Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Destroyers'.



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
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • 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 86 results

  1. I was bored one day, and decided to follow up on a theory of mine. I've seen many people who only consider how much BFT lowers the reload of their guns when deciding whether or not to take it on their DDs. This leads them to disregard or undervalue BFT on ships with an already low reload time. After doing some maths, I discovered something that seems obvious once explained, but seems to go right over the heads of most people. Counterintuitively, the ships with the lowest base reload time benefit the most from BFT. To explain this, we need to look at BFT differently. Instead of viewing it as a percentage based reload decrease, we should view it as a percentage based rate of fire increase. When you look at it this way, it's quite obvious that the ships with the highest base rate of fire (and therefore lowest base reload) will benefit the most. To help avoid further confusion about this, and to allow you to calculate the usefulness of BFT on a ship yourself, here is a formula for calculating rate of fire increase. To find DPM, simply multiply the answer you get by the shell damage. ((60/(Base Reload*0.9))-(60/Base Reload))*Number of guns For your convenience, here is a list of the rate of fire and DPM increases BFT gives to each of the tier X DDs: Gearing: 13.3 rpm, 24000 HE DPM, 28000 AP DPM Shimakaze: 7.02 rpm, 15087 HE DPM, 15438 AP DPM Harugumo: 22.2 rpm, 26666 HE DPM, AP DPM Z-52: 10 rpm, 15000 HE DPM, 30000 AP DPM Grozovoi: 10 rpm, 18000 HE DPM, 26000 AP DPM Khabarovsk: 10.6 rpm, 20266 HE DPM, 27733 AP DPM Daring: 16 rpm, 27200 HE DPM, 33600 AP DPM Yueyang: 10 rpm: 18000 HE DPM, 21000 AP DPM Rate of Fire is given to two decimal places and is the total increase provided from all guns. DPM is given to the nearest whole number.
  2. The Tier X Pan-Asian destroyer is a strong ship, has good concealment, good rate of fire and the ability to install the consumable "Radar", which can effectively deal with adversaries, a small silhouette which gets less hits when under fire as well as low detection torpedoes which are very effective against cruisers and battleships. Of course, we must not forget about the unique smoke screen that allows you to successfully hide from enemies for much of the battle, as well as to fight more effectively for control points and retreat in the event of an unsuccessful skirmish. All these factors allow the destroyer to significantly influence the outcome of the battle and is statistically superior to its classmates. To address this, we have increased the reload time of the main caliber guns by 1 second (from 3 to 4 seconds) and torpedo tubes by 20 seconds (from 136 to 156 seconds). These changes will minimally affect the unique features of the destroyer, while bringing its statistics to the same level as other destroyers at its Tier. Source:- https://www.facebook.com/wowsdevblog/
  3. Dirty_Dunc

    Bad Destroyer (DD) PLayers

    I'm sick to the back teeth of high tier / Tier 10 destroyers playing badly and throwing games right from the the outset by : 1. Not attempting to cap or going everywhere but the cap circle, even when the enemy is clearly at the other end of the map. 2. All DD's going to one cap and then wondering why the game was lost on points. 3. Asking why Battleshsips and Cruisers dont blindly enter caps at the start of a match to '"support" them. 4. Suiciding at the start of the game leaving the rest of the team to be blindly picked off for the next 15 minutes. This is especially excruiating when there are four or five dd's per side and yours are all dead. 5. Launching torpedoes from behind team mates and then accusing everyone else of 'camping'.
  4. Dirty_Dunc

    Domintaion and Destroyers

    Whilst I realise this is a multiplayer game and it's hard for developers to please everyone, I honestly think there are too many destroyers in the game and too much importance is being placed on their role. My main concern revolves around the continual use of domination mode, both in random and ranked battles. Personally speaking, I am growing increasingly tired of watching an entire squadron of destroyers die within the first 5 minutes of a game, leaving the rest of the team to fight a 'lost cause' for the remaining 15 minutes. I'm absolutely convinced that a great many players don't even know what the objectives of domination mode are , let alone what constitues a winning sceario or even what the points at the top of screen represent. At least in Standard Battles I don't have to be concerned about what areas are being held or not. I think Wargaming are asking too much of random teams when it comes to Domination Mode and I would like to see it made an optional game mode, like Co op or Arms Race.
  5. _Scarrry_

