - should give much better results.

Its way more than that. The smaller guns shoot more than twice as fast than the big guns, while dealing 66% of their damage. And they are also more numerous. Pommern has 12x 150mm guns and 16x 105mm guns, but they shoot twice as fast so its like having 32 of those (even a bit more). Roughly speaking, for 1 larger caliber secondary shell, you have 3 smaller caliber shells hitting the target. 1 Big shell deals 561 damage, 3 small ones 1200. So if all of them pen, you CAN get a damage increase of 68%. Since obviously shells do hit the superstructure which they would pen anyway, the smaller shells would still deal damage. But when the target is bow on, you will hit more shells on the bow aswell, and ships that have 27-32mm armor on the midsection will also receive more damage when being broadside. Ive had good experience with IFHE in Ranked with Pommern.

I totaly agree, thats what i see aswell. Like i shoot a BB, get a fire or 2, he DCPs... then a Thunderer from the backline gets fires while i try to start a permafire, and then ofc i will hardly get any more fires, if the only place to get on is the stern, which means i have to sacrifice more damage to get a fire, because hitting the stern is hard and will result in lets hits than just hitting the midsection/superstructure...

Thanks Cruisers are not capped in any form. If there would be enough to start a 12vs12 Cruiser battle, then MM would just do it.

I guess its a matter of how you wanna see it. For me, shooting HE can just be "hit the ship where-ever and you can start a fire", especially BBs shooting HE it doesnt really matter where you aim, you always get damage and fires. If you can get either or, it does matter what you want to hit. F.e. the target DCPs, and you can only get a fire if you hit a certain area, than hitting that area means you have to aim properly (or know where to aim). Otherwise you can shoot the superstructure indefinetely and not start a fire again.

Were they? I dunno, maybe... i havent payed attention to that. But ever since this sub testing started, ive gotten stuck so badly that i couldnt get off anymore. Sometimes only autopilot helped

Has happened to me aswell... i blame map rework to accomodate subs?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal-Klasse_(1936)#/media/Datei:HMS_Tartar_Heckansicht.JPG I guess it was not centered in reallife either, thus its the way it is

So if we increase the firechance, everyone would be happy? I kinda doubt that one

Atleast in theory, it should. The idea is ofc, that IFHE becomes relevant while still being a tradeoff, and not something which nerfs my firechance all the time, while not necessarily yielding me any benefits depending on the ships i have to face. F.e. you know a target used DCP, so you would rather want to start a new fire, and would sacrifice direct damage for it. If you spec IFHE, you have the same option: Do i deal damage, or do i want to get fires. Ofc adjusting the firechance might be necessary, especially for DDs/Cruisers with a lower firechance. If you dont take IFHE, you can spray the ship top to bottom and start fires as before - nothing changes. But it does have an impact for BBs, who are getting everything while not even thinking about where to aim. Its just hit the ship for damage + fires. IFHE would even become an option for all other Cruisers except CLs. 203mm HE can pen 38mm with IFHE - which works against US BBs. Tradeoff? Only for US BBs. You can pen their armor, but you dont start any fires unless you shoot the belt or the turrets. For all other ships, nothing changes, and that sounds really nice to me. Thats also part of the "aiming matters" idea. If you know where to aim, you get the result you want. If you dont know where to aim, just aim at the superstructure as basicly everyone does already. Ofc the amount of fires you can start on a ship shouldnt change. Whether the firechance needs to be increased mostly depends on the ship in question id say. I have no idea about Ark Royal, but with so many ships in the game, any global change would leave some ships in need of adjustments (Flint/Atlanta f.e.). But thats why i also wrote the CV stuff, because they dont really have the option to shatter their bombs. They get often pens and fires - basicly like a Thunderer. For some CVs *cough FDR* this balancing change would be very good, while for others, it might not be. Ofc it would also be an option to get rid of rockets once and for all (kek, as if thats ever gonna happen) and give the CV the option between 2 bombers: High pen direct damage - low pen fires. Mostly regulate BBs shooting HE. I think its really making the game worse overall: - It gives bad feedback for the player, who deal 100k damage sitting in the back while losing the game. For all he cares, the team is at fault for losing the game, which is ofc not true - Getting 10-15k damage salvos + 1-2-3 fires on other BBs makes BBs camp in the back. If you would get the damage, but no fires, atleast you can manage your DCP and wont burn to death so easily. I basicly hope for a win-win-win situation: - IFHE becomes relevant, without being OP. Which is good for all DDs and Cruisers - heck even for secondary BBs. - BB players can plan a push without getting burned to death from a Thunderer humping the border - Cruisers and DDs receive less fires (which is also good), they already get enough direct fire damage. As i wrote above, maybe firechance needs to be increased for some ships. Ofc its still RNG, but i think its less RNG. Like that one secondary shell hitting your superstructuce = fire. wouldnt happen, because the shell pens the superstructure and cant start a fire. Ofc the shell can hit the belt and start a fire, but we have that right now aswell, thus a little bit less RNG.

There is no reason for me to talk to you, because you werent here the last 2+ years and dont know the changes WG has done regarding IFHE and platings. You are a very new player, who thinks who knows everything after playing a decade of WoT - thats nice, but wows is not wot. You dont even understand the proposal, because your entire knowledge of the game is lowtiers till T5...

TX fire coefficient is 50%, so 63% = 31,5% But 40% firechance cap would be = 20% so there is a difference.