Jump to content
Server restart - 20/06/2019 Read more... ×

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'HE'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 40 results

  1. Temptis

    Fire and modules/skills

    with the current meta, it's hard to see the facts through all the smoke. HE in it's current form is fine. Fire in it's current form isn't. even with all the modules and skills, an average HE spamming cruiser still manages to set you on fire once per salvo. it does not matter if the chance of fire is reduced by 12% (skill+module) or if you don't take the 2, after a few salvos you are burning in all possible locations. thus imho the skill and module should reduce not the chance for fire but the duration and/or damage over time of the effect.
  2. Elendor

    HE vs Armor mechanism

    I've been going through the recent patch notes looking for anything related to HE (since my account is bugged I guess I got the time ). But I haven't found anything. Yet over the last week or so, I clearly noticed a change in how HE behaves versus Armor. Especially HE from small caliber guns, for destroyers and light cruisers like the Atlanta. In "short", over a week ago my HE shells were just not concerned by armor. They just did not care. I could shoot from close range at any part of an enemy ship, and it would always do some damage. And set the ship on fire. This worked particularly well on my Atlanta, where I would just get very close, and fire all my shells on the biggest part of the enemy ship. In many cases, from that range, the armor belt. Which would end up with full damage each salvo, because at 3-4 km you just can't miss. I've got some examples on videos, of such brawls that went better than others, and basically you could just shoot at the huge armor belt of a Colorado, not miss a single shot, and have every time between 4-5K damage guaranteed. Lately however, this hasn't worked at all for me. In the exact same situations, any hit to the armor belt is now completely ineffective. At very close range, where the shots don't angle enough to hit the deck anymore, and I used to just shoot the armor belt... I now end up with consecutive salvos doing 0 damage and 0 fires. Once in a while, 300, 500... but I'm pretty sure it's when a shell flies higher and hits the structure instead. For comparison, doing exactly the same thing (shooting the armor belt at 4km range), 10 days ago I used to melt down battleships, now I'm not doing any damage to an Aoba or a Furutaka. Anybody else noticed that change? Anybody knows when and where i came from? A few friends of mine seem to have noticed a change in their close range encounters in their cruisers as well, and for me it's undeniable. To the point where I've been trying out other tactics, simply because the way I used to play my close range cruisers needs to adapt. And well, at 3-4km on some battleships with a very high armor belt, it's not easy to hit anything BUT the armor belt! I'm not complaining about the change, it actually makes perfect sense to me. I see no reason why HE shells would just do such massive damage to armor belts. And set armor on fire. It did not make any sense, but that's how it was working, so I was aiming at armor belts. I'm only surprised that I didn't read anything about it anywhere, in any patch notes, any bug correction, etc.
  3. The_TrashMan

    DE's, HE and their guns

    So I'm grinding the US BB line and doing Colorado ATM. Get in a game, our teams duke it out. I take out 2 enemy BB's, still at 50% health. I move to attack another enemy BB barely at 10%, when an enemy DD starts attacking me. No friendly cruisers around, because idiots don't play their role. Instead of escorting they ruin around like headless chickens. Either way, the DD launches torps, but I evade and nail him with my guns. They were AP rounds since I was preparing to fight a BB, so it doesn't kill him. He pops smoke and start peppering me with HE rounds. I can't see him, can't target him and the Colorado turns slowly, plus a tiny island in the way. I have to go around. All the while he peppers me with HE. There's no pause, those guns have a RoF that is insane. The DD keeps dealing insane damage to me and setting me on fire. I got repair crews and damage control, so I use em, but he just keeps going. By the time the smoke finally cleared, I was at 5% and he set me on fire, again. Long story short, a DD destroyed me, a tier 7 BB, with GUNS. Is it just me or is there something wrong with that image?
  4. Video of what I mean: Hey, I played a few matches in my Mogami and she's absolutely horrible. The guns deal no damage to any battleships. I had volleys where I got 9 hits on target that ended up dealing 858 damage. Volleys where I got 7 hits on target and did 0 damage, even though I caused a fire. Hitting a Montana, Yamato, Tirpitz or North Carolina all ended up giving me almost no damage done with HE. I do essentially the same amount of damage firing AP at those same targets. If I get a direct hit on the super structure I deal SOME tiny amount of damage but that's about it. I tried it multiple times today and it's just unbelievable. I think the Mogami does and did need some nerfs, but right now she's horrible with 155mm guns. They seem completely unusable. And if you can't use 155mm guns on the Mogami you're stuck with 203mm guns, which have 33% less rate of fire AND 33% less shells. They also have 20% less range because you can't take advantage of the commander skill and 10% less rate of fire even on top of that. This means your damage output is like 35-40% of the 155mm guns. Not to mention that with 203mm guns the Atago beats the Mogami in almost every aspect AND she has a heal on top of all that. Atago's guns turn faster, she has more HP, she has the heal ability, she has better torpedo arcs etc. And all you lose is a TINY bit of damage. If this is what you're going to nerf the Mogami with then I would much rather take the Advanced Firing Training nerf on the Mogami, because then you could at least deal damage once you got close, but now you can't do anything. If you see a battleship you need to run away because you just can't damage them.
  5. Nekomancer

