Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Japan'.

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 26 results

  1. Hello, I did a quick search and did not find a post about this question. What skills should a Japanese cruiser commander get? At the moment I have 'Basic Weapon Training' but what next? 'Aiming Expertise' or 'Torpedo Armament Expertise'? And after that? Will 'Defensive Fire' work with the Japanese cruisers?
  2. PPKinguin

    New DD acquisition

    So i played through the old DD line up to Kagero. Now it got downgraded to VIII and I got a free Yugumo, fine. I could also buy the VII Akatsuki, no problem. Then why do I have to play through the Hatsuharu AGAIN to get to Shiratsuyo. I dont wanna! Why cant I have my full XP on Hatsu like I once had and start new line from VII? Any info on this?
  3. Hello everyone, as I was playing with my Fuso VI battleship, I noticed that one cruiser and another battleship (both from Japan I believe) were using a flag that remined me of Great Britain. First of all, I would like to ask for the meaning of that British or English flag on a Japanese cruiser, and how can I obtain it too? also, what happens if I use it or not? Is it permanent, or just another consumable like signals? I also have other questions that I would like to ask to the european community, here they go: 1. Since I am a battleship lover, I do in most matches at least 4 to 5 citadel hits, mostly on enemy cruisers and battleships. Although, I have noticed that citadel hits can be easily executed by firing the shell so that it can land on the ship just above the waterline in order to penetrate it in the enemy ship easily. Am I correct? 2. What are ranked battles and team battles? I would like to someone to give me detailed information about those, and the releasing date for both of them. 3. How can I add an existing signature in this forum? I would like to know how does it work. Thanks in advance. TakedaYabu.
  4. HansLuft778

    Neuer Japanischer DD-Baum

    Hallo zusammen, Den Anschein nach soll bald ein neuer Japanischer Zerstörerbaum kommen, bzw. der aktuelle soll erweitert werden. Ich frage mich noch was es mit den Zerstörern rechts auf dem Bild werden soll. Ich verstehe das so das die Parallel angesetzt sind. Dieser Beitrag gilt für Diskussionen rund um den neuen Baum. Quelle: http://worldofwarships.eu/de/news/common/japanese-dd-incoming/
  5. RyanUK600

    Japanese battleship Hyūga

    Wow, this ship is dank after Midway. It's a carrier battlship hybrid and it has a decent armament for what it can carry in planes. It's a modified 'Ise-class Battleship'. Potential premiums anyone?
  6. Kurz und knapp, warum sind die Premiumschiffe von der USA und Japan weg und kommen die auch wieder (als Goldkauf)?
  7. Italy was the first major Axis Country that surrended, on september 1943......but an italian ship was the last that scores a victory for axis navies! This appened with the "Sommergibile Luigi Torelli", a submarine of the succeful Marconi class oceanic vessels. Built in "Oto" shipyard of La Spezia - Italy, was launched in 1940. Sended to Bordeaux in the second half of 1940, it fought in the BETASOM flottilla in the Atlantic Ocean untill the end of 1942. It sunk 7 ships for a whole 42,968 GRT. In 1943 it was modified to trasport valuable strategical raw materials and tecnological devices from/to Japan. First mission started on march 1943 and in august 1943 it arrived in Singapore with a load of Mg 151/20 aircraft guns, samples of Wurzburg radars, plans and personal (japanese high officiers and a german engineer). On 8th of september 1943, suddenly, Kingdom of Italy surrended and the ship became the german U.IT.25 with a german commander and a mixed german/italian crew. It continued to works among japanese occupied islands untill may 1945, when Germany surrended. Japanese Navy continued to use the submarine as I-504 with his mixed crew of italian, german and, now, japanese sailors and on 30th of august 1945 tha AA gunnery of the submarine destroy an american B25 bomber. In the same day the ship surrended to allied forces in Kobe. This was the last victory scored by an axis vessels in Second World War. Displacement 1190 tons (1400 full loaded), leght 70,04 mt, speed 17,8 knots (8,2 submerged). Weapons: 8 torpedo tubes 21", 1x100 gun, 4 x 13,2 Breda AA MachineGun. Pics of the ship: "Esso Copenaghen" hitted and sunk in 1942 by the submarine Luigi Torelli Standard profile of the "Marconi" class submarines: Regards.....
  8. Konnichi wa, nachdem wir nun erfolgreich unseren Clan gegründet haben suchen wir weiter aktive Mitspieler! Aktuell sind wir 10 Leute die wirklich Mitglied im Clan sind und 2 Interessenten die ab und an mit uns zusammen fahren! Wir sind eine Gruppe von Spielern die sich hauptsächlich auf den japanischen Techtree konzentrieren und auch eine entsprechende Leidenschaft für die Schiffe mitbringen. In Wettkämpfen setzen wir allerdings auf Schiffe die sich dafür besonders gut eignen. Näheres über unseren Clan erfahrt ihr unter: http://clan.nippon-kaigun.eu/ Und hier könnt ihr euch direkt bewerben: http://clan.nippon-kaigun.eu/bewerbung/ Sayounara, Kopriunu Dai-Gensui
  9. GhostRider_24

    The kongo

    Hi all I have just unlocked the Kongo and I was wondering if anyone could give me any tips on the best way to use it ect I am currently finding that when stock it is a bit lack luster does it get much better??? many thanks in advance.
  10. Unter der Gefahr das es irgendwo das Thema schon gibt und ich es einfach nicht finde, hier nochmal Was haltet ihr von der Trennung? Im englischen Teil des Forums freuen die sich schon alle auf Akizuki. Die Rache der jap. DD
  11. So this is a thing that suddenly popped up that was bound to happen at some point. 4 months old channel with near 500.000 subscribers with ~100 videos as of typing this. The content is quite the regular youtube channel with gaming, Vlogs etc. Her existence or popularity doesn't really surprise me and seems to be taking the online world to its logical conclusion. Everyone online enjoys a great deal of anonimity. They act different than they would IRL to some extent and often hide themselves behind profile pics etc. People like to present a certain vision of themselves that needn't be representative of the person. Most youtubers adopt some form of persona with a 'artificial'-personality with it. This is basically just that: a internet persona but turned up to eleven and given a mo-capped body. You could probably write a thesis on this. But yes this is basically memes and is going to take over the internet whether you like it or not. I for one welcome our new waifu overlord. I wonder if we can get her to play WoWs
  12. Liaholana


