Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About EUmofton

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia
  1. HMS Lion - you r experience

    It certainly feels that way to me. I think some of it is that she'll be firing from further away (max range 20.7 is a step over Monarch's/KGV's 18.1) and staying a bit further back for concealment. Then she only has 1.8 sigma, no access to the US Artillery Plotting Room Mod for -11% dispersion, and British horizontal dispersion is on the same curve as the US. Overall I rate her as the third most accurate T9 after Izumo, Missou/Iowa and only ahead of FdG.
  2. Huang He (Aurora)

    The difference with the AA is that Texas is very much self-defense oriented with short range guns, guns which can't benefit from MFCAA. Huang He combines great stealth with strong AA and concentrates it in the long range batteries. 5km base, with AA Guns Mod. 2 and AFT gives you a 7.2km aura which is huge at low tiers. Huang He throws 78 DPS at 5km, that's ~4x for instance and at longer range than the Furutaka, Konigsberg and Omaha,10x Emerald, and double that of Kirov. That's on a ship seeing T4 carriers. Not entirely sensible. My thoughts on Aurora are: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/139625-hms-aurora-huang-he-shouldve-been/
  3. Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    Torps are up to WG, but the speed you're quite correct on - they should get 35.25kt or so. The differences between the A/B and G/H/I class are pretty slight: G is 95t heavier full load - a couple of hundred HP G is 0.75 kt faster As built AA is 2x1 2-lb pom poms vs 2x4 0.5in MG A is 0.27m narrower in the beam... I don't think you can make a tier difference unless you massively mess with torpedoes, stealth and handling, which isn't fair. If the 8-torp GHI is a T6, the A-B should really be. The T5 - well I think the BL 4.7in is perhaps too bad, but the triple torpedo tubes of the Amazon/Ambuscade makes more of a difference and the Mod. W-class is pretty much the same where it matters (slow-firing 4.7in BL, triple tubes, similar size).
  4. Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    Very poor. Some suggestions on the NA forum that she and Bourasque (equally bad) are going to be bots to sail along with on the leaked Dunkirk scenario - which ties in with the scenario apparently re-balancing DD AA to withstand land-based air attacks.
  5. Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    If the Akizuki isn't allowed more than 2/3 AA kills for balance reasons, then will Battle? I think Battle has poor ASuW capacity but won't she also make CV's ineffectual and irrelevant? I'm kind of reminded of Flamu's pre-nerf Grozovoi video in which he made a CV rage-quit, but in a game without a carrier you may not have much fun. Battleaxe has half the ROF, but I think her AP shells will do less damage based on MV. Then there's the inferior arcs/superior traverse trade-off and to the good of the Weapon the better (6% vs 5%) fire chance she gets. T8 Battle per creamgravy's suggestion has 12 RPM per gun, 48 RPM total. Akizuki has 160. The difference between 4in and 4.5in HE damage should be 1.500 vs. 1,200. HE DPM favors Akizuki 3:1. The ROF also helps with fire chance which should be 7% on the 4.5in. Two turret designs have a bad propensity to see one knocked out, yeah if ROF is put up higher it can compensate but at a starting point of 12 RPM Battle cannot work at T8 IMO. The Ognevoi matches that with superior ballistics and sucks. The issue with Daring to me is that she's just too comparable to the 3x2 Gearing and to a slightly lesser extent Z-52. Although she's got trade-offs with the others (Khab's a long range CL, Shima's torpedo-crazed) it's too readily comparable. Daring's guns are arguably (especially based on the unknown of gun-arcs) going to be very disadvantaged vs. Gearing, except maybe as a fire starter if given 24 RPM and 7%. The best advantage she could get might be maneuverability where Gearing is a bit weak. Other than that she has gun issues, and torpedo issues. I think the German high-tier DD torps are made-up but I'm not sure, if they do it'll make a big difference. Maybe the Brits should stick fish names on the end: Mk. IXM Codfish? Mk. IX John Dory? As they are range isn't the primary weakness, although