    Choice of ammunition

    So, i'm currently at Tier 6 with my highest ship, the wonderful, wonderful Cleveland. Love this thing. Generally i use AP but heard that Overpenetration is a thing in this game, so, when should i use HE instead? Currently i do the following: DD: HE CA: AP CV: HE for fire, then AP BB: AP Anything you can add, or is that about right?
  6. Hi there guys, I am running around with a thought about the main battery turrets and guns. Now, you load a kind of ammo for the whole 'ship', for all the turrets the same. But, what if: You are on a whatever kinda boat, and you have 4 turrets, 3 barrels per turret. You can load each turret differently, so A has AP, B has HE, C has AP, D uses HE. Or: You can load each barrel with AP/HE. Outer 2 barrels AP, inner barrel HE. Or whatever. First thing Wargaming will say it will be too difficult for the players, which is understandable. But how many WW1/WW2 era warships/warplanes/tank/#everythingthathastodowithwar fans/enthousiast are playing this game? I'll guess there is also the term 'OP', because you will fire 2 kinds of ammo, if selected.. Let's sign a petition! ~ Jacco
  7. Hallo zusammen, vor ca. einer Woche habe ich auch endlich meinen Muniguide fertig bekommen. Ich gehe darin u.a. auf folgende Punkte ein: Welche Munitionsarten gibt es? Von welchen Faktoren ist die Munitionswahl abhängig? Welche Trefferzonen gibt es? Faustformel zur Munitionswahl Ich wünsche euch viel Spaß beim Ansehen und viel Erfolg im Gefecht!
  8. shamelesscreature

    Hindenburg armour model broken?

    In the last 6 weeks, I've been detonated 5 times by Moskva or battleship HE in this ship (1x Moskva, 1x Missouri, 3x Bismarck / Tirpitz iirc). Mostly by what appeared to be hits or splashes near the #2 turret. In the same time frame, I've had 2 detonations in all other cruisers combined, once by torpedo and once by AP.
  9. LokiGER

    Gnewni HE-Bug?

    Bitte löschen. Doppelpost. Warum auch immer.
  10. SENAdmiral

    In-game serious error !

