Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'USN'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

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

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 28 results

  1. Haatra

    Missouri

    V tomto vlákně můžete diskutovat o prémiové bitevní lodi Missouri (USN, tier IX). WG Wiki (v angličtině, v ruštině)
  2. dasCKD

    Announcement to USN CV players

    This is a public announcement to new players going up the USN carrier line so you don't make the same mistakes I did. It is good practice to free XP your way past certain aspects of some ships (i.e. the stock hull of the Amagi, the FCS of the Mogami, the stock hull of the Colorado, etc) because often these stock hulls are so detrimental to the performance of the ships that it can often cost the allied team a victory. When going up the CV line, most people upgrade the flight control system and the planes, as these are the main performance limiters of CVs and then they grind the stock hull later. This is normally good practice, considering how little the hull of a CV usually matters in the CV's usual performance. This is NOT the case for the Bogue, Independence, and Ranger! Hangar size for USN CVs: Stock hull upgraded hull Bogue 24 28 Independence 30 37 Ranger 58 73 More plane resupplies means that as a carrier, you'll be able to replace those planes you lose to enemy AA and fighters, meaning that you can stay in the fight and be useful to the allied team for longer. As a carrier, it is what lets you carry you weight. To those new to USN carriers, save your free XP for these ships! PSA over /(-_-)/ P.S.: And stop playing Bogue in AS, you're the reason your team keeps losing!
  3. gekkehenkie50

    US Carrier VS Spain (Joke)