    Aigle

    Poproszę moderatora o wstawienie w odpowiednie miejsce bo nie ma katalogu francuskie niszczyciele, a mamy pierwszy z nich. Na Shipcomrade recenzja Aigle w skrócie: za - największa pula HP na tier 6, przypominająca tier 7 (ze skilami kapitana prawie 20 000 HP) - najpotężniejsza artyleria na tych tierach - bardzo silne torpedy przeciw: - fatalne kąty zrzutu torped - fatalne prędkości obrotu wież dział - duży, niezbyt zwrotny - słabe camo - dramatycznie słaba plotka, nawet jak na niszczyciel podsumowanie: średniawy mehbote hmm... mi przychodzi do głowy najbardziej chyba pasujące do niego określenie - kanonierka
  6. Salutation camarades capitaines. Si je fais ce petit post aujourd'hui, c'est pour exprimer mon ras le bol des parties avec 4 voir 5 destroyers de chaque côté. Etant joueur de BB, spécialement de Yamato, je sais qu'une partie comme ça, je ne vais rien faire à part naviguer en zig zag et avancer dans des zones déjà scout par mes alliés. Et encore, même dans ce cas, je suis pas à l'abri d'une salve de 15-20 torpilles qui arrive par le flanc.... Bref, tout ça pour dire que les mécaniques de jeu avec le flooding, les dégats massifs des torpilles, le spam HE du DD dans une smoke, etc.... ok ! Mais au moins, il serait bien de limiter à... disons 3 DD maximum de chaque côté sinon la partie devient injouable pour les BB et c'est franchement frustrant. Qu'en pensez-vous si une telle limite était mise en place dans le MM ?
  7. I was talking with @El2aZeR yesterday about the current state of DDs, given the current meta and the ships therein. There is a long-going trend going on regarding destroyers, and the addition of the new British DDs only reinforces this. Starting with the topics concerning radar, a lot of the pro-radar gents seem to be defending radar, because "the stealth of DDs needs a counter". There is a lot wrong with that argument. It is true that DDs have weapons in the form of torps and guns, but also in the form of stealth. (among others) But this stealth gets countered by. - Aircraft carriers. Even more so for IJN DDs, who's importance gets nullified by a decent CV. That for a multitude of reasons CVs don't appear as much as other classes shouldn't matter in this discussion. Also CVs seem to have made a resurgence lately. - For some reason I don't hear this one a lot. DDs stealth gets countered by the enemy DDs. If one of both teams doesn't support their DDs, to blap the enemy DD the moment they get spotted, that is NOT indicative of stealth being a problem, but lack of teamplay and basic understanding of the game. With the matchmaking adjustment a while ago both teams are guaranteed to have equal number of DDs(/"DDs") - Radar. Has been discussed enough lately, I guess. - Hydro. At high tiers reaching beyond the detection range of the stealthiest of DDs and running for a long time. Again, ask El2a how many cruisers don't run defAA but hydro... - Spotting planes and catapult planes mounted on capital ships. As any DD player knows, torps get more succesful the closer you get. - The imho ridiculous idea to give every captain a free "detection skill". Simplest example: if I get detected in a Zao without detecting anything , I know it is time to dodge/activate hydro/launch double fighters. Any decent captain will know the same in any other ship, especially given the ridiculous detection range battleships get. - And, even though this is arguably the "fault" of the DD captain, the RPF skilled. Any captain regardless of the ship that gets RPFed knows what's going on. That is just the number of ships/tools that counter the DDs weapon of stealth. A lot of them counter the mainweapon of DDs, torpedoes, as well. Now we have the introduction of the British DDs. As far as I can see, I think I understand WGs concept of "defensive DDs". They are quite slow, and have a limited range hydro - so they will warn the ships around them of incoming torps, cause that is exactly what was needed. At high tiers they seem to have extremely good guns, and are just another anti-DD DD. Which brings us, after countering DD stealth and countering DD torpedoes, to What counters DDs as such? - CVs. Either by detecting or by just torping them. - Cruisers. AFAIK this is by definition, since they were supposed to be introduced as countering DDs into the game in the original scissors-stone-paper concept. Either by detection by friendly DD, or by hunting them with hydro/rpf/... - Battleship AP. Really, how the hell is this still a thing? Pumping out new premiums every month or so, no problem, but just registering every BB AP hit on a DD as an overpen is too much effort? 10 to 20k blaps are all but rare. - Specific other DDs. The Russian Khaba-line, (high tier) German DDs, high tier panasian DDs with radar (combined with extremely good stealth), Kidd, the new (high tier) British DDs, the "alternative" IJN DDs. While all DDs but a few exceptions have no repair. --- At the same time I have been playing BBs more than usual the last few months. Aren't DDs/DD torps supposed to be my hard counter? They literally countered me once, because my monqueror detonated taking a torp. That's it. I see DDs being blapped by torps, sometimes cruisers. I see cruisers and DDs getting blapped by BB AP. But BBs getting blapped by anything - even if they make a very big mistake? Where, when? Which leads to the underlying reason for this thread. Apparantly a lot of us have become used to the idea that it is ok for some classes to be played hard-mode nonestop, and another one playable from the toilet while reading the newspaper. Or am I not the only one getting annoyed by this? Genuine question. Some concrete suggestions, hoping other people bring some more. - Radar has to be changed in some way. I'd say shorter duration for the US ones, and longer reloads for all. - BB AP on DDs. @MrConway , what the hell is going on on that department, cause after years this might still be meme-worthy, but it ain't funny nomore. - BBs should be able to get citadelled reliably if they mess up, same standard as cruisers - ...
  8. Looks like better Akizuki varients.
  9. Warderer