    I do noticed, after 600+ MM, WG use a totally wrong description for the shells: HE are NOT the true name for the ammo we use in-game Looking at how EACH TIME an so called "HE" salvo hit a BB and , like on Vietnam War, when an napalm bomb hit an steel surface and instant start burning, I become ABSOLUTELY convinced we have, atm, in-game only AP and... INCENDIARY ammo, even Napalm loaded shells ! Its the only logical explanation for each one able to look at the ridiculous amount of instant-fire those shells are able to do, even hitting ONLY METAL surfaces ! Dear WG, please improve the so called HE shells, by adding the possibility not only to instant burn any metal surface they hit, but ALSO THE WATER near an ship if we fail to hit the target. Please improve the napalm load on the HE shells, right now its not great, a BB manage to burn to slow, and we all know the napalm must melt any turret in less then 5 sec !
  11. Hi all. Have been reading a large number of articles, books and web sites lately about actual performance and capabilities of Destroyers during WW2 and was a bit inspired. I think the wikipedia page on the Battle of Samar sums some parts up quite nicely: First a bit about a number of "Destroyer Escorts" involved. Destroyer Escorts was smaller, slower (usually just about 20 knots), less armed etc ships normally used to escort freight convoys, that is, far weaker and less capable than a full Destroyer This was after coming under fire from Heavy Cruisers of the Japanese side. Then the legendary actions of Commander Ernest E. Evans in the USS Johnston, a Fletcher. There are many more stories like this, this one is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar An interesting article in full. Now, I know the game is what it is, and it's to late for any real changes of game mechanics at this point, but it might not be needed either. From what I've learned, Destroyers where indeed a very real threat to capital ships, and in reality they didn't have the "cloaking device" from the game. Rather, a small ship like a destroyer, with the amount of agility and speed they had was an extremely hard target to hit using the targeting technology of the time. They where also, despite lacking in armor, generally very durable and notoriously hard to finish off. Yes, they often suffered damage which decreased their performance, but outright sinking them wasn't all that easy. This, by the way, goes for many other ships as well: far more ships where put out of action, not being able to fight anymore and needing repairs than outright sunk. Now, what I would like to see is a more detailed system for managing damage. A real ship (or vehicle, or person) doesn't have hit points. Focusing on ships, when they take damage, a couple of things can happen. They can start leaking, and if the leak is greater than the pumping capacity or the pumps are disabled it will start sinking, how fast depending of course of the size and numbers of holes. Systems on the ship may be hit and damaged or destroyed, which seems to be the most common effect of getting hit. It may also, on rare occasions, be penetrated in a sensitive are, a magazine or boiler, which will cause catastrophic damage, generally sinking the ship quickly. The ship may also catch fire, and finally, crew may get killed. A torpedo hit is special, since it does work by sinking the ship, but generally, the hole created is so big that there is no time to react to this, and in the case of smaller ships it may well break the entire structure of the ship. Now, none of these kinds of damage are taking a toll on some ship-wide pool of hit points which, when expended, causes the ship to explode. I believe a mechanic more akin to reality would actually be an improvement for gameplay. AP: AP shells should have a couple of effects. On a penetration it will cause immense damage to the systems located where the shell ended up, the radius of damage correlating to the shell size, which may also cause fires. This will generally knock the system out for the rest of the game, also killing most of the crew manning said system. If a sensitive system like a magazine or boiler room is penetrated this should generally cause catastrophic damage, sinking the ship. This needs to be very difficult to achieve, since these areas are always extremely well protected and also not trivial to hit. An AP shell might also overpenetrate just as today. This should have a small chance of damaging any system in the shells path and also to kill some crew. Damage would not be as catastrophic, and be fixable by the crew. An underwater overpen will cause a small leak. HE: HE Shells exploding on deck will cause damage to nearby systems: the larger the shell, the radius again depending on shell size. It will also kill crew and have a chance to cause fires. Against very light armor, or plunging shells on the deck of light ships a HE shell may penetrate into the hull, causing even more damage then a penetrating AP shell, and risking causing leaks. Torpedos: A torpedo hit is always serious. Some ships, battleships foremost, have torpedo bulges which may save them from catastrophic damage, only causing the ship to need to slow down for the remainder of the battle. In all other cases, if the torpedo isn't a dud, it will cause a very serious leak, which will generally be impossible to fix, or break the structure of the ship, instantly sinking it. Now, this needs to be balanced of course, things to