    Please note: This is not my video, I just chanced upon it on youtube and wish to share it with you guys. And it is most likely fake, but hey, still funny imo. Enjoy!
  4. Salut bande de pangolins avec des canons !Aujourd'hui j'vais vous parler d'un truc !(sisi, je suis sérieux) Alors que je fais mes recherches pour mes guides de croiseurs légers (aka je grind omaha), je me suis dit que entre deux games en phoenix je pourrais éventuellement me mettre à la rédaction d'un topic sur les croiseurs légers. Et comme j'ai pas encore finis mes guides dessus, voici... un topic historique ! "Last, last, tu vas le faire encore sur que les japonais ?"J'y ai longuement réfléchis -Ce que je connais des CL japonais :Le lien entre tenryuu et sa soeur et les subs, l'histoire des CLT de classe Kuma, pourquoi sendai est basée sur Nagara, qu'est-il advenu de kako, la révolution yuubari, Agano qu'était badass, pourquoi Ooyodo avait pas de torpille, Katori vs Iowa, l'existence de Yasoshima -Ce que je connais des CL américains :Comment Atlanta a coulé Alors j'ai décidé que non, j'allais pas que me concentrer sur l'IJN. Aujourd'hui c'est FULL PACIFIQUE FLEETS ! De 1918 à 1948, je vais couvrir tout ce qui s'est passé sous vos pieds (cad de l'autre coté du globe) Ah, et en raison de plaintes reçu sur l'article des DD, vous verrez moins, voir presque pas de filles d'anime ici (mais y en aura quand même... peut-être). Vous inquiétez pas, elles reviendront un jour. Introduction : I ain't got the armor. I ain't got the torps. I ain't got the guns. Alors, c'est quoi un CL ? Bien que je l'ai déjà mis dans mon introduction stratégique, il est intéressant de se poser la question.Grosse modo, on sait pas trop. Ce qu'on sait, c'est qu'au départ, genre à une époque très vieille, on avait le croiseur pour s'entretuer, le cuirassé qui était badass, le destroyer pour buter les cuirassés. Et à un moment dans l'évolution, il commençait à y avoir un trop grand trou entre croiseur et destroyer. Les croiseurs se rapprochaient peu à peu des cuirassés en termes d'armures et puissance de feu. Les cuirassés montaient de plus en plus. Et les destroyers montaient pas tant que ça.Alors il a fallut un truc pour combler le vide. Un truc plus petit et moins cher qu'un croiseur, mais mieux qu'un destroyer. Et chacun y est allé de sa petite fantaisie.Les ricains ont pris leurs design de croiseurs, on enlevé un peu de métal, on réduit le calibre des canons, et ça leur allait. Les japonais ont pris leur design de destroyer, on rajouté un peu de métal, ont augmenté le calibre des canons, et ça leur allait.Autant dire qu'il n'y a pas vraiment de loi. Si ils avaient été toujours pareils, on aurait pu définir des standards, mais c'était tellement dur que même pour le traité naval de Washington, ils ont pas trop su comment les définir et s'en sont tenu au calibre des canons (si c'est en dessous de 160mm, c'est un CL qu'ils disaient. Et après ils ont paniqué quand les japonais ont sorti Mogami et ses 155mm).D'autant que ça variait dans le temps autant que dans les nations. De Omaha à Worcester, de tenryuu à Ooyodo, ya une sacrée différence. Et on trouve de tout sur ces trucs ! Des torpilles, pleins de torpilles, pas de torpilles ; de l'AA, plein d'AA, pas d'AA ; du 127mm, du 140mm, du 152mm, du 155mm...Alors pour résumé mon propos : aujourd'hui, nous nous aventurons en terrain vague et difficile... Partie 1 : Les British mettent leur nez partout (1919~1924) A la fin de la première guerre mondiale, les japonais ont directement commencé à s'armer. les américains aussi, mais ça leur a pris plus de temps de créer ze design.Et ceux qui ont influencé les CL des deux pays dans cette période d'après-guerre, c'était, tenez vous bien, les British. -Oui oui, les British. A l'époque, les British et les Japonais avait une petite alliance amicale. Leur forces de constructions navales s'associaient donc régulièrement et partageaient leurs expériences. C'est pour ça que l'IJN a pu se baser assez facilement sur les design des classes Arethusa et C pour fabriquer les deux soeurs Tenryuu et Tatsuta. La classe Tenryuu, est-ce une classe de CL ? Sur le papier oui. Officieusement, c'était un peu le truc qui vient ENTRE les CL et les DD (je vous avait dit que c'était compliqué). Principe du navire : flagship des flottilles de destroyers. On avait donc là les premiers tubes triples de CL japonais, avec des canons qui tirent vite et pas nombreux. En somme, faits pour buter du DD. -"Ya quoi après Tenryuu Last ?" Ya Kuma les mecs. "T'étais pas sensé nous parler d'américains ?" j'y viendrai, vous inquiétez pas. Les Tenryuu étaient bien, mais ils avaient un problème. Non seulement ils