Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Armor'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 14 results

  1. Ahoy there! I've been playing the Izumo for a while (grinding my bitter way to the Yamato), and I've noticed some odd things about this particular ship. First off, what is up with the dispersion of the main battery 10th year type guns? With the Gun Fire Control System Mod.1, I have better dispersion than most BBs around those tiers. 247m dispersion at 25.5km range (270+ something with spotter up), which is pretty damn good if you ask me. However, the calculation algorithm for the shells seems to troll players all the time. You land a perfect salvo time and time again, only to see them harmlessly land in the water in a circle around the enemy ships. I've gone through entire battles without hitting an enemy more than 11 times. In a 20km duel. With multiple targets. All of them giving me their sides. Wut? Now don't get me wrong, I know this is a common feature for BBs. But at the same time, it seems to happen WAY more often when I play the Izumo. How in the world can those guns perform so poorly when the dispersion (on paper) is so good? Next is the penetration values of the guns. And I know this is a hot subject to anyone playing BBs. What in the world is up with the shells penetration? And we're talking a fully upgraded Izumo, not that horrible pen that you get with the stock hull. I have to play the damn ship as a close-range knife fighter just to be able to penetrate other BBs. Well, except for when I fight another Izumo. The irony. Rarely do I get a hit that actually does more than 6k damage. And citadel penetrations are a thing of the past, it seems. You want to get citadels while playing an Izumo? Then shoot at a Yorck, and hope you actually even hit him. Furthermore, I can't make sense of the armor of the thing. The Izumo is supposed to be an adequately armored ship with sligthly less citadel armor and reinforced forward and after ends. Yet there seems to be no torpedo protection, so they just go straight through doing about 20k+ damage all the time. Even at an extreme angle those things cut through the ship like a hot knife through butter. And again, I'm not complaining about the ship, it has it's moments just like any other. For example, the AA and secondary batteries are great with their extreme range and punch (with mods, ofc). But you don't win battles with good AA guns. You actually need to be able to sink, well, things. So to sum up my experience of the Izumo: Trolly dispersion. Trolly armor. Lousy penetration. Great AA power (again, with mods). Great secondary batteries (same here, mods). Seemingly no torpedo armor bulge. Superstructure seems to be made out of flammable glass, not welded metal. So my question to you guys: what's your opinion and experience of the Izumo? Scourge or clown? Cheers!
  2. OK, so whats up with this? Last few days whenever I was in a battle against t9/10 enemy battleships, my amagi did next to no damage to them. And no, I'm not talking about sniping them from 20km into the bow, I'm talking about 13-15km salvos into broadside that deal virtually no damage... Few battles ago I was literary spamming HE shells into a broadside Iowa from 13-14 km because I couldn't deal any real damage to him... (getting 10k HE salvos) Anyone else experiencing things like that? btw example from my last game (as noted, basicly all of shots were fired into broadsiding enemies, not angled ones.) Izumo - 16 shells hit from ~13 km into broadside (even incapacitated his gun because i was aiming below his turrets) - result: 20k damage Iowa - 13 shells hit from 14-15 km into broadside - result: 7.9 k damage Iowa - 3 shells hit from 14 km into broadside - result -2.5k damage
  3. PhantomSailor