consider are introducing "duds", which was a quite common problem, limiting torpedo supplies, making torpedo bombers dropping much more difficult where the planes need a fairly long straight approach where they are very vulnerable to AA fire and fighters, introducing a risk that a TB under enough fire might botch their drop, causing the torpedo to destruct on water impact, missing widely etc. Torpedo hits needs to be fairly uncommon but extremely dangerous. Bombs from DB's work exactly like HE shells, damage, fire potential and radius based on bomb size. Leaks are tracked on a numerical scale where 0 is no leaks and 100 is sinking rapidly. Pumps at full capacity can stop leaks up to 20-40 on the scale depending on ship, and reduces leaks over that by the same amount: A ship with 25 pump efficiency and 40 leakage has an effective leakage of 15. Water taken on is also tracked, and once it reaches 100 the ship will sink. Water in the ship will slow it down and make it harder to turn. At over 50 water, crew actions will become slower and at 70 crew will start to die. Fires work in a similar way, the amount of fires are tracked from 0-100, where 100 is a raging inferno. A ship has a fire fighting efficiency of 5-20, which is the amount of fires put out in one minute. Fires over 30 slows crew down, over 50 starts to kill crew. Each minute, there is a percentage risk, of modules being damaged or destroyed based on the amount of fires still burning. Modules that are damaged are individually repaired. A ship has a number of repair points which are automatically distributed between all damages. The player can prioritize areas of repair: Weapons, Propulsion and Steering, Sensors etc, haven't thought out all possibilities. While working, the repair efficiency decreases from exhaustion, which is regained if the repair crews gets to rest without fixing anything. Crew number is tracked. Individual crew functions are not however. Instead, every action the ship takes are slowed down by a lack of crew proportionally, including fixing leaks, fighting fires and repairing systems, but also responding to commands (increase or decrease speed, rudder shift), top speed, reloading guns, training guns, AA efficiency, spotting range, the works. Stopping the ship in a hidden location, not doing anything else would let more crew focus on repairs, speeding them up, as long as the ship does nothing. If to many systems are damaged or to many crew are killed the ship is out of action, effectively dead. It will still float in game and can be shot by shells or torpedoes, this has no further impact on the game though, other than that the ship might be used as a shield. If there are to many leaks or fires in relation to the fixing capabilities of the remaining crew the captain will automatically issue an abandon ship, also effectively taking the ship out of action. Now, this is all rough ideas, actual numbers etc would need a lot of tweaking. I think a damage model like this would allow for a much more interesting game though, removing the rather silly concept of hitpoints and instead tracking actual damage to the ships capabilities. It would also fix things like fires from HE shells sinking Battleships: yes, setting fires would cause the Battleship to perform worse, but wouldn't sink it, and it would be unlikely that it caused so many casualties as to putting it out of action in a hurry. It would also allow modelling of things like I talked about earlier, how some ships can be very resilient and hard to sink without any magical cloaks or invulnerabilities. I think it would make the game much more dynamic and interesting. I think generally, the hitpoints paradigm in games is a pretty bad way of managing damage. Same thing goes for tanks for example, maybe even more obviously so: A MBT that is hit is either penetrated, which generally causes damage severe enough to take it out of action or destroy it spectacularly, or it is not penetrated, which will cause very little problems at all, maybe knocking a gyro out of balance disabling the main sight temporarily, knocking out some mirrors, lamps etc. A 25 mm autocannon can shoot at the front of a modern MBT from 1500 meters for as long as it pleases, it won't kill the tank. About the Destroyers in particular, apart from the revamped damage system, they would need to be able to rely even more on maneuverability and smoke to avoid getting hit. I feel that this is what was intended for the US destroyer line, since they can't rely on concealment while firing their guns or using torps, but the game fails to model it correctly, which makes the entire line sub par. Hitting a destroyer needs to be really really hard, and they need to not be knocked out by a few hits, but be able to go on fighting, albeit with reduced capabilities until able to repair. This would be compensated by increasing the detection ranges considerably, removing the feel of a magic aura, making them both more exciting and enjoyable to play, and likely less irritating and frustrating (while at least as dangerous) when facing them. Sorry for the mega-long post, had to much time on my hands I guess. And yea, I know, it's probably to late for major changes like this, one could always hope though, like I said, I think it could potentially settle quite a few problems in the game.
  12. As the title of the post asks... Does anyone know if Victor Lima Flags count towards AP shells as well as HE shells? Thanks
  13. CaptainNorse