    Moin Moin! Mit - der heutigen Vorstellung von - Patch 0.5.7 (ja wurde verschoben) wird auch die Ashigara eingefügt. Ein Verkaufstermin steht aber zurzeit nicht fest. Ashigara ist ein Kreuzer der Myoko-Klasse und hat im Laufe der Zeit schwenkbare Torpedowerfer des Typs 93 erhalten und könnte damit auch zum Angriff übergehen. Nähere Details überlasse ich aber den Profis.
  13. I want to start out by saying I that Cruisers are my favourite class. I really like how IJN Cruisers look with the Aoba, Myoko and Zao being my favourite models. I own both the Zao and the Des Moines. This will be a long post, and I apologise for my English from beforehand if not everything is 100% correct. Introduction The role of a Cruiser is support. A Cruiser operating alone will get annihilated especially against groups of enemies. A Cruiser is meant to provide AA cover for other ships and take on DDs when these get spotted. The Zao does none of these well. Instead its supposedly "Ace in the Hole" is its stealth, which is horrible anyway and doesn't provide anything beneficial to gameplay. Comparison to Other Ships In this section I'll be comparing the Zao to 2 T9 Cruisers and eventually the Des Moines . When comparing the Ibuki to the Zao: The Ibuki has less HP to the Zao (39k HP vs 45k HP) The Ibuki puts less RPM downrange (40 RPM vs 58 RPM) The Ibuki has less alpha when comparing salvos of both ships The Ibuki has less AA than the Zao The Ibuki is faster than the Zao (35kn vs 31kn) The Ibuki turns better than the Zao (9.5s Rudder Shift, 770m Turning Circle vs 10.0s Rudder Shift, 840m Turning Circle) The Ibuki has longer range, but slower torpedoes than the Zao (10.0km vs 8.0km) The Ibuki has better Stealth than the Zao (Same Surface Detection Range but less Air Detection Range) The Ibuki has marginally more range than the Zao (16.5km vs 16.2km) When comparing the Baltimore to the Zao: The Baltimore has marginally less HP than the Zao (43k HP vs 45k HP) The Baltimore puts less RPM downrange (36 RPM vs 58 RPM) The Baltimore has less alpha when comparing salvos of both ships The Baltimore has marginally less range than the Zao (15.8km vs 16.2km) The Baltimore is faster than the Zao (33kn vs 31kn) The Baltimore turns better than the Zao (10.2s Rudder Shift, 730m Turning Circle vs 10.0s Rudder Shift, 840m Turning Circle) The Baltimore has much better AA than the Zao The Baltimore has better Stealth than the Zao (Same Surface Detection Range but less Air Detection Range) As we can see against the Tier 9s the fire rate of the Zao and the bigger HP pool gives it the edge against the others, however situationally the other ships can still come out on top. An Ibuki can run away. Even though the DPM of the Baltimore is appalling, its performance in AA support thrashes the Zao. Now this is where it gets interesting. When comparing the Des Moines to the Zao (I shall use a table I had made for this): Stat Zao Des Moines HP 45k 50k Guns 4x3 3x3 RPM 4.9 10 Effective RPM 58.8 90 Gun Range 16.2km 15.8km Speed 31kn 33kn Turning Radius 840m 770m Concealment 12.6km 13.9km Maximum AA DPS 6130 DPS @ 3.1km 2288 DPS@ 2.1km Long Range AA DPS 288 DPS @ 4.5km 1568 DPS @ 5.7km Torpedoes Yes No Torpedo Range 8.0km / Let's start on the "Pros" of the Zao; Concealment. With both the Commander Skill and the Modification the resulting stats would be 9.8km Surface Detectability Range and 7.0km Aircraft Detection Range which isn't terrible but will be completely negated once a ship launches its Scout plane. Instead this concealment bonus should be used to shoot from from long ranges without (hopefully) getting spotted. Torpedoes. Though at this point they cannot really be considered a Pro. 8.0km range is silly. The speed, 76kn is nice. The angle at which the torpedoes are launched is incredibly stupid. With the Zao's low speed, ridiculous turning and limited turret rotation the torpedoes will be used rarely and as a last ditch effort before sinking. Rotating the ship to fire the torpedoes will generally put the front turrets out of order thus reducing your DPM by half. The reload of 2.5 minutes also reduces their effectiveness to the point where they can really be taken out in a comparison between ships. Both of these characteristics are unnecessary to the role of a Cruiser. In a supporting role, if you are providing AA for BBs part of the job involves getting spotted anyway as will trying to thwart off DD attacks. Ironically the Zao is horrible at being the screen of a BB in terms of trying to stop DDs. The T10 DD torpedo "fans" do not allow the Zao to maneuver in time to evade them so usually you end up taking a torpedo or two in the process pretty much crippling you or sinking you outright, but that's a problem for another time. If a DD is in between reloads you don't really have the DPM to take him down. Which brings me to the next section. In every other aspect the Des Moines is better; RPM of the Main Battery Guns of the Des Moines is monstrous. More than twice the reload allows better ranging of shots. This allows you to correct the leading and comes in especially useful against maneuvering DDs who will be more busy in evading fire and trying to get out of range than giving you their broadside to fire torpedoes at you or your pet BB. DPM of the Main Battery Guns of the Des Moines is monstrous. Not only do you get to shoot more, you also get to deal more damage than the your T10 IJN counterpart. The turret rotation is better on the Des Moines. Not particularly a massive deal. But those extra 6 seconds on the Zao might screw up your shot on a DD while maneuvering. Speed. At 33kn the Des Moines is 2kn faster than the Zao. It also turns faster even though the Des Moines has a slightly longer Rudder Shift Time. Once a Des Moines spots a Zao, the Zao is done for. AA. On paper the 6k+ DPS on the Zao's AA is not that bad. However this DPS is only available at 3.1km. The Des Moines on the other hand will effectively start taking down planes at 5.7km before Commander skills which are % based and will benefit the Des Moines much better than the Zao anyway. The increased range allows the Des Moines to stay a bit behind the BB or not as close as one would expect the Zao to be. Conclusion and Afterthoughts From a gameplay perspective the Zao is completely pointless. As a supporting cruiser is the Zao is outclassed by the Des Moines in every single aspect that counts. However, due to the insane gunnery of the Des Moines it also loses in the Lone Wolf aspect which I think WG attempted going for. I think that the torpedoes should make up for what the Zao lacks in AA and the gunnery is made equal. Giving them a decent reload and replacing the current torpedoes with the 20km Type 93 Long Lance will put help the Zao get back on its feet. Torpedoes are very unreliable anyway and with just 8 per side and horrible firing angle they'll end up being used more as a deterrent than anything else. Putting the Zao's fire rate at 7.0-7.5 RPM will give the Zao the same DPM as the Des Moines. The fire rate will still be horrible and the Zao would still probably lose to the Des Moines in a 1v1 engagement but it won't be so horribly lopsided. Speed is something which I also think needs to be looked at. This is the main characteristic of IJN CAs for most of the line and at T10 we get a ship which is slower or as fast a certain BBs and turns just as bad. The Zao turns terribly bad leaving it in a bad place of not being useful in any role whatsoever. This is one of the most important characteristics for a cruiser and the lack of speed of the Zao is crippling.
  14. Die Musashi war das Schwesterschiff der Yamato und wurde am 24. Oktober 1944 durch US Luftangriffe während der Schlacht in der Sibuyan-See versenkt. Paul Allen, einer der Mitbegründer von Microsoft, hatte jahrelang nach dem Wrack der Musashi gesucht und es am 2. März 2015 endlich gefunden. Hier ein Link zu einer Story dazu: http://www.20min.ch/wissen/history/story/Mysterium-um-japanisches-Schlachtschiff-gelueftet-28555944 Und für den Fall, dass die Story mal archiviert werden sollte, hier der Link zum darin vorkommenden Video auf Youtube: Interessant sind auch die Facts zur Musashi auf Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musashi_%281942%29 Vor allem die Beschreibung der Probleme beim Stapellauf machen deutlich, was für Giganten die Yamato und die Musashi waren: "Der Stapellauf war mit einigen Problemen behaftet, da das Schiff auf einer Helling und nicht, wie die Yamato, in einem Dock gebaut worden war. Das Rutschen des großen Rumpfes auf seinem Weg ins Wasser musste künstlich verlangsamt werden, damit er nicht auf der anderen Seite des Hafenbeckens auf eine Sandbank lief. Trotz dieser Maßnahme löste das Eintauchen ins Hafenbecken eine 1,20 Meter hohe Flutwelle aus." Viel Spass beim Lesen und Anschauen!
  15. RiesenNoob24