se feraient rétamer dans les duels de CL, mais en plus ils allaient à 33kn. Et en même temps, les japonais avaient créé Minekaze qui allait à 39kn. Pas pratique quand ton leader va 6kn moins vite que toi... Donc quand ils ont prévu de faire 6 Tenryuu en plus, ils savaient pas trop si ça allait servir. Et puis ils se sont dit "on annule et on fabrique un autre croiseur !" Donc ils ont fabriqué Kuma. Plus gros, plus de canons, plus de torpilles, et ils allaient plus vite. Des bons navires les Kuma. Pas de chance, à l'époque, les japonais se concentraient encore sur le combat de surface uniquement. Résultat, 4 des 5 ont coulé à cause de sous-marins et avions variés... -"Last Last Last, et ensuite ?" Ensuite Nagara les mecs. "MAIS LAST TU NOUS A PROMIS DES AMERICAINS !" Sachez messieurs que je fais ce bordel par ordre chronologique. Et qu'à cette époque, les japonais étaient tout fous. Attendez qu'on arrivent dans la guerre et soudain vous aurez beaucoup plus de bannières étoilées..."Bon ok Last, ils ont quoi tes Nagara ?" Rien de spécial. C'est des Kuma."... Ils sont pas plus grands ?" Nope. Presque identiques."... Plus de puissance de feu ?" Nope. Identique aussi."... Vitesse ? AA ? Temps de basculement du gouvernail ?" Nope. C'était pareil aussi."... Et alors, pourquoi t'en parle ?" C'est une excellente question. Il n'y avait que deux choses qui différenciaient Kuma et Nagara. Nagara avait un hangar pour avion, bien qu'il ai été remplacé plus tard par une catapulte, qui a été déplacée vers l'arrière du navire. Et l'autre, c'était que contrairement à Kuma qui s'en tenait aux types 8, Nagara était équipée de Long Lance. -Pendant ce temps, de l'autre coté du Pacifique... Les américains avaient leurs propres problèmes. Ils observaient un certains design de croiseurs étrangers qui était puissant, et se disaient qu'ils étaient obligés de faire une réponse. Ils ont donc conçu Omaha.A quel classe Omaha était en réponse ? Vous avez 5s.TicTacTicTacDing ! Perdu. Il s'agissait... De la classe C !Oui, vous avez bien lu. Les Omaha ont été conçu en réponse à une classe britannique. En mode "au cas où les british nous backstab, on est prêts !" Ils avaient trop d'confiance en leurs alliés les US. Bon, Omaha. C'un CL, pour sûr. Son but ? Facile ! Le contraire des japonais : Omaha devait être un scout pour les flottes de cuirassés. -Pour conclure l'avant guerre, il reste deux navires. "Des américains ?" Non non, des japonais tous les deux. "MAIS LAAAAAAST T'ES COMPLETEMNT PARTIAL DANS TES CHOIX" même pas, c'est chronologie qui veut ça. A peu près en même temps que les Omaha, les japonais avaient eux d'autres trucs à faire. Ils voulaient un navire révolutionnaire. Donc ils sont allé voir Yuzuru Hiraga (comme tous les noms japonais, je vous recommande de le lire avec un accent cliché), ZE BEST ingénieur es bateau de l'île, pour qu'il développe un croiseur expérimental. Et le mec l'a fait. Il l'a appelé Yuubari, et même si ça a pas été une révolution aussi épique que Fubuki, Yuubari a su secouer le design de presque tous les croiseurs futurs. -"Vazy, balance la dernière classe de cte partie Last, qu'on arrive à là où ya un peu plus d'US" ola, z'êtes pressés. On aborde quand même MA classe de CL préférée (et accessoirement celle de ma waifu dans kancolle). Dernier croiseurs légers de l'avant guerre - donc les plus modernes lors de l'entrée en guerre - je parle évidemment de la classe Sendai...."Et... Tu nous dis pas des trucs dessus ?" Bah, ya pas grand chose à dire, en fait c'est quasi le design de Nagara."FBRHITOBGVEUHOIFAZ POURQUOI T'EN PARLE ALORS" parce que je les aime bien."Et d'abord, pourquoi elles sont pas basées sur Yuubari ?" Yuubari était venu trop tard, donc elles ont été basées sur la classe précédente."Et Nagara était une copie de Kuma, hein ?" En un tout petit peu plus grand, oui."Donc Sendai est une copie de Kuma, hein ?" .........En un peu plus grand, oui. Partie 2 : Ya un chinois dans le tas (1937 à 1942) -Vous voulez des américains ? VOUS VOULEZ LES NAVIRES DE LA BANNIERE ETOILEE ? Comment ça non ? Qu'est-ce que vous entendez par "ce forum est peuplé d'adorateur du japon" ? Bah dans ce cas relisez la partie 1. Pasque là, on passe en mode FREEDOOOOOM avec quelque japonais ici et là. Et quoi de mieux que de commencer avec ST.LOUIS ! "Last, St.Louis c'est AVANT 1918" ferme là, voix dans ma tête qui dit des trucs moisis pour donner l'impression que cet article à du rythme. Je parle pas du St.Louis IG, je parle de classe Brooklyn et de leur deux demi-soeurs, de classe St.Louis Xième du nom. Attention, on tape tout de suite dans du plus lourd (lourd mais toujours chez les croiseurs légers). Cinq ou Six