    Fire Damage - Suggestion

    Seeing someone else post some suggestions on changes to HE vs. AP damage gave me an idea as to how to perhaps balance fire damage a bit more. Suggestion is that a ship can only have 1 Fire debuff at the time. But it can be a grade 1-4 fire. Grade 1 causes X damage Grade 2 causes 2X damage Grade 3 causes 4X damage Grade 4 causes 8X damage Each time a hit's RNG comes up with a positive for fire, a grade 1-4 fire is started onboard the target ship. But the chance of what grade of fire started would vary on caliber. So as an example: 5in guns (i.e destroyers) could have a 3% chance of a grade 4, 7% chance of grade 3, 20% chance of grade 2 and 70% chance of grade 1 fire. 6in guns (i.e Cleveland) could have a 5% chance of a grade 4, 15% chance of a grade 3, 35% chance of a grade 2 and 35% of a grade 1 fire. 16in guns (i.e Yamamoto) could have a 25% chance of a grade 4, 35% chance of a grade 3, 30% chance of a grade 2, and 10% chance of a grade 1 fire. Once a ship is burning, and is hit again, the RNG is once again rolled. If the new fire started is of a lower grade than the one already in place, nothing happens. If the new fire is same grade, it continues to burn and the timer is reset. If the new grade is higher, the fire is upgraded, and timer reset. This would allow ships to have everything from smaller fires (that can in many cases be ignored if you're not at low health or in a DD) to large conflagrations that need immediate attention if they're not to do crippling damage to the ship. In addtion to fire, HE would of course keep a steady explosive damage that is easier negated by armor, while AP will still be the more random damage depending on whether you can hit critical parts/citadel or overpen.
  14. MassTahh

    Pyromania skill aint working?

    Hi there, So I mainly play with Fletcher and Gearing and thought it could be interesting to set everyone on fire. HE shells have by themselves 5% chance to set on fire (statistically 1 out of 20 shells will cause fire) and additional 5% from pyromania should be giving us 10% chance (statistically 1 out of 10 shells will cause fire)... problem is that it doesn't and at those fire rates it should be less tank 10 sec of good shooting. Either RNG hates me badly or couple of games in a row I was trying to set ships on fire pumping sometimes 40 shells in them with no sign of that happening. Eventually I retrained my captains for torp acquisition... anybody had similar experience ?
  15. Rosettencasper

    HE eindeutig zu stark

    hallo. ich bin der meinung das die HE muni zu stark ist. einige werden jetzt sagen: ja aber die kreuzer leben vom brandschaden. das befürworte ich zum teil. ABER es kann nicht sein das ich als bb mit jeder salve die mich trifft in brand gesteckt werde. ich weis das ich den feuerschaden 1 zu 1 hoch reppen kann, allerdings bringt mir das herzlich wenig wenn ich grade 3 brände gelöscht habe, der cd vom " brandschutz" abläuft und ich sofort die nächsten 2 brände habe. also ich bin eindeutig der meinung (und damit stehe ich nicht alleine) das die brandwarscheinlichkeit der HE muni etwas angepasst werden sollte. gruß und frohes sinken
  16. shamelesscreature

    How exactly does turret damage work?

    In light of the upcoming turret hitpoint buffs, I've been wondering... 1. How much damage does a turret suffer when a shell penetrates its armour? 100% of the shell's nominal damage? 33% since it's not a citadel hit? Or some other number? 2. Is there a difference between HE and AP shells, besides the former's ability to deal splash damage to turrets? 3. What's up with the "shell overpenetrated - turret destroyed" mechanic? Do overpenetrations cause automatic turret destruction, or are these also hitpoint-based?
  17. CaptainNorse