it doesn't help - I like Gearing's range because it means I can still launch area denial spreads at 71kt by taking Torpedo Acceleration. Torpedo hits at long range are an RNG event, but torpedoes going faster give the opponent less time to change course and less reaction time when spotted. Gearing also does a reasonable chunk more damage, though personally to me a torp-hit is a torp-hit. All the torpedo/generalist T10 DD get better torpedoes than the IXM. Torpedoes need to be a plus to make up for the rest of the ship, and they're not. An LM 4in or JKN might be a better T8 choice to start, I just don't see a ship with the paucity of firepower of a Weapon making it there. Battle might but I'd use the one with a ROF buff up to 18, maybe even the 5th gun. If the guns are individually inferior to the Benson, with fewer of them then everything's carried on the slightly better torpedoes and the AA which is irrelevant in the 90% of games that lack a carrier. Well, the 4.5 is an unknown but I don't think you see MV's that low very often (low tier 4in DD?) I just can't see it being any good at a lower starting point than the USN 5in - with which hitting destroyers who have a brain and maneuver over about 6km if moving away, or 7km if closing is tricky. If the 4.5in is worse... ugh in the gunfight. Mediocre is below average without being outright terrible in my lexicon, while average is fine (and often balanced - for instance an average T6 BB is strong, while an average T8 cruiser is often weak). One of my big issues with weak ships is lack of a niche. Khaba's a better long range gunboat than Gearing. Gearing's a better cap contestant than Shima or maybe Khab. Daring is just worse Gearing, it's got the same niche on face value - use high ROF and traverse to offset arc-y shells, act as a torpedoboat as the opportunity arises. Ships can be bad and be fun - Atlanta for instance is a pretty objectively bad ship with a high skill ceiling but serious issues, however she plays so unlike anything else it's hard to do a direct comparison. I could see myself playing Atlanta. Take say old NOLA with no radar, worse concealment and worse stealth than now, still with no torpedoes - there was simply nothing she did better than the alternatives, that's why she was/is bad. Cleveland's a good ship, good ROF with 12 guns, traverse an issue you can plan around and whatever else at least Cleveland is a clear and present danger at close range, even without torpedoes, get a Cleveland in a surprising position at close range and he'll rack up damage quick. On Ocean down tiered, she's not going to have fun and in stand-off games likewise, but at least she has a role which none of the other T6 cruisers really fulfill. Furutaka I thought was solid at T5 when I played her back with 6x1 instead of the big buff 3x2 layout. People are unused to her at T5 and low ROF, the stock grind with 22s reload is particularly unfair on her (all the T6-T7 BB's seem to have lost stock hulls...) Furutaka has a niche - pushing 8in AP through the bows or sides of inexperienced T5 cruiser players, high alpha HE and solid torpedoes. Nothing's quite like her at T5, her stats may be ordinary but she works. Aoba's an OK T6, but fundamentally suffers from being a small buff over Furutaka while seeing much tougher opposition. T6 sees a lot more 16mm plating for autobouncing 8in AP. You can tell she's overtiered as even with double her historic ROF she's not doing that great. My concern with Daring would be that she'd be a La Galissonniere - not bad per se but why bother with LG when De Grasse gets more HP, speed, ROF and a fighter or Budyonny gets far better ROF, better guns, and is otherwise similar? There's no niche in which LG is worthwhile compared to them. Cleveland she has a ranged edge over, but will lose up close. Aoba may actually beat LG at range, but may lose up close with worse torp angles and ROF. DG beats LG at any range, LG is mediocre. That's a fair point, but without long range punch, and although you can set an AA trap by keeping it turned off until you're spotted at about 3.5-4km is Battle's AA worth that much? Half the ROF of a Benson with worse though comparable shell characteristics at 12 RPM. Even in a pre-planned game, divisioning with a carrier, competitive game with a carrier does it make up for that?