    DDs - Concealment expert or RPF

    Hello everyone! Lately i have seen a lot of destroyers on the high tiers with RPF. I have always thought that concealment expert is a must but lately, i get absolutely recked by RPF. Which do you think is better? My only experience with DDs comes from the slightly OP Fletcher and i am thinking of getting the Gearing and trying out RPF on it. I am used to playing the Fletcher very passively. It used to be a great gunboat/torpedo boat mix but with all the hydro, radars and planes on high tiers i play it mostly as a torpedo boat.
  10. Hi, there is an issue that has been bothering me for quite some time now. When playing DDs it happens that you sit in a cap just to: 1. block it, so the enemy can't cap or 2. contest it until the enemy ship is not blocking the cap anymore so you can secure the cap for your team. If this is just a matter of up to 30 to 60 seconds, you get enough XP with the "captured" or "Assisted in Capture" Ribbon. If the stand-off lasts longer though, every DD player faces a decision: 1. to continue trying to secure the capture point, this leads to a loss of XP for the player because he deals no/less damage while doing this even though he tries to help the team winning and 2. abandoning the objective to go hunting for BBs etc.. This leads to more XP for the player. I was thinking about the Idea of a "Contested" ribbon - which gives the player 30/40/50(or whatever) xp for every 20/30/45 seconds a cap is contested by both sides.
  11. Bon, n'y aurait il pas un souci avec la détection de certaines torpilles, non deepwater! Car elles sont détectées super tardivement pour certaines... Du moins, j'en ai le sentiment... J'ai et eu, shima, yueyang, Z52, yog, Z46, Gearing, Fletch... En gros tous les DD et j'ai l'impression que pour certains, la détection a changé... Pas vous?
  12. With ranked for T10 quickly approaching, was wondering what the general consensus was about the best T10 destroyer for ranked play.
  13. friedeggnchips