    Japanische Flugzeugträger

    Hallo Wargaming-Team, Ich fahre sehr gerne Japanische Schiffe unter anderem z.B. den Flugzeugträger Zuhio. Aber es regt mich immer wieder auf, dass dessen Fighter denen einer Bogue dermaßen stark unterlegen sind, dass ich theoretisch direkt das Spiel verlassen kann, da meine Flugzeuge - besonders mit dem Fighter Loadout auf der Bogue - direkt zerstört werden und ich somit keine Chance habe, ordentlich Punkte zu machen. Es verdirbt den Spielspass und erst Recht den Spaß an den Japanischen Flugzeugträgern, somit ist das spielen bis zum Tier 6 Flugzeugträger der Japaner eine Qual für mich! Es wäre toll, wenn man dies ändern könnte und die Fighter stärker machen würde, damit das Gefecht nicht sofort verloren ist!
  16. Did you like the clickbait title? I did. Anyways, let's get onto the topic. I want this thread to be easily accessible, so if there's good points in the thread I'll make sure to combine it in the original post so that new viewers could quickly see how and where the conversation went. This is a forum post after all, I should be able to keep up with everyone's thoughts ;) <<<<((<(>_<)>))>>>>> Dive bombers and torpedo bombers Asking all CV captains, would you be willing to trade 2 or 3 of your dive bombers for 1 extra torpedo bomber? Is there anyone who ISN'T willing to make that trade? The results of a poll on that question would undoubtedly be obvious to anyone who plays CVs. Right now, there is a massive imbalance between the field effectiveness of the two squad types are obvious. In most circumstances, only 1 or 2 squads of dive bombers are necessary to perform their job of lighting the enemy on fire. Due to this, I would like to suggest improvements to the mechanics associated with dive bombers in order to give them more utility when compared with the torpedo bombers. USN - give the USN CVs dive bombers some AP bombs. I thought of suggesting this for the IJN but 1) the IJN has bombs with less damage potential both historically and in game and 2) having AP bombs with the precision of IJN bombers will be rather overpowered. This would mean that 1) the USN strike loadouts in the Bogue and the Indy won't be entirely useless and 2) it would give USN carriers another vector of dealing high amounts of damage as deck armor tends to be quite poorly armored and therefore they could potentially even score citadels with plunging fire if they are really lucky. They might not be able to penetrate the citadels of most battleships, but they could retain utility against enemy CVs/CAs and lower tier BBs (relative to the carrier). IJN - improve the precision of the IJN dive bombers, make their circle of no return smaller, and increase the chance of them setting fires and causing module damage. You can scale back the damage output if you want for compensation, 4600 damage per bomb hit is virtually destroyer tier anyways. These changes are suggested both to be used to expand on the points below as well as to give the IJN bombers a different role in engagements. With the increased precision the bombers could target specific modules for destruction/incapacitation and therefore be used to soften up enemy ships for your allies by going after gun turrets or stop them from moving my going after the engine or steering on top of setting the ships on fire. Both nations + future nations - An increase in speed, HP, and DFC resistance. Dive bombers right now quite frankly suck at their job. They're nothing more than an extra 2000-7000 extra damage and fire damage on top of the tens of thousands that dive bombers provide. The changes I will suggest will no doubt be controversial, but we CV players have always liked that don't we ;) I suggest significantly increasing the speed and HP of all dive bombers on all tiers relative to their tiers. They don't need to be as fast as fighters, but bombers that are significantly faster than torpedo bombers would add extra depth to the game. It would mean that whilst a less skilled player would be using a dive bomber like they always have, a more skilled player that can multitask could use the dive bombers far more frequently as a separate strike squad to lethal efficiency. Their extra speed will also provide them with relative resistance to fighters and AA from the enemy team so whilst they can't compete in terms of damage with torpedo bombers they can still strike deep into the enemy fleet at strategically significant targets and therefore may hold a far more significant strategic worth in a future patch instead of being the tag-along to a CV game. This will make USN dive bombers like a single battleship salvo whilst it will make IJN dive bombers more similar to cruiser guns, which will also allow us to preserve the 'national flavor' that War Gaming seems so fond of. The last change will also mean that there are situations where dive bombers are obviously better for dealing with the situations that a torpedo bomber will suffer from. I will expand on the suggested national differences below. IJN vs USN CVs Right now, the tech trees are something of a mess. The IJN tree is advertised as the strike tree whilst the USN tree is advertised as the fighter tree but as many CV captains would attest this is utter tosh. The IJN tree has torpedoes that cause less damage than any US torpedo from t6 upwards to go with their bomb damage that is a tiny fraction of the USN damage potential and from t6 or t7 a USN fighter squad can be held up by the IJN squads as the strike aircraft runs riot around the allied fleet and so the AS loads become mostly an easy way to lose the damage game but is nevertheless something that USN carriers (up until about t8) have to put up with because almost all cruisers are loading deck fighters and they need a way to guarantee a hit. This means that t4-t5, MM decides if an IJN or a strike deck USN carrier will have fun or will have every plane they send up ripped to shreds by enemy aircraft. It's not even that fun to hunt aircraft, I'm sure most carrier players would rather be menacing the entire enemy team instead of just aggravating 1 enemy team member. tl;dr: IJN strike units can't compete with USN in terms of damage. USN is 'balanced' with this by having terrible loadouts. I have many changes that I would like to suggest in altering the current paradigm that I am certain will have an overall positive effect on the game. 1. Speed up IJN torpedoes and speed up the spread convergence. Not long ago, IJN bombers were inferior to USN bombers in every way. They had a massive spread that needed luck to even score 2 hits on even a slow battleship and they had the aforementioned inferior damage output. I welcomed the new converging spread, but the torpedoes were now just as slow as their USN counterparts and converged too slowly to be used even if you angled the drop nearly perfectly. If the torpedoes had a base faster speed(the torpedoes used to have a speed of 42 knots if I recall correctly), with the new captain skill a really skilled carrier captain could actually utilize the IJN bombers in such a way that it could be dropped from 500+ meters away and actually hit someone who isn't braindead/AFK. 2. Give the USN AP bombs and the IJN more effective fire bombs as well as torpedoes that have a higher chance of causing sinking. I suggest this due to the playstyle that is most evident on high tier ships namely the Midway and the Hakuryu. Most Midway players group their torpedo bombers in a group and strike at once to cause maximum damage whilst the Hakuryu players use the faster plane speed and smaller squads to make their enemies die of a thousand cuts. With this system, the two nations can distinguish their playstyle. A USN carrier can cause as much/more damage with their new setting whilst the IJN carrier will be able to guarantee leaking with fewer torpedo hits and fire with bombs and therefore be able to more effectively use their multiple squadrons to inflict damage over time on enemy ships that, if used correctly, could match or even exceed that of the Midway even if the damage isn't necessarily apparent when the strike is over. This would also mean that there is a national 'flavor' to both carrier lines now. 3. Widen the USN torp spread and scale up the damage as the tiers increase. I will expand more on this in the level increase subsection but for now let's deal with US torpedoes. Right now, USN CVs can start guaranteeing that every torpedo will land on target starting at tier 7 battleships and they only get better from there as opposed to the supposed strike focused carriers of the IJN. Due to this, making a full salvo strike more difficult as well as more rewarding might be optimum for US CV drivers who have unchanged potential damage output starting with t5. If we introduce the AP bombs for extra damage, I suggest compensating for the massively increased strike potential of USN carriers by raising the skill slope for USN CV players in order to allow more skilled players to excel and distinguish themselves. Tiers and levels Right now, the Langley starts out with 5900 dmg per torpedo that quickly jumps up to 8500. The Indy further increases the torpedo damage to 9867 and it stays there for the rest of the game, significantly higher than the IJN torpedo damage. Whilst this would be unhistorical, I think that this would be fine if the soft stats for IJN torpedoes were improved i.e. speed, chance of flooding, arming time(mostly for killing destroyers). I also think that the massive damage torpedoes should be reserved for higher tier USN carriers whilst the mid tier USN carriers should be buffed in other ways i.e. giving them more squads. Many will likely say that is insane, but I think that we can make this work if we make USN torpedoes do less net damage in the lower tiers. This, combined with the fact that they have slower torpedoes and are targetting smaller ships with lower speed and smaller turning circles, could be made to work. Here is a table of possible values: 35 knots Torpedoes: Damage/squads(planes)/potential Chance of flooding Speed Damage/squads(planes)/potential Chance of flooding Speed Tier IV 5900 / 1(6) / 35400 40% 35 knots 8000 / 2(8) / 64000 40% 35 knots Tier IV 6300 / 1(6) / 37800 40% 35 knots 8400 / 2(8) / 67200 43% 35 knots Tier V 6800 / 1(6) / 40800 40% 35 knots 8567 / 2(8) / 68536 45% 37 knots Tier VII 6800 / 2(12) / 81600 40% 35 knots 8567 / 2(8) / 68536 45% Tier VIII 7500 / 2(12) / 90000 40% 35 knots 8567 / 2(8) / 68536 65% 42 knots Tier IX 9867 / 2(12) / 118404 40% 35 knots 8567 / 3(12) / 102804 70% 45 knots Tier X 10500 / 2(12) / 126000 40% 35 knots 8567 / 3(12) / 102804 75% 53 knots p.s. I have no idea what the real values on flooding are. These are example values. Yellow is USN, orange is IJN.,green is for the superior stats As aforementioned, the USN carriers could receive a debuff in having more space between their torpedoes (a wider torpedo fan) and a torpedo damage debuff in lower tiers but are compensated by having more torpedo bombers to work with which will reward the better players. The IJN can make up for the difference by their better soft stats like chance of flooding or torpedo speed. Dive bombers: Damage/squads(planes)/potential Chance of fire Chance of module damage Damage/squads(planes)/potential Chance of fire Chance of module damage Tier IV - - - - - - Tier V 5500 / 1(6) / 33000 0 % 12 % 2300 / 1(4) / 9200 40% 12 % Tier VI 7500 / 1(6) / 45000 0 % 12 % 4500 / 2(8) / 36000 40% 16 % Tier VII 7500 / 2(12) / 90000 0 % 12 % 4500 / 2(8) / 36000 50% 20 % Tier VIII 7500 / 2(12) / 90000 0 % 12 % 4500 / 2(8) / 36000 60% 24 % Tier IX 8500 / 2(12) / 102000 0 % 12 % 4500 / 2(8) / 36000 70% 30 % Tier X 8500 / 2(12) / 102000 0 % 12 % 4500 / 3(12) / 54000 80% 40 % Keep in mind that these values are if every single shell fired penetrates the citadel. In most attacks, RNG will likely not give much more than 2 or 3 citadels maximum. Nevertheless, the damage from those hits aren't insignificant for even a high tier battleship or carrier. IJN bombs won't penetrate anything, but has a large chance of fire damage and module incapacitation. I'm not sure where I've heard this, but apparently as you go up the tiers, ships gain natural resistance against fire and flooding. These new values will likely allow carriers to maintain their damage over time tactics even in a high tier environment. Ships in the higher tiers have far higher health to splash around so the steadily rising damage will allow carriers to effectively deal with tougher threats as they advance up the tiers as well as continue to cause them trouble. I.E. A Hiryuu and a Ryujou in this cause cause identical potential damage. Both ships might be able to attack a New York for an average of 8000 damage but if a Ryujou attacks a New Mexico a torpedo might average 5000 damage whilst a Hiryuu, whilst having identical stats, would be able to do 8000 damage. This mechanic would help carriers deal with the often extremely tough ship torpedo bulges as well as encouraging carriers to go after the sometimes harder targets as the same damage against a higher tier ship would usually give them more rewards as well as helping their team against ships they may have problems with. That's what I have for now. Thank you for reading as far as you have. I might have to come back here later to condense this down or add onto the list. Best regards and happy sailing!
  17. TheCoolBird

    Tips for playing JPN destroyers?

    So after playing so many battles with destroyers, I'm getting no where. I die as soon as I get into battles and I feel unable to do my role as a destroyer. What are some good tips for playing the Japanese destroyers? So far I'm on the tier 3 destroyer, I've lost so many battles that I'm thinking of dropping destroyers as a whole.
  18. LittleWhiteMouse