  6. Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    Baltimore 2.0. Oh boy... For AA comparison with a T8 Battle '42 you have Akizuki which has so much AA that Def. AA is not allowed due to balance so go figure if you'll be allowed Def. AA! If Akizuki's not allowed Def AA at (by your table) 3/2 kills then will Battle '42 at 7/6? There's also the competing L/M class version with 4x 2 4in AA. I've seen suggestions of that at T8 where it would have double the ASuW firepower of the '42 Battle (20 RPM, smaller shells still need IFHE, twice the guns) and only a slight torpedo reduction. It also has directly double the ASuW firepower of the 4x 2 Weapon for a similar trade in torpedoes. Weapon at T8 has effectively less than half an Akizuki of firepower and although it has twice the torpedoes it doesn't have the reload booster and seems a weak option, especially as the Akizuki's 100mm guns are railguns comparatively to the RN 4in. Comparing AA on a 'direct route in/out' basis is an ok way but not entirely representative. I just has a 40-shoot downMinotaur game where they never tried to strike me but didn't realize to stay at least 7.2km from the angry smokescreen. Maybe it's Pixel-PTSD but so far every 2x 2 ship I've ever played has sucked. Mutsuki is legendarily sh1te. Old T6 Ognevoi was pretty awful, especially before the turret survivability buff... ugh. T8 Ognevoi does very badly (though don't worry, unlike some VMF DD get buffed rapidly when needed). A whole line... oh. I mean it makes sense as a progression, and I really like some of those ships, just not done that way at those tiers. To phrase it less politely than Andy_Foulds, Gearing but worse. The torpedoes as Andy mentions are an issue - compare to the similarly gunned Americans with similar 2x 5 tubes at T9-T10 and you'll find the 10km @ 62kt for 16,766 torpedoes look pretty lame compared to Fletcher's 10.5km @ 66kt for 18,033 damage, or Gearing's 16.5km ranged options. They're also behind the non-torpedo focused Z-52, Khaba's something else and Shima gets 3 options and 15 tubes. The 4.5in has the caliber issue (which is an easy fix really) but also will probably have even arc-ier shells than the USN 5in/38 on the basis of lower MV. It should do less damage than the 5in too, though on the plus side it should get 7% vs 5% fire chance. At 24 RPM that could be dangerous - if you can hit anything. HMAS Vampire would suffer if done as a historic premium as she loses half the torpedoes. Battleaxe and Broadsword have major problems however they're configured. Though A-Y is for Russians and girly amphibians really. Guns on the front, running away is for sissies! If the aft turret has good arcs - still meh unless it can 360' traverse. I was having a dig against WG using worn guns, yeah the cruisers get new (thankfully) though WG also seems to think they forgot how to make that nice SAP ammo for 1950's Belfast so overall... Do you really think the ballistics of the 4.5in will be any good? It's 6% slower MV, about the same weight so better cross-sectional density but overall... super meh. Oh forum tables...
  7. Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    Well, there's a niche niche playstyle for a tiny proportion of the game, but then there's also simply superior options like the C-Benson and Fletcher for T8 and T9, they still have to be competitive with that. Any thoughts on another team-oriented consumable? AA-Sims should have better long range AA DPS (42 DPS) with her 4x1 5in guns than the T8 proposed Battle (24 DPS), if you're doing good stuff with Sims it's mostly those guns carrying? Sims has twice the firepower you can MFCAA at a tier lower and Sims has 18 RPM with 4 guns instead of 12, again a tier lower although at least her torpedoes are garbage comparatively. If SimsAA-edition is badass AA it tells me that the plethora of Bofors are either overkill or irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned Albert's just murdered balance. The fact that WG have put that in at a tier with South Carolina means they just don't care. Game over. Maybe I've been polluted by my time in the US but 'mediocre' has connotations of bad here. Like at T6 I'd call Cleveland average but Aoba mediocre. I really hate Algerie, her playstyle is too passive fire spammy for me, not that she's really that good at it once you've gone Russian. 8in guns just suck more and more in game I find, unless you get significantly more than 4-5 RPM. I did very much think Nurnburg was a strong ship, I like ships with firepower - give me enough firepower and it doesn't matter if the ship's poorly armored I'll just sink the other guy first. Guns are armor, Fisher was pretty much incorrect. Definitely more surface firepower is needed with the 1700 dmg, 746m/s 4.5in gun of potential awfulness. I don't desperately like Gael as she's paper and armed like a Russian with an A-Y turret arrangement, A-B is so much more British: British DD skippers in WWII didn't give a toss for aft firepower because they were manly men who wanted to close and kill DD, or just torp and run from bigger prey. Oh and 746m/s is new gun, 'average' is 716 and so far the RN national flavor is worn guns on BB at least... badass! It is definitely retarded that the game thinks that 4.5in shells can basically never harm the hull of a Fletcher, Udaloi or Yugumo class destroyer, while a 5in can... Even though the 4.5in may be heavier. WG's saying 'oh sh1t we didn't realize HE is the primary cruiser choice, here KM cruisers have 1/4 HE penetration on your lackluster HE' does suggest it's easier to do a whole-line tweak down the road if a line like the RN DD would get bashed by mechanics. Then again looking at the RN BB leaks they'll try and balance the T10 Daring with 200% fire chance and radar per the BB...