    The right ammo for the right target

    A lot of the discussions on the forums lately is about HE vs AP ammunition. With much of the rage being regarding the HE (supposed) superiority over AP, with it's ability to cause (supposedly) constant fires as well as consistant damage. So my suggestion is: let HE not be consistent, but affected by armoring. This goes especially for BBs (and if you look at my profile, I'm not just another whining BB driver), that adopted the All-Or-Nothing philosophy to armor (almost all dreadnoughts and true battleships of WoWs). AP shells can do high amounts of damage (either by penetrating and detonating in the citadel, or by over-penning and ricocheting inside the target before exploding) against medium and heavily armored targets (compared to their caliber). But if they hit the unarmored parts of the ship they will overpenetrate, doing minimal damage and just leaving a nice entry and exit hole, perhaps ripping away a few crew memebers of components on it's way. HE shells can do high amounts of damage if they hit the same lightly armored targets (even medium armored targets for higher calibers), it's large amount of explosive ripping apart light structures, shredding components and crew alike, and setting fires. But HE shells hitting heavy armor will just ecplode on the outside, leaving a scorchmark and nothing else, effectively doing little to no damage. For light calibers, even medium armor would prevent much damage from HE. These hits would also have next to no chance of starting a fire, as most fires were started by shells entering the superstructure to find smaller munition stores, fuel stores or crew quarters. The thought of the saltcrusted, wet wooden planing beig the thing that burn on a BB is wrong. Yes, given enough time exposed to other fires (i.e fuel, munitions etc) the deck will also burn, but the deck bunning is in no part vital.
  18. Hallo liebe Foren-User und WoWs-Spezialisten, mir ist gestern in einem Spiel etwas passiert, das ich mir nicht erklären kann. Gegen Ende des Spiels schoss ich mit der Tirpitz eine HE-Salve auf einen Zerstörer, der etwa 14 km entfernt war (siehe Replay). Obwohl ich meiner Meinung nach den Zerstörer verfehlte platzte er. In der Gefechtsübersicht wurde er mir zugeschrieben und mir wurden 11.600 DMG mit HE angezeigt.... allerdings KEIN Treffer (siehe Screenshot). Wie kann das sein? Habt Ihr eine Idee? 20150901_180131_PGSB002-Tirpiz-1942_18_NE_ice_islands.zip 2.58MB 20150901_180131_PGSB002-Tirpiz-1942_18_NE_ice_islands.zip
  19. WebSpawn

    HE hell in Battleships

    So lately I've started playing again, and whilst I'm nowhere near my old level I do feel like I can hold my own in any class. Get some kills, sail around and have fun. Barring ofcourse, like the name of the thread implies, the supposedly mightiest of the seas. The BB. And it just so happens they are next on the list to Tier up, I'm at Tier V currently (Kongo, New York, I also own a Warspite) I don't know what's up, but I always get raped by fire. Ofcourse one can repair, but then the odd torpedo comes along and ruins your day. And if you don't? Extra crispy! Ofcourse that wouldn't be all that bad If you could at least sink the pests. But no matter what I do, I never seem to get more than 4 hits out of all the available shells. I don't even notice a difference between full salvo's, single shot or sequential fire. They go long, they go short. Obviously it takes a while to get back into the swing of things, but I don't remember this happening the last time I was really into the game. And when I'm driving a CC and I try to burn some Battleships I get pounded into oblivion. Can you offer any advice to a frustrated player?
  20. I've been playing the Belfast a lot lately, great ship, just unlocked my fourth skill tier and bought the Inertia Fuse perk. My question is, when and where should I use HE? I've been testing out both AP and HE shells on targets and I'm not entirely sure which is better and for what situation. On the one hand, AP shells should do more damage, if they are able to penetrate, generally speaking that's either up close or from plunging fire (is there a useful chart to show the distances you need to be over/under in order not to bounce stuff?). Not to mention citadel hits which are always nice to get. However with the penetrating HE shells (plus the Demo Expert in combo) while I may not penetrate, I am nearly always causing a good amount of damage, plus killing off modules and sometimes causing a fire which is equally good. Then there's the question of what I should be targeting (battleships I generally spam HE at, but I've also gotten good damage when I get plunging fire on them with AP, would HE be more consistent though?) I'm going to have a look for a damage indicator mod to see what differences there are myself. However given what I've said above, plus the general capabilities of the Belfast's AP and firing arcs, what would you advise should be my go-to ammunition for each ship, and at what range? Thanks.
  21. Alipheese_XV