    Invisible ships

    This is absurd. less than 5km yet I cannot see the enemy. I later died from 6 torpedoes that came from the magic invisible ship that you can(t) see here. How am I supposed to fight or do anything if I cant see a ship that is shooting and launching torpedoes at me??!! Firstly, no it wasn't torpedo bombers that i missed, it is a destroyer that appeared on my minimap and then disappeared. secondly, this guy was no more than 5km away from me and was also shooting at me, though i still could not detect him. A am in the Iron Duke. Nerf these bloody invisible destroyers, this is getting out of hand.
  14. How come EVERY CRUISER - INLCUDING GERMANS - use Anti-aircraft consumable when they FULLY KNOW that because of Wargamings intelligence when it comes to balance - There are NO CV'S farting around UNLESS YOU PLAY TIER 4-6 ? High level cruisers (7-10) HAVE NO FLIPPING IDEA on how to hydro - YES, SOME cruisers use radar - but WHY THE EFF are noone using hydro and FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF kill those FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF destroyers so our battleships can advance? (PS: Battleships ! STOP FISHING!) Either REMOVE the ANTI-AIR consumable at tier 7-10 or FFFFFFFFFF LEARN TO EFFINGS HYDRO OR HUNT TO FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Destroyers !!!!! Also - Carriers - keep up the amazings :) atleast THEY KNOW how to scout and kill stuff.
  15. Hello! I have played this week's operation, the Defence of Naval Station Newport, a couple of times these past few days. And I have started to perceive a new trend, in that more and more destroyers are appearing in the teams. Now, one reason why I'm rather fond of the scenario battles, is that they have given cruisers a much-needed place in the sun. With the possible exception of that operation where you're trying to assist an airlift from a Japanese island base, cruisers are - by far - the most efficient ship class for completing operations. Battleships can be of good use as well, although a team with a majority of battleships will generally do worse than a team with a majority of cruisers. But a team with a majority of destroyers? Don't go there, soldier. It's not a pretty picture. For the longest time, I refrained from playing any destroyer at all in any operation. But then I read a few posts on this forum, which stated that a destroyer could do well in operations under certain circumstances. I tried it, and yes, it can work - but I would like to amend the statement: One destroyer can do well in operations, under certain circumstances. Two or three destroyers? Not so much. Some weeks ago I had a game in Defence of Naval Station Newport, where I played in the Anshan. The rest of the team was composed mainly of Clevelands and one aircraft carrier. So, yeah, it was a five-star win and an easy one at that. You could argue that this team would have won without my destroyer, and you'd be right. But by spotting, kiting and setting fires, in combination with a well-timed endgame torpedo-rush that sent an enemy battleship to the bottom with extreme prejudice, I managed to pull up a rather impressive score on the post-battle result screen. All in all, a very fun game. When I tried for a repeat performance yesterday, I found myself in the company of two other destroyers, two times in a row. In other words, I had two games where roughly half the team was composed of destroyers. Almost needless to say, both battles ended in catastrophic losses. Irrespective of individual player skill, such a team simply has nowhere near the fire power that is needed to complete this operation with any greater level of success. I hesitate to argue for an outright DD cap mechanic - but I do feel that the composition of the team is rather vital to the game experience. Two battles is obviously nowhere near enough to draw any conclusions from, and so I thought I'd put the question up on the forum: Have destroyers become a more common choice in Scenario Battles? If so, how has this impacted on the game experience? Happy Easter to you all!
  16. NB : topic mis à jour pour la version 0.7.2 I INTRODUCTION. Bonjour à toutes et à tous, j'espère que vous vous portez bien les loulous ! Permettez-moi de vous présenter le travail que j'ai réalisé. Vous êtes actuellement en train de lire un quart de ce topic qui est scindé en quatre parties : une pour chaque classe de navire. Voici les liens vers les trois autres : - Cuirassés : https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/97781-graphes-radar -cuirasses-comparatif-rapide-et-synthetique-entre-nations/?do=edit - Croiseurs : https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/97782-graphes-radar-croiseurs-comparatif-rapide-et-synthetique-entre-nations/ - Porte-avions : https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/97784-graphes-radar-porte-avions-comparatif-rapide-et-synthetique-entre-nations/ NB : tout le texte explicatif est général, et donc identique (à quelques différences mineures près) pour chacune des parties mentionnées ci-dessus. Pour chaque classe et tier, je vous ai récapitulé sur un même graphe de type « radar » les valeurs numériques des principales caractéristiques des navires pour toutes les nations du jeu en rapportant l'ensemble de ces données sur une échelle commune de 0 à 5 afin que vous puissiez les comparer entre elles d’un rapide coup d’œil. Cette représentation me semble plus appropriée, plus compacte et plus dynamique que sous forme d’histogramme…Elle fait également moins mal aux yeux ! Le topic s'adresse autant au débutant sur WoWs qui souhaite découvrir les forces et faiblesses relatives de son navire favori par rapport aux homologues des autres nations, qu'aux plus expérimentés qui ont déjà en tête une idée très précise de paramètre qu'ils veulent comparer rapidement à ceux des concurrents adverses. J’ai repris les statistiques affichées dans le port, dans la fenêtre à droite. Pour certaines données qui ne figurent pas dans le jeu, je suis allé les chercher sur le site : http://wowsft.com/WarshipStats La section II ci-après vous donne les représentations radars relatives aux destroyers. Il y en a trois par tier et par classe de navire. Si vous voulez prendre connaissance des détails de la méthode de construction que j’ai employée, tout est dans la section III. II GRAPHES RADAR : DESTROYERS. II-0 Remarques préliminaires pour commencer ! 1. Relativité des valeurs : Les données des graphes sont exprimées de manière relative et non pas absolue. Leur lecture seule ne vous permet pas de remonter aux statistiques originelles. Attention avant de donner sens à une valeur isolée : un 5/5 obtenu par un navire montre qu’il est le meilleur pour un paramètre donné. Toutefois, si les autres nations concurrentes atteignent par exemple des scores respecctifs de 4.8/5, 4.3/5 et 4.6/5, sa performance par rapport aux autres n'est en fait pas significative compte tenu des faibles écarts relatifs. 2. Statistiques des navires : J'ai relevé les données sans aucun ajout d'amélioration, de compétence de commandant, de pavillon et de camouflage. Cependant, les modules sont dans leur configuration optimale, et j’ai tenu compte des choix multiples éventuellement possibles. 