    Montana Changes for Public Test 0.6.6.0

    So logged on Public Test today and to see the changes to USS Montana. These are the changes I saw, didn't look too deep if there could be other changes. But citadel has been lowered and here are the other changes. Citadel Deck Changed from 150mm to 19mm ​Citadel Torpedo Bulkhead Changed from 45mm to 110mm​ PUBLIC TEST: LIVE:
  4. This ship has utter [edited] armor. It's made from like paper. Even 30-40 angled shots getting citadel hit this ship. It feels like it has CA level armor. Heck even Myoko's armor is better then this [edited] when angled. I got citadel hit from 10 km Newyork when i angled 40-45 degree to it. Penscola hit with 7k damage in every salvo when in 10 km range when i angled.What's wrong with this ship? I regreted to buy this. What's your experience people with this ship?
  5. I really like playing the Fuso and I wanted to know the best and worst places to shoot the Fuso. I knew under the smoke stacks were good for citadels but I was surprised to see that underneath the turrets was not always an optimal shot choice. I put together a video which highlights the Fuso's armor and the best places to shoot the Fuso at closer ranges (line drive shots). I tested things out in a training room and some of the results surprised me. Anyways here is the link to the video if you all are interested in seeing what I found out. I will be checking the YouTube page off and on so leave me some comments on the channel so I can see what you guys and gals think. Or if you have any ideas for better tests to run. I know that results may differ with plunging shots and that is 1 alternative that I think I can test out. Testing plunging shots is harder though because of the battleship's RNG with it's shells. Part 1 I created a follow-on video to my original which details the Fuso armor against larger 16 inch guns. I wanted to see if the area underneath the turrets are able to be citadeled using the Nagato. I was surprised by the results. I then performed the same tests against a New Mexico to compare and contrast the results. Again that surprised me. Let me know what you all think about this updated video and if there are any other tests you would like to see. Part 2 Part 3 I took a deeper look into the New Mexico's armor to determine the ships defensive strengths and weaknesses. On part 3 I shot at the New Mexico while parallel and at angles to see how the armor reacts in differing circumstances. The New Mexico definitely showed some promise in certain cases. For me the only issue with the New Mexico is the ships speed. I am interested to see what you all think. Leave some comments and let me know what you all think.
  6. Hi zusammen, habe mal eine grundsätzliche Frage zur Penmechanik der Zitadelle. Habe seit einiger Zeit die Des Moines und ordentlich Spaß mit ihr. Da meine Stats noch nicht wirklich überragend sind, wollte ich mich mal ranmachen, mich systematisch zu verbessern. Unter anderem im Trainingsraum exakt bestimmen, abe welcher Distanz ich welches BB zitadellen kann und mir eine entsprechende Tabelle erstellen. Also bin ich in den Trainingsraum und habe verschiedene BBs aus rechtem Winkel aus unterschiedlicher Distanz beschossen. Angefangen mit der North Carolina, dann rüber zur Amagi, zwischenzeitlich mal spaßeshalber auf eine Izumo geschossen. Jetzt das kuriose, was ich nicht verstehe: ich habe auf kein einziges BB absichtlich eine Zitadelle erzielen können. Nach der North Carolina dachte ich noch, dass hier bereits das Tieferlegen der Zitadelle was mit zu tun hat (obwohl ich glaube, dass es noch garnicht implementiert ist), aber spätestens bei der Amagi hab ichs nicht mehr gerafft. Selbst auf unter 2km kam nichts bei rum außer normalen Penetrationen. Weder unter dem Schornstein, noch unter den Geschützen, weder beim Zielen auf die Wasserlinie noch leicht darunter. Besonders komisch fand ich es, weil ich mich noch genau an eine Situation aus der Baltimore erinnern kann, wo ich einer exakt rechtwinklig stehenden Amagi direkt beim ersten Versuch in zwei hintereinander folgenden Salven insgesamt 6 Zitadellen aus ca. 6km Entfernung gedrückt habe. Insbesondere wenn ich die in diesem Thread erwähnte Penkurve betrachte, hätte ich schon aus ca. 8km Entfernung die ersten Zitas erwartet (Amagi hat 254mm Belt, dazu vielleicht dann noch ein leichter Winkel etc): http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/77219-henri-iv-tier-x/page__hl__%20kurve__st__20#topmost Also, wo ist mein Denkfehler? Oder einfach Zufall, dass am Ende aufgrund Streuung dann doch keine einzige Granate wirklich auf die Zitadelle gefallen ist? Für die interessierten habe ich das Replay angehängt, allerdings habe ich nach der Amagi die Lust verloren und die restlichen BBs nur noch runtergebrannt, d.h. der Rest des Vids ist lame. Lustigerweise habe ich dann in der allerletzten Salve auf eine Iowa, gezielt auf die Superstructure, aus ca. 2km und leichtem WInkel mit der allerletzten Salve die einzige Zita des Tests gemacht, wobei mich das Game hier glaube ich einfach nur noch verhöhnen wollte... Gruß Stahlfons edit: offensichtlich darf ich kein Replay anhängen. Irgendjemand einen Tip?
  7. PhantomSailor