    Premium Ship Review: Mutsu

    Please be aware that all of the statistics and performance discussed in this post reflect the version of the ship as she appeared during the testing period. These are subject to change before release. The following is aimed at new(ish) players looking to find a little more information about various ships from events, for premium currency or for real-world cash. The goal is to allow players to make an educated decision before parting with their time and money and to find premium vessels that suit their chosen style of play, whether that is competitive, cooperative, or simply for fun. The idea here is to elabourate on information not commonly available through reading statistics and provide some (heavily) biased anecdotal evidence to encourage or dissuade you from making your purchase. The usual disclaimers apply: everyone knows the Matchmaker clearly loves me because I spend money so that's why I occasionally get really good games, not because I have any particular skills of note. Mustu-have? Quick Summary: A faster Nagato-class Battleship with less armour, less efficient AP shells and almost no AA power whatsoever. She does get deck mounted torpedoes, though. Patch and Date Written: - January 30th, 2017 through to February 3rd, 2017. Cost: Undisclosed at the time this article was published. PROs Largest hit point pool of any of the tier 6 Battleships at 58,400hp. Her 410mm shells are the highest damage rounds found at tier 6. Able to easily overmatch the bows armour of any Tier 5 through 7 battleships. Decent accuracy, including a 1.8 sigma vertical dispersion value. Excellent range at 20.4km. Armed with deck mounted torpedoes (!) Very heavy secondary gun battery. Good top speed of 26.5 knots. CONs Her citadel sits high in the water and is vulnerable to long-range, plunging fire. Poor overall armour values. Low Krupp (and penetration) values on her 410mm shells. Secondaries are short ranged at 4.0km stock. Very limited fire arcs and performance on her torpedoes. Rather large turning circle of 770m. Enormous surface detection range of 16.9km and the largest aerial detection range of the tier 6 Battleships at 13.3km Mutsu sets a new standard for poor anti-aircraft defense. Like, seriously. Her AA power would be shameful at tier 4. Patch 0.6.0 removed the stock hulls for Amagi and Nagato in the research tree and rendered these hull designs into two new premiums, Ashitaka and Mutsu respectively. Mutsu is the first of these ships to be released -- we'll see Ashitaka later on in the year. For those unfamiliar with the IJN Battleship line, the stock versions of these hulls weren't exactly good. While not as hamstrung as Fuso while stock, they certainly were not competitive at their tiers. For this reason, Mutsu appears in World of Warships as a tier 6 vessel instead of at tier 7 like her sister, Nagato. This allows this ship to be re-balanced based on her own merits and flaws rather than trying to shoe horn her into a tier where she doesn't belong. Mutsu as she appears in game represents the ship after her 1924 refit, where she acquired her serpentine shaped funnel but before 1926 where she lost her torpedoes. Of course all of this date specificity is moot when you you realize that she didn't get her catapults until the 1930s. Yay, fiction! I'm joined once again by Lert who will be providing his usual smarmy comparisons of some of this ship's contemporaries. I'm also trying something new. GrafZeppelinKai, one of the Wiki-Staff volunteers has written a lovely piece on Mutsu's history which can be found on the ship's wiki page. The wiki staff perform some wonderful written work and I'm trying to help give them a little more just deserved attention. I hope you all enjoy a bit of history about the ships. The Lertbox Hello and welcome to another Lertbox, in which I try to offer a counterpoint to LittleWhiteMouse's more in-depth review of an upcoming premium ship. This time it's Mutsu, a ship that earned its place in history for the same thing Arizona did: tragically blowing up in port with a lot of people inside. The cause of Mutsu's destruction is slightly more controversial than Arizona's, a Japanese investigation concluded that a disgruntled crewman sabotaged #3 turret and blew up the ship, while an alternative theory is that of a fire caused by 20+ year old electronics near #3 turret. All we know for certain is that Mutsu took 1121 crew and visitors with her, only 56 less than Arizona's demise claimed. For this Lertbox I will discuss how you would take on an Arizona, a Warspite and a Dunkerque in a theoretical 1v1. I hope this will give the reader an idea how Mutsu will perform compared to her peers. Given the Mutsu's large surface and aerial detection range, in combination with her vulnerable armour scheme to ranged fire, it's often best to let some of your allies screen your advance. History with the Wiki: Mutsu By GrafZeppelinKai, Originally published on the Mutsu's page for the World of Warships Wiki The Nagato-class battleships were the last pair of battleships build by the Japanese Navy before the global hiatus on capital ship construction due to the ratification of the Washington and London Naval Treaties. As such, the Nagato-class is seen as the culmination of all the experience learned by the Japanese Navy in dreadnought design and construction up through the end of World War I. Led by famed naval architect Yuzuru Hiraga, planning and design for the Nagato-class began in 1916. By this time, Japan was a steadfast, growing naval power and wanted their designs to reflect such a status. As such, from the outset the Nagato-class were set to be first-rate dreadnoughts, competitive with the offerings of the other navies of the world (chiefly the Colorado-class battleships that were being built by the United States). Hiraga and his team were meticulous, delaying final completion of her plans until mid-1917 in order to incorporate the lessons learned from the Battle of Jutland the previous year. What ultimately emerged were the most advanced battleships afloat in the world. The Japanese determined that high-speed was an integral asset to making a battleship an effective weapon; as such, the Nagato-class were designed to be the fastest battleships in the world. It was decided to fit no less than twenty-one (21) Kampon boilers into them: fifteen (15) oil-fired and six (6) mix-fired. These boilers then fed into four (4) geared turbines that each powered a single screw. Altogether, they generated 80,000 shaft horsepower and propelled the ships to speeds above 26 knots, significantly faster than their competition. This was not a fact the Japanese Navy boasted about, however, instead electing to keep the true speed a closely guarded secret. In fact, the US Navy didn’t know the true speed of the class until well into the late 1930s. In electing to focus on propulsion and speed, weight had to be saved from the armoring. Ergo, the Japanese opted to implement the “all-or-nothing” armor principle that was championed by the US; maximal armor to the vital areas whist non-critical surfaces receives minimal armor. The main belt and the barbette rings received 12 inches of armor, whilst the conning tower and the turret faces received 14 inches and 18 inches of armor, respectively. While this was sufficient to rival other battleships of the period, British and US battleships all had heavier armor, with belt armors exceeding 13 inches for many classes. After experimentation with the six turret design of the Fuso and Ise classes, Hiraga and his designers decided to revert back to a quadruple turret design, determining this configuration to be the most effective. In order to not decrease overall firepower — by reducing the number of barrels from 12 to 8 — the caliber each rifle was increased from the traditional 14 inches to 16 inches; in fact, the Nagato-class battleships were the first ships in the world to mount 16-inch naval rifles. To supplement the primary artillery, twenty (20) 5.5-inch casemate guns were added to the hull. Interestingly, the Nagato-class retained the Japanese tradition of fitting torpedo tubes to their battleships. Historically, eight (8) total tubes were incorporated in the design; 4 above the waterline and 4 submerged (only the four above the waterline are available in-game). Mutsu (named after Mutsu Province) was the second of the two Nagato-class battleships, built at the Naval Arsenal in Yokosuka. She was laid down 1 June 1918, launched 31 May 1920, and completed 24 October 1921. The Nagato-class underwent a modernization in the late 1920s and a reconstruction in the 1930s to keep the designs combat-capable. During the 1920s modernization, the first funnel was replaced with a serpentine funnel with a raked-top in order to attempt to fix the issue of the superstructure being occluded with smoke; the very funnel seen in-game. Furthermore, the torpedo tubes were traded-in for anti-aircraft artillery, in order to counter the growing threat of aircraft. Unique to Mutsu, her bow was remodeled in order to decrease water spray to her foredeck. The 1930s reconstruction proved to be a more extensive overhaul. The iconic 7-masted superstructure was replaced with a pagoda-mast style design, and the first funnel was removed altogether. The old boilers were replaced; the overall number was also reduced to just ten (10). Interestingly, the old turrets were replaced by the ones of the incomplete Tosa class battleships, allowing for greater gun elevation, ergo greater range. Furthermore, torpedo bulges were introduced. To mitigate the loss in ship speed due to the added weight, the length of the battleships were increased. Finally, a catapult was added to launch scout planes off the deck. Service History Commissioned in October 1921, Mutsu survived the Washington Naval Treaty, was assigned to BatDiv (Battleship Division) 1, and began an uneventful interwar career. From 1927 to 1933, Mutsu would receive periodic modifications, but in September 1934 she entered drydock for a complete rebuild and modernization. She remained in yard hands until September 1936. With the beginning of war with China in July 1937, Mutsu — having returned to BatDiv 1 alongside Nagato — joined the fleet for security and blockade patrols off the China coast. Mutsu would continue operations off China until March 1941. In August 1941, Mutsu began preparations for combat as Japan planned for hostilities with the United States. Mutsu would spend the beginning of World War II, from December 1941 to May 1942, in reserve and training. In June, she and the rest of BatDiv 1 — now including Yamato — sortied