  8. Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    Ah 'support' i.e. code for 'rubbish' ;) What does the T8 Battle do that a C-Hull Benson can't do better, and what does the T9 Battle do that a Def. AA Fletcher can't do better either? Some more mid-range DPS, but scattering's the important thing and there's no guarantee of USN-style long duration smoke, so far Gallant doesn't get it (sharing IJN/VMF duration). Shouldn't that graph have some more pronounced steps where the shorter range guns come into range? My Minotaur has 8.2km, 7.2km(the bulk) and 3.9km AA bubbles if memory serves. Or is it a cumulative over time effect? Sometimes we agree for different reasons, I think T3 balance doesn't matter that much so I'm apathetic towards it. Daring's a T10 though this thread has made me consider the L.90's balance wise (Daring's a built ship so should take precedence though). Some people don't want to see tier after tier of mediocre ships, I can cope with the odd howler. I think US server players cared more about how abominably bad Pensacola was for instance to play, and also how bad NOLA was (and is). Weak ships at those tiers face stiff competition. Personally I don't really enjoy Algerie, sold Yorck rather than continue and sold Myoko as well, so I'm not hot on T7 cruisers it seems... Driving those huge cruise liners doesn't appeal too much, but with smoke/heal etc the sky's the limit.
  9. Royal Navy Tech Tree Proposal

    Am I the guy who thinks everything's weak? I seem to be, Trainspite and I always disagree on tiering and I think you might be similar to him creamgravy. My thought on a first RN DD line is Battle at T9 and Daring at T10. Issues with both. Splitting Battle over 2 tiers is interesting, but the T10 option is basically Daring with 30% of the torpedo load, so sorry but that's a no from me! General 114mm Gun Issues Doesn't pen high tier DD hulls or even BB superstructures with HE Lowest MV of any high-tier DD gun, very shell-arcy If it needs IFHE it'll be -4 skill points off the bat RN CL style 'SAP' might be effective on bigger ships, but after 135 games in the Minotaur I'm convinced that it will be completely inadequate vs. destroyers T8 With 12 RPM the T8 Battle gets shot to bits by everything. She's throwing 48 rounds downrange, Kagero's throwing 51, with far better ballistics and she's bottom of the barrel for gunboats. Her torpedoes meanwhile are a 'bit' better than Benson's while Benson's throwing 90x 5in rounds down range and gets to eat things you can't. As a pure torpedo boat Kagero's looking better and with the gun disparity... ugh. AA is a pretty marginally useful skill on a destroyer. Give it 20 RPM and maybe we'll talk?! T9 - 1943 Traditional Battle I really like the look and aesthetics of, I also like the unique (in-game) gun layout. It's just badly let down by all of the 114mm gun issues and the fact that the top RN torpedo sucks 61kt x 10km vs. 67kt x 12km (Yugu), 66kt x 10.5km (Fletch) and 67kt x 10km (Z-46). If she does get top ROF and edges out Fletcher there, then she'll still have gun and torpedo weaknesses. Some of the other ships are less easy to compare, but the US ships are the closest in form and function. The 1944 Battle just isn't worth it as an AA boat as AA boats rarely are (never see C-hull Benson's and Kidd's had lackluster reviews, Grozovoi was nerfed into the ground but only worthwhile in her AA-beast appearance divisioning with a carrier which is broken and can't be relied on). You're giving up 20% of your firepower against 11 opponents for being 37% better against max one opponent who may not even exist as carriers creep down to 2% of games played. T10 - Venticinco de Battle Wheres meh torpedoes?! Although she's a different beast Gallant might suggest that WG will be 'kind' to RN DD on maneuverability and concealment which is certainly not to be underrated, but these Battles are big ships in the scheme of things. Maybe I'm not mentally accounting for that. A couple of game mechanics really do these ships a bit of a disservice, as does the 'meta' at least on NA where I play and carriers are (fortunately IMO) rare.
  10. La Galissonière bad joke

    Yeah, Budyonny>La Galissonniere being so overt as they're so readily comparable is perplexing. Atlanta might be better than Pensacola (dubious) but at least's it's very different in playstyle. I also didn't like the 'Kutuzov with 12x guns, 12% fire chance and a smoke screen is fine, but can't give RN CL HE and smoke despite their 9% fire chance...' approach.
  11. British Battleship line for 2017?

    Well, we could end up with this insanity: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/21099/HMS-Iron-Duke-Fast-Battleship-rebuild-proposal#.WULpSNy1vcs which always makes me chuckle.