3. Exhaustivité : Je liste de nombreux paramètres du jeu, mais je ne suis pas exhaustif et ne cherche d’ailleurs aucunement à l’être. Pour ne mentionner qu’eux, je ne parle par exemple pas du temps de vol des obus en fonction de la distance, de leur temps d'amorce, des angles morts des batteries principales, de l’accélérations des navires, etc. 4. Code couleur : J'ai essayé dans la mesure du possible de garder entre les différents graphes le même code couleur des nations, mais ce n’est pas toujours le cas. Dans un même souci de cohérence, quand plusieurs navires d'un même tier, d'une même classe et d'une même nation se rencontrent sur un graphe, je leur donne différentes intensités d'une même couleur. Rentrons à présent dans le vif du sujet ! II-1 Destroyers T10. II-2 Destroyers T9. II-3 Destroyers T8. En cours de réalisation II-4 Destroyers T7. En cours de réalisation III MÉTHODE DE CONSTRUCTION. Je mets en œuvre deux étapes avant de tracer les graphes récapitulatifs. III-1 Étape 1/2 : relevé des données. Je regroupe tout d’abord les valeurs numériques des différentes caractéristiques lues dans le port dans un tableau Excel. Celles surmontées de * sont issues de wowsft.com. 1. Pour les cuirassés, les croiseurs et les destroyers : Graphe radar 1/3 : batterie principale. Paramètre Unité Commentaire/hypothèse Calibre mm Portée km Sigma* - Dégâts HE - Dégâts maximum d’un obus HE Probabilité incendie - Masse obus HE* kg Vitesse initiale HE m/s Dégâts AP - Dégâts maximum d’un obus AP Masse obus AP* kg Vitesse initiale AP m/s Pénétration 5 km* mm Pour un obus impactant normalement le blindage Pénétration 10 km* mm Pour un obus impactant normalement le blindage Pénétration 15 km* mm Pour un obus impactant normalement le blindage Pénétration 20 km* mm Pour un obus impactant normalement le blindage Rechargement s Durée entre deux tirs successifs Rotation tourelles s Durée nécessaire pour pivoter de 180° Graphe radar 2/3 : secondaires/torpilles/AA. Paramètre Unité Commentaire/hypothèse Nombre canons secondaires - Calibre secondaires mm Moyenne pondérée des différents calibres Portée secondaires km Dégâts secondaires - Moyenne pondérée des différents alphas Probabilité incendie secondaires - Moyenne pondérée des différentes probabilités d’incendie Rechargement secondaires s Moyenne pondérée des différents temps de rechargement Nombre torpilles - Portée torpilles km Dégâts torpilles - Dégâts maximum d’une torpille Vitesse torpilles kt Probabilité inondation* - Temps réaction torpilles* s Rechargement torpilles s AA >= 5 km - Somme de toutes les AA de portées supérieures à 5 km 3,5 km <= AA < 5 km - Somme de toutes les AA de portées comprises entre 3,5 et 5 km AA < 3,5 km - Somme de toutes les AA de portées inférieures à 3,5 km Graphe radar 3/3 : survivabilité/manoeuvrabilité/furtivité. Paramètre Unité Commentaire/hypothèse Points de vie - Protection anti-torpilles - Pourcentage donné dans le port Pont extrémités mm Moyenne pondérée des blindages des ponts avant et arrière Pont central mm Blindage du pont central supérieur uniquement, n’inclut pas les blindages plus profonds Superstructure mm N’inclut pas le château Citadelle flanc mm Somme des blindages latéraux à pénétrer pour atteindre la citadelle tel qu’un obus arrive le plus horizontalement possible Citadelle avant mm Blindage de la section avant de la citadelle Citadelle arrière mm Blindage de la section arrière de la citadelle Bulbe anti-torpilles mm Somme du bulbe et de la cloison anti-torpilles Batteries principales mm Blindage le plus épais de la face avant, à la naissance des canons Barbettes mm Moyenne pondérée des différents blindages pour la partie des barbettes à l’air uniquement Vitesse navire kt Rayon courbe giration m Basculement gouvernail s Détection surface km Détection air km Détection fumée km Détection après un tir de l’artillerie principale sous couvert d’une smoke 2. Pour les porte-avions : Graphe radar 1/3 : survivabilité/manoeuvrabilité/furtivité. Paramètre Unité Commentaire/hypothèse [Mêmes paramètres que ci-dessus] - Pont d'envol mm Avions réserve - Graphe radar 2/3 : chasseurs/torpilleurs. Paramètre Unité Commentaire/hypothèse Chasseurs tier - Nombre chasseurs escadron - Chasseurs points de vie - Chasseurs vitesse kt Chasseurs dégâts moyens - Chasseurs munitions - Chasseurs préparation s Torpilleurs tier - Nombre torpilleurs escadron - Torpilleurs points de vie - Torpilleurs vitesse kt Torpilleurs dégâts moyens - Torpilleurs préparation s Dégâts torpille - Dégâts maximum d’une torpille Portée torpille km Vitesse torpille kt Graphe radar 3/3 : bombardiers en piqué. Paramètre Unité Commentaire/hypothèse Bombardier tier - Nombre bombardier escadron - Bombardier points de vie - Bombardier vitesse kt Bombardier dégâts moyens - Bombardier préparation s Dégâts HE - Dégâts maximum d’une bombe HE Probabilité incendie - Dégâts AP - Dégâts maximum d’une bombe AP Longueur ellipse dispersion m Largeur ellipse dispersion m III-2 Étape 2/2 : mise à l’échelle 0 – 5. Je convertis ensuite ces données sur une échelle de note arbitraire allant de 0 à 5. Deux situations se présentent alors et doivent être traitées différemment : 1. Cas avec valeurs standards : paramètre(navire) * 5 / max (paramètre(tousLesNavires)) 2. Cas avec valeurs inversées : Je prends l’exemple de la dissimulation. La formule précédente ne marche pas car elle me conduit à donner un 5/5 au navire qui possède la pire dissimulation. Un petit calcul est donc nécessaire afin de pouvoir attribuer un score d’autant meilleur que la statistique est faible pour certaines caractéristiques (rechargement d’armement, basculement du gouvernail, longueur et largeur de l’ellipse de dispersion des bombes, etc). Voici la transformation mathématique à appliquer : 5 * {1 + [min (paramètre(TousLesNavires)) – paramètre(navire)] / max (paramètre(TousLesNavires))} Démonstration en me basant sur l’exemple de la dissimulation de base des croiseurs T10 : IV CONCLUSION. J’avais en tête l’idée de vous fournir quelque chose d’utile et de synthétique et dont vous pourrez, je l’espère, en tirer des informations intéressantes... On peut palabrer indéfiniment sur la question "How to [shipName]", mais les valeurs statistiques caractéristiques d’un navire, elles, tel Dark Vador, gardent toujours la même expression sur le visage que vous apparteniez aux adeptes de la théorie du complot après avoir enchaîné 10 défaites ou que vous soyiez capable de sortir un 347k en Des Moines... Et le plus important : donnez-moi un retour et faites-moi part de vos questions, remarques, commentaires, demandes d’explications supplémentaires, relevés d'erreurs, critiques et/ou suggestions qui vous viendraient à l’esprit, tout cela est évidemment le bienvenu pour traquer les coquilles, oublis et étourderies qui existent à coup sûr, à en juger par la quantité de données présentées. Enfin, merci à vous d'avoir consacré de votre temps à la lecture de ce topic ! Bonne journée et à bientôt, touche_coule
  17. HalSteiner