as part of the Main Body for Operation MO, the invasion of Midway. Other than to receive the transfer of survivors from Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, and Soryu, Mutsu would not participate in the battle, and returned to Japan. In July, BatDiv 1, less Yamato, was attached to the 2nd Fleet. In August, they departed for Truk after the US landing at Guadalcanal. In late August, Mutsu was assigned to support the Main Body for the Battle of the Eastern Solomons, where she fired at an aircraft shadowing the fleet. This would prove to be her only shots fired in combat during the war. In September, Mutsu landed a party to help train anti-aircraft crews at Truk. She would remain and participate in exercises until January 1943, when she returned to Japan. Excepting one aborted sortie to the Aleutians after the Battle of the Komandorski Islands in late March 1943, Mutsu continued to conduct training and gunnery exercises until June 1943. On 8 June 1943, Mutsu was moored in Hashirajima harbor when, at approximately 1200 hours, her No. 3 turret suffered an explosion. The blast tore her in two, and the section forward the No. 3 turret rolled over and quickly sank. Her stern section sank early the next day. Of her 1,474 crew, 1,121 were killed. An investigation concluded human error was responsible for the explosion, and the Japanese Navy consequently altered regulations for the handling of explosives aboard ships. Mutsu was struck from the Navy List on 1 September 1943. Post-war salvage attempts proved to be failures, though Mutsu’s No. 4 turret, anchors, and other parts of the ship — including her bow — were successfully recovered in the 1970s. The gun barrels from the salvaged No. 4 turret were restored and are now on display in separate locations in Japan: one at the Museum of Maritime Science in Tokyo, and the other outside the Yamato Museum in Kure. Options Mutsu has standard tier 6 IJN Battleship options. There's nothing out of the ordinary here. Consumables: Damage Control Party Repair Party Spotter Aircraft Module Upgrades: Four slots, standard non-USN Battleship options.Premium Camouflage: Tier 6+ Standard. This provides 50% bonus experience gains, 3% reduction in surface detection and 4% reduction in enemy accuracy Firepower Main Battery: 410mm/45 3rd Year Type in 4x2 turrets in A-B-X-Y configuration @ 20.4km Range Mutsu fires a Type88 1000kg AP/APC shell up to a range of 20.4km with a 790m/s muzzle velocity. This is the largest shell found presently at tier 6, eclipsing Warspite's own 381mm, 879kg shell by a healthy margin. Don't mistake these shells for the same ones found on the upgraded Nagato. The ammunition Mutsu uses is a pre-WWII shell and was originally found on the stock Nagato and Amagi. They have worse overall performance than those found on the IJN Battleships at tiers 7 and 8, with lower alpha strike, muzzle velocity and Krupp values while being slightly lighter overall by 20kg. This gives Mutsu significantly less penetration power over distance to the lead of her class, with many shells shattering or ricocheting against enemy warships at medium to long range. Despite my incessant whining, Wargaming wouldn't provide me the exact penetration values present on Mutsu. For now, we have only two sources to give us with a glimpse into what the raw numbers might be. The first comes from Wargaming's own Armada Videos. These are few and far between, but thankfully have included a plethora of ships found in Mutsu's matchmaking spread. Statics drawn from the World of Warships The second, and admittedly more awesome source, is the work done by fnord_disc on the European Server, who reverse-engineered an approximate model of the penetration mechanics. The numbers they worked out provide the following estimated values for Mutsu's AP shells: 548mm at 5km 426mm at 10km 332mm at 15km Even as an estimation, this puts Mutsu's shell penetration among the worst for tier 6 Battleships, ahead of only Warspite at extremely short ranges and only ahead of Bayern at anything beyond that. The net result of this will be less damaging hits against heavily armoured (or angled) targets. Datamining reveals that Mutsu's gun accuracy is decent -- she boasted a 1.8 sigma during testing combined with the typically tight dispersion values found on IJN Battleships. This is superior to anything short of tier 9 and 10 USN Battleships specialized for accuracy. On paper, this should help compensate for some of the penetration issues found on the guns. However, with the small number of barrels Mutsu brings to bear, every shot feels considerably more precious than the 'shotgun blasts' fired by 12-rifle ships. Thus, Arizona which has more overall dispersion but the same sigma value, feels more accurate than Mutsu by combination of having more guns and better penetration values. You're going to simply do more damage more consistently with a ship like the Arizona or Dunkerque despite Mutsu's advantages in accuracy. Comparative data between the tier 6 Battleships + Nagato. Mutsu's strengths are her range, the high alpha damage of her individual AP shells and her ability to overmatch the bows of any tier 5, 6 or 7 battleship. She also has the highest potential DPM values of any of the 8-gun Battleships. Her weaknesses include her low muzzle velocity and poor Krupp and penetration valuesvalues. While Mutsu's guns look like they have the potential to perform, you may find they let you down at long range engagements. I'm trying not to sound too bleak about Mutsu's main battery firepower. There are two versions of Battleship Mutsu's guns. The first was the version that I play tested. The second is the version that's being released. Wargaming let me know in advance what the changes would be and I tried to keep them in mind while I tried out this ship. I'm taking it on faith that Mutsu will be released as Wargaming announced. Mutsu had a 35s reload on her main armament. This is being reduced to 30s. Mutsu had a turret rotation speed of 3.3º per second. This was buffed to 3.8º per second (from 54.5s to 47.4s for 180º rotation). In short, Mutsu's gun handling and rate of fire was buffed rather significantly. This in turn greatly affected the DPM we saw during play testing. This put her optimal DPM down to 170,057 AP damage and 89,143 HE damage. The buffs provided by Wargaming increase her DPM by a full 17% which I think we'll all agree is enormous. Summary: Her main battery has mix of significant strengths and telling weaknesses. Shells are individually hard hitting, long ranged and capable of overmatching the bows of any tier 5 to 7 battleship. However, she is severely restricted by poor penetration values at range, a low Krupp rating and small main-battery. Probably her best feature is her "new" 30s reload which gives her the best potential DPM of the 8-gun Battleships. Secondary Guns Secondary Battery: 140mm/50 3rd Year Type in 20x1 casemates, 127mm/40 Type 89 in 4x2 turrets @ 4.0km Range The lion's share of Mutsu's secondaries are composed of her 140mm casemates. These fire 7.9 rounds per minute at a disappointing 4.0km range. Like all IJN Battleships, her casemates fire an AP shell instead of HE which reduces their overall performance. While on paper, AP shells do more damage, their output isn't consistent. They cannot light fires. They are likely to ricochet and shatter against even slightly angled targets. Her 127mm rifles do fire an HE shell, but these are limited to two pairs of turrets on either side of the vessel. It's difficult to justify investing heavily in upgrading Mutsu's secondaries to improve their performance, primarily given their poor range and unreliability. Torpedoes Torpedo Complement: 4x1 Launchers firing a 533mm Type 6 torpedo at 57 knots for 7.0km. Move over, Kriegsmarine; the IJN now has deck mounted torpedo launchers too. While the Tirpitz introduced Battleship-launched torpedoes to fanfare and fireworks, Mutsu's torpedoes feel like they should be announced by a kazoo. The Type 6 is the same torpedo found on the Isokaze and Minekaze. This strikes for 10,833 damage which, when facing the anti-torpedo bulges of contemporary Battleships, feel lackluster. The devil is in the details with Mutsu's torpedo armament. While its true that she has limited fire arcs, these have a forward facing from 55º to 105º. In addition, these have a ridiculously short reload rate at a mere 21s. These torpedoes do not give her the strength to effectively brawl with enemy Dreadnoughts. While theoretically being able to interweave broadside main battery fire backed by torpedoes, alternating each in rapid succession, practical experience makes it too risky. Mutsu has to expose her vulnerable citadel to launch torpedoes. While this is easily done in the first moments while the engagement ranges are still closing, it becomes impossible to get a second salvo off as ranges close and the fight devolves into a "death circle" at point blank range. Still, if you get locked in a battleship brawl, her torpedoes can be a welcome trump card to end the engagement favourably. Keep in mind that Mutsu does not have the armour profile or secondary ammunition to brawl effectively. Firepower Summary: Main Battery firepower is optimized for a mid-to-short range engagement, between 7km and 12km. Her secondaries are plentiful but are painfully short ranged and focused around a heavy broadside of AP shells which limits their utility. Her torpedo armament reloads very quickly but a broadside does not hit very hard. It is only suitable for finishing off already crippled targets and should not be relied upon as a trump-card. Playtesting Mutsu with a 35s reload wasn't fun. She'll be in much better shape now. Rivals: Arizona Lert: You have longer range, more hit-points, better speed, better dispersion at a given range and your 16" shells will overmatch Arizona's 25mm bow and stern armor. Sounds like a foregone conclusion, right? Well, not quite. Arizona's bow (or stern) is a difficult target to hit at range. Also your large shells lose a lot of penetration when flying that far and are likely to shatter on anything that isn't Arizona's bow. Plus, a low volume of fire makes missing the American ship or shells shattering a relatively more painful event, cutting down your already lacking DPM. Meanwhile Arizona's range isn't that much shorter, and she has a much higher RPM with her 12 14" rifles. Plus, Mutsu's armor is so soft that you're bound to take significant pen damage from any Arizona return volley. If you can, point your bow straight at Arizona and close the distance with your superior speed. Arizona's 356mm AP will mostly bounce