canons simples de 140mm ? PFEU ! METTEZ MOI DU 152mm EN TRIPLE TOURELLE ! ET JE VEUX 5 TOURELLES COMME CA ! OUI MOSSIEUR 5 ! -Bon. je vous ai promis du Pacifique. Je vous ai parlé des British. Des Argentins. C'est l'heure... DES CHINOIS !"Tu te fout de nous Last" Non, non, je vais effectivement vous parler de Ping Hai. Ping Hai était une soeur de Ning Hai, ainsi que le navire amiral de la république de Chine à partir de 1937. Et comme c'était aussi l'un des plus puissants navires de la répu d'Chine, quand les japonais se sont mis en tête de rouler sur la Chine, Kaga a vite fait bien fait roulé sur ce croiseur tout moisi et Ping hai a coulé au milieu d'une rivière.Vu que c'était une rivière et qu'il parait qu'il y a moins de corrosion (mon prof de physique confirme), les japonais se sont dit "hey les mecs, on le récupère ?" Et donc ils l'ont récupéré et réparé, renommé Yasoshima, et commissionné dans leur flotte en tant que navire d'escorte. Bons, ils ont viré tous les canons, mais ils ont mis de l'AA et un radar en 1944. Au final, elle a coulé quand même par des avions pendant leyte Gulf. Bah oui, c'était de l'AA japonaise. -"Amérique ?" Nope, katori. "C'MEME PAS UN VRAI CROISEUR LAST !" Ah si. Même que c'est un croiseur très, très léger, et qui allait à 18kn. Bon, ok, pourquoi je parle d'un navire d'entrainement et leader de subs qui avait même pas les Long Lance ? Kashima et Kashii, ok, on s'en fout, pas coulé et coulé, servi à rien et servi à rien. Mais vous, possesseurs de Katori, vous savez ce qui a essayé de couler Katori ? Vous pensez à quoi ? Un subs moisi ? Un pauvre DD ? ENTERPRISE ! Et Enterprise a même pas réussi ! Et il a fallut quoi ? Une course poursuite de plusieurs heures entre Katori et IOWA ! Visualisiez-vous IG, Katori vs Iowa ! Visualisez ! Elle était badass Katori ! Son existence était badass ! Bref, navire suivant. -Pendant ce temps aux USA. "Ok les mecs. Les 5*3 152mm sur un CL c'était ptet un peu trop.""Ah, z'avez retrouvé la raison chef ?""Ouais. j'ai designé les plans du prochain CL.""Un CL normal cette fois ? Il a quoi comme armem-"HUIT CANONS DOUBLES. De 127mm. A tir super-rapide. Comme ça on pourra tirer aussi sur les avions avec."Et ainsi est née Atlanta. Je n'ai pas besoin de présenter Atlanta et sa réputation de gatling aussi bien de surface qu'aérienne. Ceux qui l'ont croisé IG savent qu'elle est historique. -"Bon les gars, ok. On a ptet un peu abusé des 127mm sur Atlanta.""Z'avez enfin décidé de faire un design pas n'impor-"Pour Cleveland, j'avais pensé à mixé les deux design d'avant et de mettre 4 triples de 150mm, ET 6 doubles de 130mm. Z'en pensez quoi ?"".........Let's go construire le truc."Que voulez-vous que je dises de plus. Les Cleveland étaient excellents, oui. Excellents canons, excellente AA, excellente défense anti-torpilles. Leur design, dérivé de Brooklyn à un certain degré, fut utilkisé pour construire LA TOTALITE de la classe indépendance (fin, juste la coque pour les Indé), et les 2 de classe suivante, Fargo, qui étaient des Clevland compactés. Z'ont été, après la guerre, pour certains, reconvertis en croiseurs lance-missile (l'arc de leurs obus les prédestinaient à ce genre d'usage, hein ?) PARTIE 3 - La fin des croiseurs du Monde (1942 à 1948) -Retour au japon ! Les ingénieurs étaient en panique. "CHEF, NOS VIEUX CL SONT TROP MAUVAIS POUR LEADER LES DD MODERNES ET ON A PAS DE NEUF !"Alors retour à la planche à dessin ! On rappelle qu'ils n'avaient plus designé de leader d'escadron de DD depuis Sendai. Chute du traité navale de Londres ! On se base (enfin) sur ce que Yuubari nous a appris d'utile, on VOLE purement et simplement les secondaires de Kongo pour en faire des principaux, et on balarde deux launcher quadruple de torpilles au centre du navire, comme sur les DD. Résultat ? Loin est l'époque des CL de 5500 tonnes, là, on tape direct dans le 7500 tonnes. trois doubles de 152mm, pas de quoi faire pâlir Brooklyn ou Cleveland mais ça reste bien comme armement. 