    Iowa Changes for Public Test 0.6.6.0

    So logged on Public Test today and to see the changes to USS Iowa.These are the changes I saw, didn't look too deep if there could be other changes.But citadel has been lowered and here are the other changes. Citadel Deck Changed from 152mm to 25mm & 16mm (Splits to multiple sections) Citadel Athward FRONT - Changed from 287mm & 216mm to 216mm (One section) BACK - Changed from 287mm & 16mm to 16mm (One section) Citadel Armorbelt Changed from 307mm & 297mm & 163mm to 297mm & 163mm PUBLIC TEST: LIVE:
  8. Hi all, "Armor models are wrong" response." Flaw confirmed. We will fix it. We will look into it more. If there is truly such inconsistency, we will fix it. We are not going to split cruiser belts into such sections. Tapering them for historical accuracy would be gameplay nerf, and this is not something we want for cruisers. It's not that clear, we won't take actions until we have solid proof. Friedman often gives vague wordings, unfortunately. As for belt-backing we mostly treat it as balancing tool. We can add it if we need it. We will review the model. As for aft belt, it is not clear to us yet. We will look into it more. It would be nice to know whether external or internal belt is meant. Will fix the belt, and will look into bulkheads (we will review it additionally). There was no belt there. If magazine protection is meant, then we need some solid proof to act. Will fix that. I commented on backing above. We will review the model. We will review the model, same here. Yamato nerf request, huh? Our sources indicate they are adequate. It is present on the model, probably not viewable yet. That's right, but these are intentional conventions. We won't change this. Not confirmed. Not confirmed. Another Yamato nerf request Yep, it's not a big deal, so no, it won't happen. Game convention. That's right. NC is modelled differently because of balance purposes. On the side note: we don't consider Skulski a reliable source. He is fond of making some missing parts up. This is understandable though - original Yamato blueprints are scarce, we spent much time and effort to gather everuthing we have. We will review the model. Will fix that. We tend not to split magazine armor and decks into segments if there is tapering. Game convention. We will review the model. Same as with Des Moines: we don't split magazine armor and decks into segments if there is tapering. Game convention. We will review the model. Navypedia is not a reliable source for us. It's not like we always have first-class sources. But according to them, it is heavy armor. So..not confirmed. Same here. It is not missing, it is not visible in the viewer. It was indicated upon viewer release in patch notes, that some parts may not be visible (technical reasons, will be improved at some point). We will review the model. Uh. Looks like we're done. As you can see, most part of comment is relevant. Dear author, thanks again for your input. Fair seas! Leo "Apollo11"
  9. El2aZeR

    About the Iowa/Montana

    Browsing the American Forums, I've stumbled upon this thread: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/99212-confirmed-iowamontana-citadel-modeling-error/ For those of you too lazy to click that, it basically shows that the citadel model on both the Iowa and the Montana include a splinter deck which (obviously) should not be a part of it. This makes the citadel on both ships extend far above the waterline and is one of the reasons why they're so vulnerable compared to their contemporaries. Separating the splinter deck from the citadel would make them similar to the North Carolina and therefore much harder to hit at closer ranges. The official answer was: First of all, according to people in the thread (and I have no reason to believe they are lying) both Iowa and Montana are the only battleships in the game whose citadels are modeled to include the splinter deck (apparently the Yamato as well, but that is arguable). And I believe it is widely accepted that the Montana at least is the worst performing T10 battleship, being outclassed by both the Yamato and the G.Kurfürst in almost every category. Publicly available data supports this, showing that the Montana comes in dead last by a good amo in every relevant category across almost every server (a common trend for USN ships). The Russian server stands out as an anomaly, on which it on average sports slightly better damage and survival rates than the Yamato during the last two weeks. (I'm basing this off of warships.today, as wows-numbers is currently down, but I believe other stat sites will draw a similar picture) Of course, there are also things that will never be reflected in stats. Assuming a similar skill level, I think everyone will agree with me that a Yamato or a G.Kurfürst will usually win a fight against a Monty barring any divine intervention from RNGesus. The Montana simply doesn't have enough strengths to make up for it, most of her former ones taken away by the G.Kurfürst when it was introduced. Even some of the things it has going for it can be argued upon (for example Yamato is arguably better at weathering air strikes thanks to its absurd TDS value, as neither will be capable of wiping out a significant portion of T10 planes before they drop their payloads). This raises several questions: If being the most underperforming ship in its bracket is not enough to warrant a buff, what is? Sure, Monty deletes cruisers real good, but so do both the Yamato and the G.Kurfürst in addition to not being comparatively useless at everything else. And Monty is the most vulnerable to cruiser AP shells out of the 3. Does this perhaps mean that the game is only balanced based on statistics available on the Russian server? I've read otherwise, but WG employees are apparently no stranger to lying to the community as evidenced above. Is WG happy with the current state of US ships? If so, doesn't this validate everyone crying about "anti-US bias"? Including other facts like STS plating not being considered as armor (for those that don't know, that's 114mm of armor missing on the turret faceplate for the Montana alone), it'd be rather difficult to argue against that. It may just be that WG is waiting on how much the recent armor buff will affect the statistics before making further changes. Separating the splinter deck from the citadel would of course be a rather big survivability buff to the Iowa and the Montana, but the reasons given do seem rather questionable to say the least. Thoughts? PS: Well, this sure turned into a wall of text. It's my first post here, too *sigh*.
  10. Literaly ships such North carolina, Tirpitz, bismark, sharorst(tier7 german BB premium) and such similaritys, instent having their citadels under the water, why not moving it upwards? Such similaritys of the cruisers that has most of their Citadels abit up water, thus why of the reasons they get citadel so often, ofc their lack of armor does not help agains higher calibers guns naturaly. Though i dont understand why this BBs that i mention above got their citadels underwater. So yeah instent nerfing the bow armor that you WG try to do so, why dont raise their citadels up instent? Realy i dont understand why in this game this boats needs have their citadels underwater, for myself it does not seem logic. Now if the cruisers had their Citadels underwater that would be another story. Also montana, yamato or iowa got their citadels well balanced diferently and comparing to tiers 8 BBs. What are your opinion about this guys? Also why does this kind of ships special the tiers8 has their citadels like this? P.s- Though i know when enemy does a hard turn and shows the red hull then u can citadel but rare are the cases.
  11. I really like playing the Fuso and I wanted to know the best and worst places to shoot the Fuso. I knew under the smoke stacks were good for citadels but I was surprised to see that underneath the turrets was not always an optimal shot choice. I put together a video which highlights the Fuso's armor and the best places to shoot the Fuso at closer ranges (line drive shots). I tested things out in a training room and some of the results surprised me. Anyways here is the link to the video if you all are interested in seeing what I found out. I will be checking the YouTube page off and on so leave me some comments on the channel so I can see what you guys and gals think. Or if you have any ideas for better tests to run. I know that results may differ with plunging shots and that is 1 alternative that I think I can test out. Testing plunging shots is harder though because of the battleship's RNG with it's shells. Part 1
  12. CAPT_Taste