off your 25mm forward end with only stray shells going into your superstructure, and your 410mm return fire will go through Arizona's bow like butter - if you can hit it. The ideal situation is to set up a drive-by. Pre-aim your guns when you're almost about to pass, fire your torpedoes into the Arizona's path, quickly switch back to your AP and let loose a devastating volley of 16" AP at point blank range. Mutsu's guns are accurate enough to let you snipe, but they just don't have the penetration value to reliably deal the damage you want at those ranges. Pick your targets carefully. You can still score some pretty impressive early damage if you know who to aim for. Maneuverability Top Speed: 26.5 knots Turning Radius: 770m Rudder Shift Time: 14.7s Mutsu is rather fast for a tier 6 Battleship. Her top speed of 26.5 knots makes her faster than most tier 5 through 7 Battleships with the exceptions of Kongo, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Dunkerque which is rather respectable. While this doesn't give her tremendous flexibility, it does allow her to keep up with the pace of combat. She can attempt to dictate engagement ranges instead of having them set for her. Like most IJN Battleships, her turning circle isn't small nor does she answer her rudder especially fast. In truth, her Rudder Shift Time isn't terrible, it's just that when combined with her large turning circle, she doesn't feel especially maneuverable. During play testing, even with this slow handling, she was still quite capable of turning the ship faster than her turrets could compensate for. She initially had a 3.3º per second rotation speed on her main battery guns. I'm assured this will be buffed to 3.8º per second before release which will help. Mutsu has a 1.5 knot advantage over her sister, Nagato. This advantage comes grace of less armour protection. Durability Hit Points: 58,400 Citadel Protection: 305mm belt armour + 76mm turtleback Min Bow & Deck Armour: 25mm Torpedo Damage Reduction: 22% Mutsu shares a lot in common with Nagato, as one might expect. This provides a bit of good news right off the start: Mutsu has the highest hit point total of any of the tier 6 Super-Dreadnoughts. Their armour profiles are almost identical but for the following changes: Nagato has 25mm of extra armour across her sides in the form of anti-torpedo bulges. These afford the lead ship a 5% further reduction in torpedo damage along with their armour benefits. Nagato has reinforced main battery turret and barbette armour, with 457mm turret faces and 405mm barbettes. These values never exceed 305mm on Mutsu. Nagato's forward magazine is protected by a 289mm turtleback. Mutsu has only 76mm on this section of plate. The citadel deck of Nagato ranges from 44mm to 197mm. On Mutsu, these values range from 25mm (!) to 51mm. The Nagato-class has never been considered a heavily armoured ship and the deficiencies on Mutsu only exaggerate this weakness. While she can angle against 356mm rifles, if she doesn't angle properly she can (and will) get citadelled with alarming regularity. Her citadel sits over the waterline and while her belt armour and the turtleback protecting these machine spaces looks formidable, these are often bypassed by shots striking her from range, which need only contend with the 25mm + 70mm deck armour found amidships and the pathetic 25mm roof her citadel. She has objectively worse protection than the Warspite at all ranges. This emphasizes the gunnery strength of Mutsu which seems designed around a mid to short ranged engagement. However, with her citadel sitting over the waterline, short of bow-on angles of attack, she is far too vulnerable to risk at point blank ranges against other battleships. This illustrates some of the dangers of trying to make use of her torpedo armament. Angling out to take the lead on a closing enemy Battleship at the very least exposes her forward magazine to citadel hits. So to maximize her armour values, Mutsu seems best at medium ranges -- approximately 7km to 12km away from her targets. Of course, this all goes to pot if she's facing anything with 380mm rifles or larger which overmatch the 25mm sections of her armour. When facing tier 8 opponents, her armour feels very deficient indeed. Like all IJN Battleships, Mutsu is shackled with the worst Damage Control Party consumable in the game. This makes the Battleship exceedingly vulnerable to fire and flooding damage. Rivals: Dunkerqueueueeueeeuueueue Lert: You have the advantage in hit-points, range and firepower. Dunkerque beats you in speed, agility and size, being a smaller target. She has the speed to dictate the engagement, allowing her to keep you at the max of your range where your dispersion and low volume of fire means you won't hit many of your shells. The ones that do hit and manage to avoid the Frenchman's armored belt will bloody her nose, but that's not reliable enough to count on. Meanwhile Dunkerque's 330mm rifles will struggle to do meaningful damage to you as well, especially if you keep properly angled .. ... But that's when the dastardly Frenchy will just switch to HE and burn you down. While your own HE shells aren't bad, they have 5% less fire chance and you have a lower RPM, so in a fire-hose contest you're going to lose. If you're taking on a Dunkerque in your Mutsu you better hope that you're going to get lucky or your opponent is stupid, because barring luck a smart Dunkerque driver will just wiggle around at range and burn your lumbering stern to the ground. This will happen a lot. Concealment & Camouflage Surface Detection Range: 16.9 km Air Detection Range: 13.3 km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 14.1km Concealment Penalty while Firing: +12.3km (vs 20.4km gun range) Mutsu has arguably the worst detection range of any of the tier 6 Battleships. Actually, Mouse, Fuso has worse surface detection range, and while that's technically correct, Mutsu will be spotted from the air a full kilometer sooner while still having an astronomically huge surface detection range. If there's an enemy carrier present, you can expect to be the first ship spotted in Mutsu. This in turn means that you'll have every gun pointing at you first until squishier (and closer) targets get lit. Priority Target is well worth the investment. Given Mutsu's vulnerability to long range fire, it's important to engage in evasive maneuvers when she finds herself lit in these early moments of the engagement. Alternatively, she can elect to begin her own advance a little later than the rest of her team. Her large surface detection range makes disengaging from enemies exceedingly difficult. She does have the speed to help dictate engagement ranges against most Battleship opponents in her Matchmaking spread, along with the range to hammer them beyond their own reach. However, she is always going to be reliant on Allies to keep her opponents lit while attempting to keep enemies at arm's length in this manner. Anti-Aircraft DefenseAA Battery Calibers: 127mm / 40mm / 12.7mmAA Umbrella Ranges: 5.0km / 2.0km / 1.0kmAA DPS per Aura: 40 / 16 / 5 To say that this Battleship has poor anti-aircraft firepower is a gross understatement. Mutsu has worse anti-aircraft defense than any of the research-based Battleships at tier 4. She's setting a whole new standard for what "bad" anti-aircraft firepower is at tier 6. She has half the DPS of Fuso, a Battleship that has some of the worst AA firepower at tier 6. Combined with her horrible aerial detection range, the sight of Mutsu on the enemy team should ring a dinner bell for all CV players. Rivals: Warspite Lert: A more even match, since both of these ships operate on the same basic principle: trading in number of barrels and DPM for shells large and powerful enough to overmatch the 25mm bow plating found on even tier battleships. Again, you have the larger health pool, better range and larger shells, but Warspite is notoriously wiggly making her a difficult target at range, has a superior healing potion and her shells aren't that much smaller than yours to begin with. She'll overmatch your bow as easily as you'll overmatch the grand old lady's, so face-tanking incoming fire isn't a thing like it is against Arizona or Dunkerque. Use your superior range to whittle her down and your superior speed to keep her at range. Conversely, you could go for the same drive-by tactic that I recommended for taking on an Arizona, but be aware that Warspite's 15" rifles will smash through your bow plating and bite chunks offa your face while you do it. Where against an Arizona you would charge in head on, you might try closing the distance under an angle to try to lure Warspite's return fire away from your bow and into your armor belt, where it will bounce off instead of eat up large chunks of your hit-points. A lot of CV pilots "experimented" with the AA defense on Mutsu while I was play testing her, but most weren't too interested beyond a cursory strike or two. As word gets out about Mutsu's vulnerability to air power, you can expect more concerted attacks. Overall Impressions Skill Floor: Simple / Casual / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / High / Extreme Mutsu, as a tier 6 Battleship, already has a couple of strikes against her when it comes to evaluating her suitability to a novice player. She punishes players for exposing her broadside while simultaneously having a gimmicky weapon system that encourages exactly that. With poor armour, a (relatively) small number of main battery guns and secondaries that won't be of much help, a novice player could be forgiven for struggling to get any kind of reliable performance out of this ship. For the expert, Mutsu will reward good gunnery with excellent DPM values for an 8-gun Battleship. Her torpedoes will be a fun (if seldom used) gimmick that will clinch select engagements. Still, her horrible surface detection range, poor AA defense and poor armour values will limit her carry potential. The Lertbox I wanted to like Mutsu, but I just can't. She's wonderful in co-op where she'll just eat off everyone's face with her brutality, but against other people I found her lacking. Her WWI era shells don't have the penetration or the Krupp hardness to do significant damage at range, and she doesn't have the armor to mingle up close. Her hit-point pool gives her some staying power in a brawl and her torpedoes are a nifty poison dagger, but this is a ship with weapons that want to move in close and a hull that wants to stay far away. Comparing her to other tier 6 battleships makes her look better than she is. Truth is, Mutsu starts falling apart quickly