35kn, la fabuleuse vitesse japonaise, des Long lance, évidemment, et une AA correcte (pour les japonais). Oui, Agano était un bon croiseur. Anecdote : KA-BOOOOOM -Après Agano, les jap en avaient pas assez. Il leur fallait un autre leader, mais pas pour les DD. pour les escadrons de sous-marins ! L'idée : t'as un cruiser qui lead et scout un banc de subs avec des floatplane. De base ils voulaient utiliser les Agano pour ça, mais ça a pas trop bien marché, alors ils ont décidé de construite 7 nouveaux croiseurs. Ils ont donc fait des design entre 30 et 39 avant d'être satisfait. En 39, ils se sont mis à construire Ooyodo. Et juste après qu'ils aient fini Ooyodo, toute les ressources ont été confisqué pour la construction de CV. Donc Ooyodo n'a jamais eu de soeur. -Murica-wise on avait la classe Fargo qui est venue juste après Ooyodo. Flemme d'en parler, go check ce que j'ai écrit sur Cleveland et remplacés Cleve par Fargo. J'aurai pas grand chose à dire non plus dessus, les deux sont entré en action après la fin de la guerre, et abandonnés en 1950, jamais réutilisés en suite. -En mémoire du triste incident sur Juneau, de classe Atlanta, les américains en décidé de nommer leur prochaine classe de CL Juneau, et de baser le design sur Lolta. J'vais pas vous mentir, je pourrais vous dire aussi d'aller simplement lir ce qu'il y a de marquer sur Lolta. Non seulement les trois Juneau ont pas participé à la guerre, mais c'était basiquement des AA complètement fumés avec un armement à la Flint. Par contre, à partir de 1950, c'est intéressant de savoir que l'AA de Juneau était TELLEMENT PETAY qu'ils l'ont carrément reclassé en tant que CLAA (littéralement croiseur anti-aérien. Quand ya anti-aérien dans le TYPE de ton navire tu sais que ça va morfler pour les joueurs de CV). -Pourquoi je continue alors que la guerre est finit ? Pourquoi je pousse en 1948 ? Parce qu'on arrive à la fin des CROISEURS. Oui, la fin des croiseurs tels qu'on les connais avec les canons et tout. Les US ont finit là, vers 48/50 : les lourds se sont conclut avec Des Moines. Et qui aurait conclut les légers ? Un design qui reprend tout ce qu'ils ont appris. Une sorte de croisement entre Brooklyn/Cleveland d'un coté, et Atlanta/Juneau de l'autre. On retrouve donc les tourelles de 152mm, dual-purpose bien sûr (à l'époque où on est je pense pas qu'il me soit nécessaire de préciser que l'AA US est fumée de base), mais placés en tourelles doubles similairement à sure Atlanta et Juneau, auxquels le design de la coque ressemblait hautement, mais en plus grand et avec plus d'armure. On retrouvait donc un croiseur avec l'agilité et le déluge de balles d'Atlanta, et avec la puissance de frappe et l'armure correcte d'un Cleveland.Worcester, tel est le nom de l'ultime croiseur léger des Etats-Unis, n'aurait qu'une sœur, et resterait en activité jusqu'en 1960 avant d'être finalement abandonné et détruit en 1970. Conclusion : petites légendes oubliées... "Last, ton article sur les DD IJN était mieux." Je sais. il y a un peu moins à dire sur les CL - c'est aussi une raison pour laquelle j'ai compacté ceux de l'USN et de l'IJN. En plus, ils n'ont pas forcément souvent brillé au devant de la scène, étaient moins nombreux que les DD n'étaient pas des navires capitaux. Il y avait moins à dire dessus et je les connais un peu moins. Cependant... j'avais envie d'écrire un article sur les CL. Parce que... Parfois, j'ai l'impression qu'on se souvient encore mieux des destroyers que des croiseurs légers. Leur polyvalence et leur rôles disparates à cependant fait d'eux des outils essentiels dans de nombreuses batailles, et même si ils ont rarement été au devant de la scène, leur assistance à des flottes variées a été l'un des facteurs décisif. Et pourtant, on les oublie très, très vite. Et si j'écris ces articles... ok, c'est pour m'amuser, je sais. Même si personne les lis, je suis content. Et si j'arrive à apprendre un truc, ou à faire sourire ne serait-ce qu'une personne, je suis encore plus content. Mais c'est aussi, en partie, pour partager la mémoire de ces navires. On me reprochera facilement que ce sont des navires, mais l'histoire n'est pas faite pour être oubliée. Il faut s'en souvenir pour aller de l'avant et ne pas connaitre les mêmes erreurs - l'incident de Juneau n'est qu'un exemple flagrant parmi des milliers d'autres. Et si il ne faut pas oublier les héros, il ne faut pas non plus oublier tous les autres, à l'arrière, sur les cotés, dans l'ombre, qui se battaient aussi.Parfois, les vrais héros ne sont pas au devant de la scène. Les héros sont derrières leur alliés, les supportant depuis les ombres jusqu'à la dernière seconde, et disparaissant des les méandres de l'histoire... Bref, merci à tout ceux qui sont arrivés jusque là, ci-dessus, vous trouverez la section où vous pouvez vous plaindre de moi et me reprocher mes erreurs historiques ! Bonne journééééééééée !
  5. So I'm looking at the stats of the Baltimore, and I noticed that the the base guns are the guns you get on the Pensacola, the Indianapolis and the New Orleans, and then you get the new guns that fire faster, do more damage but have the higher arcs. My question is this: is it worth to have those guns, or should one stick to the faster, lighter and flatter guns that do a little less damage less frequently but are (or seem to) more accurate?
  6. TheDutchBaron