    Fuso Armor Review - Some Surprises

    I really like playing the Fuso and I wanted to know the best and worst places to shoot the Fuso. I knew under the smoke stacks were good for citadels but I was surprised to see that underneath the turrets was not always an optimal shot choice. I put together a video which highlights the Fuso's armor and the best places to shoot the Fuso at closer ranges (line drive shots). I tested things out in a training room and some of the results surprised me. Anyways here is the link to the video if you all are interested in seeing what I found out. I will be checking the YouTube page off and on so leave me some comments on the channel so I can see what you guys and gals think. Or if you have any ideas for better tests to run. I know that results may differ with plunging shots and that is 1 alternative that I think I can test out. Testing plunging shots is harder though because of the battleship's RNG with it's shells.
  13. hopeasusi

    Belfast Armor vs Edinburgh

    So I was looking at the armor models of these 2 ships of the SAME class, but Belfast has somehow less armor in fore and aft ends. Edinburgh has 16mm and Belfast 13mm, can anyone explain why? Or is this just Wail Gaming's balancing at it's "finest".
  14. This thread mainly concerns the relationship between DD and Battleships, clearly two of the categories on this forum that shares great mutual love and respect for eachother. Now, the general purpose of HE is to ensure some damage where low-caliber AP shells would at worst scratch the paintwork of the imposing battleship drivers. But I am noticing a double issue when it comes to this and to be fair this has developed with patches. As it stands now, gunboat policies are becoming less and less effective. That's to say, DD's who focus mostly on the guns are facing numerous problems. I am not going to focus too much on American destroyers and their terrible ballistics, this has more to do what actually happens when an HE shell hits a battleship and to a degree vice-versa. HE shells of 120-130mm are becoming increasingly useless against certain battleships. Particularly in the mid-range ships like the New Mexico. This concerns not only fires, but also general damage. Now, most ships tend to be around 7-10% chance of making enemy battleships catch fire per shot. Given that one of the skills reduces the chance by 7% and another module can furthermore reduce it by 5%, is making fires while not a thing of the past from destroyers, but far less frequent than they should be. I've noticed this in my own battleships as well. Furthermore, HE shots that hits the general outer armour and does nothing I have no problem with. Hitting 7 shots on the middle of the superstructure and doing 256 dmg there can be no game-mechanic justification for. Now, I understand not having HE do consistently high damage or ensuring each shot having a significant chance of starting a fire, but having the opposite of both have essentially relegated the destroyer gunnery role to cruisers which they are the most wounderable too, or other destroyers which is at best an equal playing field. Now, I've had matches in the grem with over 200 hits which have been complete monster games, 5-6 kills. Yet I've had games with similar amounts of hits which have for the most part simply been scratching the paint of the com tower of a New Mexico. While it differs from ship to ship and defidently loadout to loadout, the HE utilization is becoming increasingly futile or at least unstable. On the other hand, Battleships while the main battery accuracy have been marginally improved, has secondariness that are not nearly accurate enough to hit the inside of a barn. To a certain degree I am missing the old balance . Not so much on the AP side, I am entirely fine with 120mm AP guns doing nothing against battleships, but the HE is as it stands imbalanced beyond what is reasonable in my opinion and BB secondariness are fairly useless at least in late tier games, which is a bit of a shame.
×