    Für Star Trek Fans

    Captain - we've got a Romulan warbird de-cloaking off the starboard bow!" "Man the AA turrets and switch from AP to HE - that'll annoy the crap out of them!" Habe das im englischen Forum bei jemandem in der sig gefunden und musste herzlichst lachen Konnte es mir bildlich vorstellen, wie die Romulaner von einer Cleveland oder 155er Mogami zu Tode gespammt werden
  22. KapteinSabeltann

    Low calliber HE-is still a mess

    So - some of the issues with low-calliber HE was fixed after 0.5.1. But - it's still a mess. I still get zero damage shots on non-saturated areas of ships, but what is worse is the absymal average damage per shot. Gunboats are pretty meaningless in low-mid tiers. IJN DDs seems excempt from T8 onwards doing BIG chunks of damage per salvo on cruisers and BBs - 1500-3500 per salvo seems to be the norm. But my low-mid tier DDs usn and rus, and even the cleveland does horrible he-damage. I seem to average 80-120 damage per shot. That can't be righ - we are talking superstructure hits and I do aim for non-saturated areas as much as I can. Basically; unless I can stack fires I am useless. I am enclosing some Ognevoi screens to illustrate my point - but remember. This is the RULE not the exception. For russian DDs where you torps pretty much are last resolve weapons before T8 you are so lost in fights, US dds are a little better off but again, T6 and T7 usn DDs are not tempting at all. Opinions? And yes I do fire AP when I can - thats not the issue here.
  23. RaubtierX1

    das übertriebene feuerspiel

    hallo zusammen, dieser thread soll sich in erster linie an die macher von wargaming richten. ich muss leider sagen das ich kaum noch lust habe das spiel zu spielen. das liegt aber nicht am game selbst, sondern daran das die feuerwahrscheinlichkeit einfach viel zu hoch liegt. ich hatte heute eine runde gehabt in der mich eine sims aus maximaler entfernung so oft unter feuer gesetzt hat das ich komplett ausgebrannt bin(10treffer 3 feuer, 10treffer 2x feuer, 10treffer 3x feuer). mit einem BB das wirklich bei jedem kratzerschuss feuer fängt. ich konnte nicht einen treffer bei ihr landen da sie auf max range geblieben ist und nicht mal sichtbar wurde. damit hab ich weniger ein problem, aber das mit der brandwahrscheinlichkeit muss aufhören. es macht einfach kein spass mehr wenn man nur noch am brennen ist. selbst das kapitänsmodul -7% feuerwahrscheinlichkeit bringt garnichts. es gibt immer mal wieder auseinandersetzungen im chat, wo sich spieler gegenseitig beleidigen, nur weil bei jedem treffer feuer an deck kommt. es muss unbedingt was getan werden. so kann das einfach nicht bleiben. es gibt auch noch andere baustellen im game, aber diese kiste hier überschattet das spiel emenz. für heute hab ich schon wieder genug feuer gesehen und das game bleibt aus. wäre schön wenn befürworter sich hier zu wort melden würden, damit WG vielleicht auf diesen hilferuf reagiert. ich hoffe das andere spieler das genauso sehen. lg
  24. typhaon

    Yorck trajectory difference

    Hi everybody. There are many topics about the Yorck. Most players don't seem to like it. I agree that it's sluggish, large just not as "ninja" as the Nürnberg, but I can live with that. One thing that really bugs me though, is the difference in the trajectory and with it shell travel time between AP and HE. Is there any reason, why HE shells fly at a much lower trajectory than AP shells... I thought that HE shells were often fired at a lower speed, but with the Yorck it's the other way around. Since imo changing ammo is cruicial for cruisers to get the best out of every situation, the different aiming characteristics make it unreasonably hard to hit targets. Is there anywhere stated why there is such a difference? I haven't seen anything like that with other ships... at least not so obvious.