    HMS Gallant

    Opinions, opinions. Anyone got one already? What are your thoughts on the ship? Viable for ranked/random/operations? Pros and cons?
  18. HNMLS_Bloyesvantreslong

    Flotilla leaders small cruisers or large destroyers.

    This is a question that keeps popping in to my mind. When you look at the Shimikaze and Akazuki Destroyers they are very large for their classes around 130 meters. The Atlanta is 160 meters officially a flotilla leader in game as a premium cruiser . The Dutch Tromp and the Heemskerk are officially flotilla leaders 130 meters. The amount of guns and size of the guns of these ships would then be one of the more powerful Destroyer classes in game . Or the most stealthy cruisers in game. If classified as Destroyer a destroyer tech tree would be more than possible. Just take a look at the specs of all 3 ship classes and the 2 dutch variants. Let me know what you think, flotilla leader a cruiser or destroyer. Akizuki on trial run off Miyazu Bay on 17 May 1942. Class overview Name: Akizuki class Builders: Maizuru Naval Arsenal Sasebo Naval Arsenal Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Uraga Dock Company Operators: Imperial Japanese Navy Republic of China Navy Soviet Navy Subclasses: Akizuki class (Pr. F51) Fuyutsuki class (Pr. F51) Michitsuki class (Pr. F53) Cost: 12,090,000 JPY in 1939 17,820,400 JPY in 1941 19,194,000 JPY in 1942 Built: 1940–1945 In commission: 1942–1945 (IJN) Planned: 6 (1939) + 10 (1941) + 23 (1942) Completed: 12 Cancelled: 20 Lost: 6 Retired: 6 General characteristics (as per Whitley[1]) Type: Destroyer Displacement: 2,700 long tons (2,743 t) standard 3,700 long tons (3,759 t) full load Length: 134.2 m (440 ft 3 in) overall Beam: 11.6 m (38 ft 1 in) Draught: 4.15 m (13 ft 7 in) Propulsion: 3 × Ro-Gō Kampon water tube boilers, 2 × Kampon impulse geared turbines, 2 shafts, 52,000 shp (39 MW) Speed: 33 knots (38 mph; 61 km/h) Range: 8,000 nmi (15,000 km) at 18 kn (21 mph; 33 km/h) Complement: 263 (Akizuki in 1942) 315 (Akizuki in October 1944) Armament: Akizuki in 1942[2] 8 × 100 mm / 65 cal Type 98 DP guns (4 × 2) 4 × Type 96 25 mm (0.98 in) AA guns (2 × 2) 4 × Type 92 torpedo tubes (8 × 610 mm Type 93 torpedoes) 56 × Type 95 depth charges Suzutsuki in April 1945[3] 8 × 100 mm / 65 cal Type 98 DP guns (4 × 2) 47 × 25 mm AA guns (7 × 3 + 26 × 1), 3 × 13 mm AA guns (3 × 1) 4 × Type 92 torpedo tubes (1 × 4) 8 × 610 mm Type 93 torpedoes 56 × Type 2 Mod.1 depth charges Shimakaze underway. History Empire of Japan Name: Shimakaze (島風) (Island Wind) Builder: Maizuru Naval Arsenal Laid down: 8 August 1941 Launched: 18 July 1942 Commissioned: 10 May 1943 Struck: 10 January 1945 Fate: Sunk in the Battle of Ormoc Bay near Cebu, Philippines, 11 November 1944 General characteristics Class and type: Shimakaze Type: Destroyer Displacement: 2,570 long tons (2,610 t) (standard)[1] 3,300 long tons (3,400 t) (full load)[2] Length: 129.5 m (424 ft 10 in) o/a 126 m (413 ft 5 in) w/l Beam: 11.2 m (36 ft 9 in) Draft: 4.15 m (13 ft 7 in)[3] Installed power: 75,000 shp (56,000 kW) Propulsion: 2 × Kampon impulse geared steam turbines 3 × Kampon water-tube boilers 2 × shafts Speed: 40.9 kn (75.7 km/h; 47.1 mph) Range: 6,000 nmi (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 18 kn (33 km/h; 21 mph) Complement: 267 (May 1943) Armament: As Built: 6 × 12.7 cm Type 3/50 cal dual-purpose guns (3x2) 6 × 25 mm (1 in) Type 96 25mm anti-aircraft guns (2x3)[4] 2 × 13.2 mm (0.52 in) anti-aircraft machine guns (1x2) 15 × 610 mm (24 in) torpedo tubes (3x5) 18 depth charges Early 1944 Refit: 6 × 12.7 cm Type 3/50 cal dual-purpose guns (3x2)[5] 16 × 25 mm (1 in) anti-aircraft guns (4x3, 2x2) (increased in June to 28)[6] 15 × 610 mm (24 in) torpedo tubes (3x5) 36 depth charges Tromp in 1936 Class overview Name: Tromp class Builders: Nederlandsche Scheepsbouw Mij. Operators: Royal Netherlands Navy Built: 1936–1940 In commission: 1938–1969 Completed: 2 General characteristics Type: Flotilla leader Displacement: 3,350 long tons (3,404 t) standard Length: 131.95 m (432 ft 11 in) Beam: 12.43 m (40 ft 9 in) Draught: 4.32 m (14 ft 2 in) Propulsion: 2 Parsons geared steam turbines 4 Yarrow boilers 2 shafts 56,000 shp (41,759 kW) Speed: 32.5 knots (37.4 mph; 60.2 km/h) Complement: 380 (Tromp) 420 (Jacob van Heemskerk) Armament: Tromp : 6 × 150 mm (5.9 in) guns (3×2) 4 × 75 mm 8 × 40 mm (4×2) 2 × 20 mm 6 × 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes (2×3) Jacob van Heemskerk : 10 × 102 mm (4 in) guns (5×2) 8 × 40 mm (4×2) 4 × 20 mm Aircraft carried: 1 × Fokker C.XIW floatplane (Tromp)
  19. Grandorf

    I have noticed a trend.