against higher tiers, and I would take any of the other three into a tier 8 battle over Mutsu. Plus, there's the T6 MM to worry about, and Mutsu really does not up-tier well. I won't say that Mutsu is a bad ship per say, just that she's an alright ship in a pond of great ships, namely the trio I pit her against. Mouse's Summary: I have a love-hate relationship with Mutsu's guns. It was awful play testing with that 35s reload, but I could still make some great plays with them. I am very excited about their 30s reload. While I wasn't landing citadels as often against Battleships, they're perfectly adequate for regular penetrations. Her armour is super squishy for a Battleship. Also -- fires. Oh god, the fires. Her torpedoes were nice to have, but its rare when I got any good use out of them. Mutsu's secondaries were disappointing. She's a perfectly adequate ship ... until she has to face tiers 7 & 8. Wargaming didn't want a repeat of the German Destroyer incident. They let us Community Contributors know in advance that the Mutsu we were playing wasn't the final version. There were all of three changes that they gave us, but let me be be clear -- there may be others. As values like vertical dispersion, Krupp and shell-drag coefficient are not intended to be public knowledge, there are lots of parameters that could still change before release. So while I appreciate Wargaming striving to keep us in the know about what the release version of the ship may be, it pays to keep that disclaimer at the top of this article in mind. There was a third change, beyond rate of fire and gun traverse that Wargaming informed us of. It was this: "Increase rudder deflection speed from 19.2 to 17.9." Now, you would think that would coincide with Rudder Shift Time, but her rudder shift time is 14.7s. Whatever this value is, it represents a 7.3% change. From the way it's worded, it could represent either a buff or a nerf. If anyone has any grasp on what this is, feel free to let me know. My contacts at Wargaming who were relaying the information didn't know what it was either and couldn't get it clarified, so obviously someone at St.Petersburg has the info and simply assumed that we'd also know what it was. And so, I played Mutsu with a 35s reload and a 54.5s for 180º turret rotation speed and was asked to evaluate her performance. I won a heck of a lot of games. One day's worth of playtesting saw me win 12 out of 13 matches. However, let me add a qualifier to this win streak: I still have not broken a 2,000 base experience game in Mutsu. It wasn't a case of not being able to get the damage totals -- getting in excess of 100,000 damage wasn't impossible. But I never had any truly spectacular games. My personal best is 1,716 base experience which is disappointing with the typical "good" game sitting around 1,300 to 1,500 base experience. I took the occasional break from Mutsu by playing with my Warspite and Nagato and easily crushed that 2,000 base experience ceiling. I should warn everyone: I love Nagato, so it's probably no surprise that I took well to Mutsu, The improvements this ship will receive in terms of reload and gun handling (and the changes to whatever the heck rudder deflection speed is) will be welcome. Still, the ship isn't without its disappointments for me. The increased vertical dispersion of her guns over Nagato and the poor range on her secondaries really made me have a sad. Overall, Mutsu is a decent IJN Battleship but she's not phenomenal. I don't think anyone was expecting her to be outstanding, though -- not as an early version of a Nagato-class Battleship. So in that regard, she doesn't disappoint. Now if only the Matchmaker would let her be top tier more often... Would I Recommend? Mutsu makes a great Co-Op warrior. She's got powerful guns and she faces enemies that are, quite frankly, dumb as posts. The bots are unlikely to shoot at you when there are still cruisers and destroyers alive. This gives you lots of time to exercise your 410mm rifles often at very close range where their penetration issues aren't present. You'll also be able to use your torpedoes a lot and score hits too. Outside of Co-Op, Mutsu begins to suffer. It would be one thing if she was top tier as regularly as a tier 7 or 8 ship, but she exists in that special Hell that is tier 5 and 6 Matchmaking. She doesn't up-tier very well -- holding her own against tier 7 ships (if at a bit of a struggle) but really hurting once she faces tier 8s. Of course, this could be said about most of the tier 6 premiums, so that's nothing new. For Random Battle Grinding Mouse: It's sad to say, but Japan is rather lacking when it comes to premium Battleship trainers. The Ishizuchi is okay but, let's be honest, she's no Scharnhorst / Tirpitz / Arizona / Missouri. While Mutsu is a better fit, I wouldn't say she's a great fit. She can do what she needs to, however, and if you're hard pressed for a training ship, then Mutsu can step up to the plate. But I think you might be looking over your shoulder for the next IJN Premium Battleship. Lert: No. Arizona is IMO a far better ship, as is Warspite. And both of those are available in the tech tree for doubloons at the writing of this article. Consider Mutsu if you really need a Japanese battleship crew trainer, but buy American or British if you want a good ship to carry in. GrafZeppelinKai: Mutsu is a dependable battlewagon. Her above average gun handling characteristics, combined with a little practice, will come into it’s own. Similarly, if you’re looking for a dedicated IJN BB Captain trainer, Mutsu is your best option for now. For Competitive Gaming Mouse: No. She's too squishy and too huge. Lert: No. If you need range, bring a Fuso. If you need overmatching ability, bring a Warspite. If you need staying power, bring an Arizona.GrafZeppelinKai: It will take a bit more work to make her shine here, and her deficiencies will feel more glaring. Similar to Warspite, having good planning ahead of time will mean you’re able to dish the damage while not being the focus of the enemy. For Collectors Mouse: Yes. She's a beautiful ship with an interesting history and a tragic story. Lert: Yes. Mutsu has a place in history, and her configuration might appeal to people who like WWI era dreadnoughts. GrafZeppelinKai: I’m gonna be honest here: I like 1920s Mutsu. She’s very pretty to look at, and there are many subtle details that make her very period accurate. For that reason alone, she has a spot in my port. For Fun Factor Mouse: Well I liked her. However, I don't think I would play her very often, not compared to the other premiums 6s.Lert: She handles comfortable enough, if a bit sluggish on the rudder. I would consider her a fun ship if her shells didn't tend to shatter at long range, or her hull held up a bit better under fire. Plus, her torpedoes are just funny, if you get a chance to use them. Those are big if's though.GrafZeppelinKai: I enjoyed my time testing Mutsu. To me, the gunnery felt familiar and comfortable, and you can never resist a giggle when you surprise an adversary by pooping out a torpedo. In a brawl with Bayern and Nurnberg. Mutsu uses her main battery to finish off the German cruiser while dumping fish into the bows of Bayern. Brawling is exceedingly risky with Mutsu. Don't expect your torpedoes to clinch a fight for you. Outfitting Mutsu Mutsu doesn't require anything beyond the norm for IJN Battleships, which is a welcome relief. Recommended Modules For your first slot, take Main Armaments Modification 1. This should be no surprise. The armour around Mutsu's main turrets along with her barbettes is pretty substandard for her tier, so this will help keep them in the game. It should also help mitigate damage to your torpedo tubes, but they tend to go belly up if anyone looks at them funny. For your second slot, you may be tempted to try a secondary build, but in my experience this is a mistake -- you can't get her range out high enough to make it a credible threat.. Aiming Systems Modification 1 is arguably the most effective choice here. For your third slot, take Damage Control System Modification 1. This will help mitigate fire and flooding damage while increasing your torpedo damage reduction to 24%. And finally, take Damage Control System Modification 2 to reduce the burn-time of fires. You can take Steering Gear Modification 2 if you prefer, especially if you've taken Captain Skills to mitigate fire damage. Recommended Consumables Don't skimp out on the premium consumables for this ship. Taking a premium Damage Control Party is an absolute must. I also strongly recommend taking a premium Repair Party as well to reduce the reset timer of your healing potion and to give you an extra charge. I don't see much need in breaking the bank with a Spotter Aircraft, so it's up to you to invest in the 22,500 extra credits to make this premium or not. Captain Skills For the core build, we're going to want to emphasize her damage control abilities. For your first skill, you have a choice between Priority Target and Preventative Maintenance. I prefer the former on my first pass -- it's helpful to know when potential damage is incoming. The latter has currency with Mutsu due to the relative fragility of her weapon systems compared to other tier 6 Battleships. Next, at tier two, grab Expert Marksman. This was absolutely essential with her 3.3º per second rotation speed and it will still be worth while when this gets buffed to 3.8º per second. At tier three, Basics of Survivability should be the skill to grab to help mitigate fire damage. And finally, when you hit tier 4, take Fire Prevention. After this first pass, there are other skills to consider. The best of the bunch are Adrenaline Rush and High Alert at tier 2 and Superintendent at tier 3. This is one of those rare ships where I will not recommend Basic and Advanced Fire Training as the top picks. While these will help prop up her horrible AA firepower, it's really not going to move the needle enough to make it anywhere near acceptable. Similarly, her secondaries are just a little too short ranged to be worth specializing into. You can certainly try it out for yourself, but I don't think you'll find it pays off as well as it would for her tier 7 sister.
  19. Hello, everyone. I'm now heading to Kure, where the Yamato Museum is located. I plan on taking lots of photos to document my visit, and if possible some videos too! I'll keep this post updated with the photos, links to videos and explanations. Hope you enjoy it! And also, on the 8th of December, I plan on visiting the Mikasa. I'll write another post for that then
  20. Ueberflieger7