  12. La Galissonière bad joke

    I've seen speculation that DG was meant to be the tree T7, but wasn't up to snuff, thus Algerie to T7, Martel in at 8 and voila. Thus WG had a spare hull floating around they wanted to monetize. Kind of makes sense. De Grasse fails most of the traditional premium checks - Unique design that doesn't fit the tech tree? Nope - DG is LG only slightly better and would have been fine in-tree Interesting history? Nope - not even built in the presented form Useful captain trainer? Not really - Needs IFHE to really shine but the rest of the FR line is 8in cruisers... The fact that DG is significantly better than LG while being premium is a bit of a joke too, there doesn't seem to be much of an attempt at balance between them, though at least the ROF gap isn't as yawning as it once was... it is a bit of a joke.
  13. So, some things are worth more than others. I think there are combat examples of 10 RPM from Cleveland, but suffice to say Cleveland gets a lot of lead out, whaddaya expect, it's a Yankee boat after all! Range is a pretty limited utility. The chances of landing hits in that range where Cleveland is unable to fire back is vanishingly small. The chances of detecting and identifying a hostile ship at those ranges are small too, you may well not pick them up until closer. The way I see it, and which I think is pretty much borne out by war experience is that even non-penetrating hits may be deeply damaging. At long range, if Abruzzi has 40mm of penetration then she's not hurting the 50mm deck, 127mm belt, good turret armored Cleveland in the vital areas, and even within range neither is Cleveland. A lot of war experience though showed that hits to unarmored sections could cause significant damage to a ships' combat effectiveness. Hiei was wrecked by 8in shellfire, the Bande Nere wrecked HMS Cleopatra's bridge, radar and radios with a long range 6in shell, Garibaldi took out Neptune's aircraft facilities at long range - Neptune in turn knocked out Bolzano's rudder temporarily. If neither ship can land a decisive penetration, then both are capable of doing 'upperworks' damage to the other, and ROF and hit probability become more important, where I think Cleveland has an edge. I'm skirting the edge of my gun knowledge and I don't know about specific shell aerodynamics, so I can't be certain but having 'better but still inadequate' penetration isn't much of an advantage.
  14. Having a mix of 3 and 2 gun turrets has some drawbacks. If you go triple you maximize firepower on hull length, but risk losing big chunks of firepower to damage and you need a wider hull to accommodate them, more powerful engines to achieve the same speed. With twins you can have a narrower hull, but lack firepower. Abruzzi has the worst of both to an extent, a 3x3 arrangement would have pretty much the same firepower and the space/weight of a whole turret to use for something else, or 4 triples would be more dakka. The Mk. 37 is the fire control system. There's having radar and then there's having well integrated gunnery radar which works with the directors and controls the turrets through RPC (which I think Cleveland has, but Abruzzi lacks). It's not just a case of have radar, job done. I don't think Abruzzi does have a better main battery. The ROF on Cleveland's guns is very impressive (10+ RPM recorded), and with radar control rather than waiting for shell splashes a useful advantage, more shots quicker = more hits quicker. Abruzzi's 6in are given as 4-5 RPM weapons on NavWeaps which is poor (I take it with a grain of salt). The US gun is firing very punchy 'super heavy' shells with excellent penetration. Both ships have enough range to cover anywhere you'll have a reasonable chance of getting a hit in. The Italians had some good long range shots, such as Montecuccoli hitting Hebe at >25,000 yards but the US did ok too.
  15. Two strong contenders, though I'd come down heavily on the side of Fargo/Cleveland. The 4th point I wouldn't weight too strongly, I was just throwing it out there. It would in theory be a no-cost, no-weight improvement. I think the Abruzzi might have it, but pics are a bit unclear. Abruzzi does lack point 1 as well, having 3-2-2-3 as a gun arrangement, I wouldn't weight that too heavily as a 10 gun broadside is going to be effective in practice, even if slightly outgunned. She also had torpedoes removed in 1945 so it would depend on year of comparison. I believe certain Italian ships started to get German FuMo radar sets in late 1942, but I'd have to check with Phoenix_jz or Sparviero on that. Either with or without the US warship should have a radar advantage with Sugar series radar, others and also the superlative Mk. 37 fire control system. Although built for different scenarios Cleveland does benefit from far greater flexibility, even in things that the Italian ship would need. The AA would certainly have been useful in the Mediterranean - Italian ships did come under air attack, and had issues as everyone did. The Italian's speed is an advantage strategically, but less so once the lead starts flying. The Cleveland has a vastly greater cruising range which may or may not be useful on the day. Abruzzi's a good ship, but they were lain down in 1933, the 7 year gap to note aircraft development and respond to events is showing in the 1940 commenced Cleveland's. Abruzzi looks good in some ways compared to the Brooklyns which still have 5 years of advantage.