    Hi Lately there has been an annoying increase in DDs. Many campaigns et.c. Its starting to level back from 4-5 DDs each team to the normal 1-3. This has left a pool of dedicated DD players who are uneven. Usually players blame the CV or toptier BB when a game goes really bad. I have noticed lately that it actually is the DDs that make or brake the game. Many times one teams DDs can kill 7-8 ships while the other teams DDs accomplish nothing. I would say that 2 good DDs outplays any CV or toptier BBs any day. My opinion is that your team is only as good as your DDs.
  20. ABED1984

    Pan Asian DDs and Cruisers

    Are we gonna get a list of the Cruisers that are immune to "Deep Water" torpedoes? I think not all Cruisers will get sunk from these torps.
  21. dasCKD

    The French Destroyer's Thing

    Well, it might not be what everyone is expecting. I wanted to come back with a carrier thread, but I have spent a small fortune on my computer and I do not think that the system as it is right now could even come close to being able to handle the bile and hatred which I will spew when the time comes. Until then however, I thought I would start off my return from my break with something a little less consequential. Many would consider this thread largely irrelevant as we already know what the French destroyer's 'thing' is, and that is their speed. Admittedly the ability to traverse the map at incredible speeds and to contest caps far more often than their enemies would be far more beneficial than high speeds on a cruiser that, whilst useful, does not define a ship. Speed alone doesn't make a ship however. This might be because I've always been a bit of a rubbish destroyer player, but to me there are effectively only about 3 destroyer lines in the game: the gunboat, torpedo boat, and the hybrid. Where cruiser lines are defined by their gimmicks, destroyers are defined by their primary weapon in combination of whether or not they want to play the spotter. Even for destroyers with effective torpedoes and effective guns, they can really only do one at a time. A perfect theoretical destroyer can't both play a gunboat and a torpedo boat at the same time. A torpedo boat has to remain unseen, being most effective when the enemy doesn't even think about them until it's much too late. A gunboat will inevitably be seen, even if they're not detected, as every single captain who is not a bot understands what a long line of low damage shells heading towards them from a smoke screen or behind an island. This presents an issue. WG is known for wanting to preserve the flavor of a ship within the line and the French cruisers are heavily defined by their high explosive shells but whilst their torpedoes have relatively minor usefulness in their high tiered cruisers, the French 9 km torpedoes are actually very good torpedoes for a destroyer and French destroyers carries moderately heavy torpedo armaments in configurations that are incredibly effective with World of Warships mechanics with very fast reloads (2x2 + 2x3 Mogador, 3x3 Le Fantasque, 1x3 + 2x2 Vaquelin, 2x3 Aigle) compared to their contemporaries. They are also built as gunboats and destroyer hunters, and that is where the issue is. In a vacuum, this isn't an issue. The French destroyers, with high speed and fast loading torpedoes, will work as good torpedo boats. That said, they can't perform the torpedo and gunboat role at once, meaning that they could both be balanced as a gunboat and balanced as a torpedo boat. The problem is that there are other destroyers in the game, and only the Russian subline and arguably the Akizuki can really be considered hybrids to any large degree. The Americans, formally hybrids, no longer have the use of stealth fire to keep themselves alive outside of smoke screens and, like the Germans, simply don't have the shell performance to merit a gun heavy build outside of cutting down enemy destroyers in gunfights. This means that it is easy to make the French destroyers incredibly powerful and appealing ships, they could very easily become overpowered compared to their contemporaries. What we have with the French destroyers with the French speed boost and good torpedoes: the Kiev or Udaloi with few of their weaknesses. French destroyers need to be handled extremely carefully if they are not to become entirely overpowered when compared to their peers. We have the Americans with excellent torpedo armaments and guns that are good for short ranged engagements but little else. We have the Russians that generally perform as long ranged annoyances, the Japanese that used to be the torpedo line and are now just bad, and the Germans that work as cap contestants and good torpedo boats. The French destroyer's place in all this is difficult, as it would be easy to create French destroyers such that they would be so powerful they would effectively replace the existing destroyer lines in almost all roles except ones restricted to the truest of the true destroyers. Support Objective Anti-battleship Anti-destroyer Area control Speed alone is not enough to make a destroyer line. Whilst possessing destroyers that are the fastest in the world like the Fantasque at 45 knots, the French line also has ships like the Mogador with a good but unexceptional 39 knots and a poor performance with ships like the Aigle that are barely faster than the Japanese midtier destroyers that are some of the most sluggish destroyers in the entire game. The French destroyers are also mostly built, so simply forcing them into a role of fragile but powerful speedsters really can't be done as these ships exists with real life performance and characteristics. Despite this, the French destroyer line could be made very interesting as long as they are balanced correctly. The over performance of the Khabarovsk could potentially be seen as the under performance of the destroyer class in general. Where one draws the line of what makes a balanced destroyer is largely a matter of perspective. Miniature cruisers Gunboat destroyers True Speedsters In general, I don't think that the French destroyers even have the chance of being as disastrous as the first incarnations of the French cruisers. The thing that I fear most when it comes to these ships isn't their weakness, but rather their mediocrity. It is very easy to basically replicate the Russian destroyer formula with slightly floatier guns, better alpha, poorer RoF, and slightly better speed boost. The French destroyers have the potential of being something really special however, much like how the French designed them in concept. A destroyer which is truly a miniature cruiser instead of a slightly bigger gun boat, a weapon system with the strengths of the cruisers diminished, but not really sharing any of the weaknesses could create a truly enjoyable and interesting line to grind and play. This post is a little short on images and comments compared to my usual work, but I have been quite distracted as of late. I'm putting this out so at least I'm putting out some content instead of just siting back and never posting anything I write.
  22. Praetorias