    2.Zerstörer-Line Tier IX, X?

    Hallo zusammen. Ich wollte mich mal erkundigen, ob und wann eine Vollendung der 2. japanischen Zerstörer-Line ansteht. Momentan ist ja bei Akizuki schluss und da ich mir vorstellen könnte, die Reihe mal zu spielen wäre es interessant zu wissen, was da noch so kommt. VG, Paul
  21. LastButterfly

    BTT : Japanese TechTree (Fanmade)

    Hi again ! I am the one who posted this fanmade USN techtree : http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/78903-btt-us-techtree-fanmade/ So without further ado (adu ? addo ? Add... Er, whatever) without waiting any longer here's the second on my list : the Japanese Tech Tree ! Important disclaimer about this tree (It's the same as on my other TechTree topics, don't bother re-reading it if you already did) : An important word on Design ships and blueprints : Butterfly Tech Tree Japanese Navy Below you will find a quick explanation about the global gameplay each branch would adopt : Destroyers : -Fast Firing Branch Branch of 4 destroyers at ranks VII through X : Ayanami (Fubuki Mod.II), Akizuki, Yamatsuki (Project V7) and Ayanami (1954). These destroyers differ from other IJN vessels thanks to their fast-firing canons, however, their HE shells are pretty weak, forcing them to rely on AP shells to deal good damage on lesser-armored vessels or areas. Their torpedoes are powerful, but they reload slower and are sometimes less numerous, reducing their offensive abilities. Although kinda slow and hard to manoeuver quickly, they possess great AA capailities and can fit both as a fleet escort and as an attack ship. -Long Lance Branch Branch of destroyers at ranks II through X. These destroyers wield the best torpedoes in the game, capable of inflicting tremendous damage aswell as travelling far at higher ranks. These torpedoes are their main armament. Thei speed is correct, however their overall manoeuverability is poor ; besides, their canons are slow to load and turn. Since the ships themselves aren't that well concealed and don't tank well, their survival chances are reduced in chases or direct fights. Therefore, their captain needs to have a good map and game awareness and to position their ships efficiently in order not to be caught and killed or unable to assit their allies.They do NOT have an engine boost consummable. -Short Lance Branch Branch of destroyers at ranks II to IX. They possess very powerful torpedoes with a good reload, but travelling only at average distances. They are not the fastest or most manoeuverable, but their armor allows them to tank a little and bounce lower-caliber AP shells if properly angled. Their canons are also decent and can deal correct damage and serve well as a self-defense tool too, however if they fight an artillery duel for too long they're bound to lose at some point. They make good offensive ships by all means, but their primary armament remains torpedoes. -Scout Branch Two destroyers at rank 5 and 7 : Minekaze and Akatsuki (Fubuki Mod.III). These destroyers are faster and easier to steer than their peers. Moreover, they are harder to detect as they have a better concealment. Their armament, however, isn't strong enough to challenge someone in a direct battle and won't have them winning long-lasting fights. They are made for scout, area control, aswell as detecting and preventing ambushes and similar tasks. Thei lack of brut firepower is compensated by they higher strategic utilities based on speed and discretion. Light Cruisers : -Anti-Air BranchTwo cruisers at rank 5 and 8 : Yuubari and Ishikari (CLAA design). These two ships possess a very fast firing main armament but with disappointingly bad HE shells, similar to the “Fast Firing Branch” of destroyers. Therefore, their power with AP shells and their strong AA capabilities, makes of them strong ships against aircraft carriers or anyone willing to show them their broadside. They remain, however, light cruisers and are therefore vulnerable to placement errors, high caliber shells, and are less manoeuverable and concealed than destroyers. Besides, their torpedoes are negligeable – Ishikarai doesn't even have any at all. -Classical BranchTypical Japanese light cruisers, at ranks V, VI, VII and VIII. They possess a decent firepower thanks to canons of 140 or 155mm, however their most frightening armament remains torpedoes, very powerful and capable of travelling quite far. These cruisers are easy to steer and pretty fast, however their defenses are very low and they fear particularly any kind of ennemy cruisers. -Large DD BranchOld light cruisers at ranks II, III and IV. They have a gameplay similar to destroyers of these ranks, with low caliber canons, weaker on protected targets, and okay torpedoes, but a high speed and manoeuverabilitiy. Their armor is close to nothing. They are, however, good when it comes to get used to what IJN light cruisers are like in higher tiers. Heavy Cruisers -Classical Branch Most classical heavy cruisers of Japan, at ranks V through X. These cruisers are very strong, possessing a very high speed, excellent firepower, powerful medium to long range torpedoes and correct armor. However, among their main weakness, a certain lack of anti-air power can be noted, along with a higher reload time for main armament than most other cruisers. Their shells having a rather flat trajectory, AP long-range shots through decks are often ineffective, forcing them to use HE shells instead. Besides, the torpedo angle of most of them doesn't favor short-range duels with manoeuverable opponents equipped with torpedoes aswell. -Battlecruiser B-65 Ship available at tier X, Daisen (B-65) also named super-type-A, meaning improved Zao, is a battlecruiser with a very heavy 310mm main armament, a decent AA protection and 8 torpedo tubes. This ship, terrifyingly powerful, has as a main weakness a tremendous inertia and difficult steering, making good forseeing of the battlefield evolution mandatory to to use her and avoid being caught off position. With a talented captain, Daison should be able to talk on any ship, from the lighters to the heaviers. However, her high-caliber main guns are obvioulsy less suited for anti-destroyer duties because off thei higher reload and highre dispertion at longer range. Hybrid Cruisers and Seaplane Tenders -Support Branch Branch of ships for those who choose to sacrifice firepower (canons and/or torpedoes) for the ability to carry numerous seaplanes. These very special ships are not made for direct combat, but possess several unique abilities in order to assist their fleet in many ways. They can assign some observation floatplanes to allies to increase some of their stats like firing range or reduce dispertion during a certain amount of time. They can command fighter seaplanes to escort allies or directly attack a certain incoming hostile squadron. They can use scouting aircrafts to search for ships or torpedoes in certain areas of the map, giving vision and information to the team. They may even be able to use offensive seaplanes to straff ennemy ships, disabling a part of their AA or secondary armament for some time, facilitating the job of the aircraft carriers or brawling ships. Using these well may give a decisive advantage to their fleet ; however, their armament reduced makes of them deliciouly innofensive targets on the battlefield and being caught usually means dying when one saisl them. They do possess some armament tho, allowing them to defend themselves against lonely opponents. A word about Mogami Available in three configurations (classical light cruiser, classical heavy cruiser or hybrid seaplane-carrying cruiser), Mogami can be equipped in three ways to fit any of these role and is therefore unlockable via three different branches. However, the unlocked configuration depends on which line you grinded to get her : for example, if you unlock Mogami via Myoko, only the heavy cruiser version will be avialable to you. In order to unlock all of her configurations, it is necessary to grind all three branch and to unlock Tone, Kushiro and Myoko beforehand. Battleships : -Introduction Battleship : Low tier battleships meant to introduce player to the gameplay of BB without giving them complex specializations right away. -Battlecruiser Branch Officially classified as battlecruisers, these ships sacrifice a part of their armor to get a faster speed, or better manoeuverability. Therefore, they're capable of quick repositions of their ships and firepower. However, in a duel against a real battleship, speed and manoeuverability is their only advantage. They should try never to engage one alone if they don't have the upper hand. Despite their speed and decent secondary artillery, destroyers remain a threat ; besides, their AA is kinda bad. -Power Branch Main battleship branch of Japan. They're caracterized by a tremendous firepower and a frightening penetration. Therefore, their main targets are ennemy battleships. Although they're often quite fast, they're not the easiest to steer. Besides, despite a good-quality secondary armament, anti-air weaponry and anti-torpedo defenses are bad or even sometimes lame for their tier, making them vulnerable without support of scout to help them. -Seaplane Branch Two battleships at rank 6 and 7, Yamashiro (Fuso's sistership) and Ise. Just like the Support Branch of Hybrdi cruisers, these two are hybrid battleships : they sacrificed a part of their firepower for the ability to manipulate several useful seaplanes, increasing their reckon and supporting abilities, or able to defend themselves against hostile squadrons. Aicraft Carriers -Introduction Carrier Low tier carrier meant to introduce player to the gameplay of CV without giving them complex specializations right away. -Speed Branch Branch of carriers from rank 5 to 9, and possible Hakuryu configuration. These carriers are fast and manoeuverable but their AA armament is weak. They possess a mild number of squadrons, however, these are faster, and reload much quicker than the usual ones. Thanks to them, they can dish out an uninterrupted stream of low-power attacks to continuously harrass their opponents. Their fighters, however, are weaker, and they have to rely on their speed to avoid ennemy fighters. Possess two possible air wings : Attack Speed (ex Unryuu 1/2/2) or Defense Speed (ex Unryuu 2/1/2) -Number Branch Branch of carriers from rank 5 to 9, and possible Hakuryu configuration. These carriers, more detectable than the Speed Branch but as fast and with a slightly better AA power, are caracterized by a very high number of squadrons in the air at the same time. However, their speed and reload time are not nearly as fast as the Speed Branch, thus the difficulty here isn't the speed of the aircraft stream, but their sheer number.Possess two possible air wings : Attack Group (ex Shoukaku 2/3/2) or Defense Group (ex Shoukaku 3/2/2) -Swarm Branch Branch of carriers from rank 5 to 9. These posses an astronomical number of sqaudrons, made of a very low number of aircrafts, allowing them to conduct very special attacks. However, their aircrafts are very weak, being of a lower tier than their mother carrier, resulting in heavy losses. Possess two possible air wings : Torpedo-bomber Swarm (Ex Kaga 2/5/2 – torpedo bomers are groups of 2 aircrafts) or Fighter Swarm (ex Kaga 4/1/4 – fighters and dive-bombers are groupes of 3 aircrafts) Once again, I hope you enjoyed, sorry for my the English errors too. Besides that, I welcome every comment, question or anything else you might have to say about my funny fantrees. The Italian Tree is already done and the Russian and German ones are going well. I hope you'll like them ! Till then, thanks for having read~
  22. Panzerblitz

    Wreck of Musashi discovered (video inside)

  23. Hallo ich bin BlueLight, ich wollte nur kurz ein Thema anschneiden welches mir aufgefallen ist. Ich persöhnlich finde eifnach das die Flugzeugträger der 2 Nationen Japan und USA wirklich sehr unausgeglichen sind . Vergleich : Pro Contra Japan - gute Tarnung und Bewegung - Kann es sehr selten mit anderen Flugzeugen aufnehmen - Gut gg andere Schiffe - weniger Flugzeuge pro Staffel und Insgesamt - schnell und wendig - niedrige Überlebensfähigkeit - viele Staffeln - auf Team angewiesen - große Schwierigkeiten gg Zerstörer / selten möglich gut zu treffen - Bomber treffen eher selten und haben wenig DMG USA - Stark gg andere Träger und Flugzeuge - nicht so mobil und nicht so guter Tarnwert - Jäger besten im Spiel - weniger verschiedene Staffeln zum reagieren - Flugzeuge hohe Überlebensfähigkeit - weniger Staffeln - gute Chance all Schiffsarten zu töten - bestimmen den Luftraum emens - Bomber machen viel Dmg und treffen gut - viele Flugzeuge allgemein / pro Staffel - nicht unbedingt auf Team angewiesen Was sagt ihr dazu schreibt doch gerne mal eure Meinungen als Kommentar oder falls ihr anderer Meinugn seid. Ich spiele selbst gerne die Japaner würde mir nur ein wenig mehr Balance wünschen. Was ich sehr ausgeglichen finde ist bei beiden zum Beispiel die Flugabwehr da kann man echt nichts sagen. Ich halte nur einfach die Amerikaner stärken da sie wesentlich mehr Vorteile für den Kampf im Gepäck haben. Eigene Meinungen und Erfahrung gern erwünscht!! Mfg xBlueLighTx
  24. BloodRose13

    Kawachii missing her Torpedo's

    So: I have been researching some of the early BB's and one thing has sprung to note: According to her specifications, the Kawachii class battleship was armed with five 18" Torpedo tubes. However in game these are not present and there is no way to acquire them, meaning that this Battleship is actually fighting with less firepower than she should have. Now, given that the Kawachii is already lacklustre (things may have changed since I last had her, but she was the ship that nearly drove me away from IJN BB's) with short ranged poor accuracy guns and we already have BB's with torpedo tubes (Looking at you Germany), so what harm would there be in giving her them?
  25. Mahlzeit Kameraden, ich habe mir diesbezüglich lange Gedanken drum gemacht. Nachdem ich selbst nicht zu einer Antwort kam, frage ich nun euch. Es handelt sich, wie im Titel bereits erwähnt um die Jäger der Flugzeugträger. Ich selbst spiele sie sehr gerne und deswegen auch sehr oft. Und da ist mir dieses Phänomen sehr oft aufgefallen. Für mich unerklärlich. Ein Beispiel, welches keine 5 Minuten her ist: 2 Zuiho's ( CV's ) in der Runde. Einer beim Feind, und einer Ich. Nach wenigen Minuten bereits treffen nur unsere Jäger (d.h. ohne feindliche oder freundliche Flaks in der erreichbaren Nähe ) so ziemlich in der Mitte. Ich verliere, obwohl ich seine Jäger angegriffen hatte. Das gleiche wieder -> identisches Szenario -> Diesmal warte ich, dass die feindliche Jäger mich angreifen und wiedereinmal -> Verlust aller meiner Jäger. Ich erwähne hier nebenbei auch, dass ich alles für die Verbesserung meiner Jäger drin habe -> Kurvenkampexperte( 3.Fähigkeitsstufe) ; Luftgruppenmodifikation 1 & 2 Und trotzdem verliere ich ( alles mit Stift und Papier dokumentiert ) 5 von 7 Auseinandersetzungen. Ich hoffe ich habe alle relevanten Informationen aufgelistet. Ich würde mich sehr freuen, wenn mir jemand dieses grübbeln erleichtern könnte. Mit kameradschaftlichem Gruß zodiac