    RN Destroyers

    Hi, Ok, with the fully fledged British BB and Cruiser tree, I know there is the Pan-A fleet which I have little interest in, when do you think the British Destroyers be out, any rumours of what ships will be in the tree. Any wishes or desires for this selection? Looking forward to some decent gunships. Regards
  23. AMONAS1

    New smoke "mechanics"

    I am not a DD player. The new smoke "mechanics" are bad. When you fire from inside the smoke you will be visible for a duration of time i think 20 seconts, with redused radius of visibility acording to your ship. This is wrong because my teams dd will sit out of the smoke ditecting you (YOU CAN NOT SEE HIM). I will kill you he will kill you ALL the damn fleet can kill you. The new mechanics are wrong. I suggest the ships inside the smoke NOT to be visible from the outside but to have a dispersion penalty. (bad english.... deal with it)
  24. aidenthedestroyer

    Query on the Mutsuki Class Destroyers

    I don't know about this but I'm sure many of you will know about this. I guess some of you must have searched about the class or If you have watched Kantai Collection, you would know about the class. In all the other classes, like the Fubuki class, Fubuki comes first into action and then her sister ships. But for some reason the Mutsuki Class is different. This first ship to come out was Kisragi then followed by the name ship Mutsuki. Why is that? Shouldn't it have been the Kisragi class? Mutsuki was completed on 25 March 1926 while Kisragi was completed 21 December 1925.
  25. I'm Baaaaack~ Same notes applies as always. Not a guide. Not about the current patch. DO NOT MOVE. "Realistic" matchmaking It really has been a while hasn't it? This is a thread I've been threatening for a while, but I haven't quite gone through with it. The concept is relatively simple, this thread is here to say that cruiser mechanics and engagement rules should be overhauled before being handed over to the destroyer class because it'll probably do more good there. I, for one, found it very odd that the first ship I had access to when I first joined the game was a cruiser. Generally speaking, games start you off with the smallest ship and you have to work your way up the tree. it makes more sense for a game like World of Warships to have a player of equal tier across different ship types to have about an equal role in representing their team, but the idea of destroyers being the most logical option as the universal class is something that always clung to my mind. The Game Cruisers and Battleships The game began as something of a rock-paper-scissors rotation system. Battleships had slow firing but powerful guns, ideal for dealing with cruisers. Cruisers had fast firing guns that are weak against heavily armored targets, whilst powerful against the badly armored but agile destroyers. Destroyers (back then) had anemic guns with poor arcs but can be used to great effect against the slower battleships before the introduction of the 1:4 or 1:6 high explosive rule and torpedoes that only really worked against the large turning circles and slow rudder shift of battleships. It was easy to do 100k damage with nothing but HE damage using a Farragut's guns against battleships in those days. The collapse of the RPS system wasn't dramatic, but the issues caused by the remains of the system persists even today. Fundamentally however, battleships are poorly suited to hunt cruisers. Cruisers are poorly suited to hunt destroyers. Destroyers are poorly suited to hunt battleships. I don't have enough time to elaborate, this thread is about destroyers. Destroyers In many ways, destroyers are a good universal class. They're very forgiving at the lower tiers due to their lack of citadels and the fact that cruiser guns at that tier are relatively ineffective with only a few notable exceptions. Their maneuverability (German destroyer aside) is very impressive, and many of them have the tools already available to a cruiser. It's relatively rare for any ship of the destroyer class to be able to one-shot unless they're being hunted by a carrier or are spamming shells from a smoke screen next to another destroyer with a full salvo of torpedoes. Very few nations at the era of the game had battleships, even fewer had carriers. Basically every nation with a shoreline had destroyers however, and it allows for a far larger variety of ships to pick from before WG needs to begin inventing their own ships out of the blue. Even with cruisers, they are already struggling with maybe 3 other nations able to truely represent a cruiser line in game. As they are currently however, they generally have to maintain full silence in order to operate. If destroyers are to take up the cruiser's role as the universal class, some tweaks will have to be made to the class itself in order to make it more like a cruiser and able to fulfill their new role. Analogues I'm a cruiser player, so it's probably inevitable that I was going to go the path of basically conversing destroyers into smaller and more annoying cruisers. The current cruisers already provides a very good template to base the destroyer redesign off of however. As the Khabarovsk demonstrates, the miniature cruiser model makes for a very strong ship line and small but fast ships will naturally lurk closer to the caps than cruisers currently can and therefore can more quickly respond to changing game scenarios. I don't know where this article is going anymore. It's been a few weeks, and I've been writing nothing but project diary entries and programming code. Don't give me that look, this is an idea that War Gaming would totally implement!
×