    US Premium Battle Ship

    After my first post regarding my displeasure of the fact that the warspite is no longer on sale I have decide to stop being gloomy about it and look ahead. That brings me to my first question, does any one have the vaguest idea what the first premium battle ship for the US navy will be? I'm also curious about what you guys and gals think it would/should/could be
  7. Fairly new player here. Since the IJN DD's have better torps, but US DD's have better guns, and there are also differences between the US and IJN Cruisers. Does this pattern repeat with the carriers? Is there a big difference in play-style? I probably should have tested for myself during the CBT, but alas. Any reply would be appreciated.
  8. Hi all, I'm grinding through my independence at the moment and I'm undecided about which tier 3 skill to go for, either High Alert or Torpedo Acceleration. Are there any major benefits to one over the other or does it depend on my play style? Thanks.
  9. Bnaditcorps

    USN BB's

    This is off a topic i made on the NA forum exact copy paste no need to read it as all info there is here all here is there etc. So as many of you know the USN had lots of battleships and here i will discuss them. (USS Iowa firing a broadside) Key Blue font is how the ships met their end Purple is my personal opinion Plain font is the facts Coast Defense Types These ships were slow and clumsy, but as the name implies they didn't need to go very far to do their job. So to start off we will look at the USS Texas. Fate: Sunk as a target in Tangier Sound in Chesapeake Bay. We have this as the first "Battleship" in the USN. This was not listed with the "BB" hull classification. She only displaced 6,682 tons (US Ton). Her main armament was also very dismal for modern times, but was actually very good for the day it consisted of 2 × 12 in (305 mm) main guns with one one either side a staggered mount. And she had torpedoes 4 x 14in torpedo tubes (356 mm) that was dropped to 2 latter. Her speed at full flank was 18 knots (full flank definition here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flank_speed) Next we have the USS Maine (ACR-1) Fate: Sunk by explosion 15 February 1898 This was the the same as the Texas except she had 4 × 10 in (250 mm) not 2 x 12 in (305 mm) guns and went 17 knots at full flank. The last of these were the Indiana class vessels. Fates: Indiana Sunk in explosive tests; hulk sold for scrap 1924, Massachusetts Sunk as gunnery target 1921; now an artificial reef, Oregon Initially preserved as a museum; sold for scrap 1956. These are the the first ships in the USN with the "BB" hull classification (BB-1 through BB-3). These were the first US battleships to displace more than 10,000 tons (US Ton), they displaced 10,288 tons (US Tons). Their main battery consisted of 4 × 13 in (330 mm) and again these had torpedoes 6 × 18 in (457 mm) surface torpedo tubes. They could go 17 knots full flank. Pre-Dreadnought Types These were still slow, but had much more firepower and armor than the previous ships.(for the most part) The first of this type is the USS Iowa (BB-4) Fate: sunk as bombing target 1923 The main guns were 4 × 12 in (305 mm) and this was worse than the previous Indiana class ships, and the torpedoes were also not as good as they were 4 × 14 in (356 mm) torpedo tubes. In my opinion these are the reasons why only one was built. Next up is the Kearsarge-Class battleship (BB-5 through BB-6) Fate: Kentucky scrapped 1924; Kearsarge converted to Crane Ship AB-1 on 5 August 1920, scrapped 1955 The Kearsarge holds the distinction for being the only US battleship not named after a state. Their main weapons were 4 × 13 in (330 mm) and these also hold another distinction they are the first to not have torpedoes. These were also the slowest battleships thus far only going 15 knots full flank. We have the Illinois-Class up next (BB-7 through BB-9) Fate: Illinois transferred to New York Naval Militia 1921, renamed Prairie State 1941, scrapped 1956; Alabama sunk as target 1921; Wisconsin scrapped 1922. Main guns were 4 × 13 in (330 mm) and these brought back torpedo tubes (4 on each vessel). They brought up the speed back to 17 knots. Maine-class (BB-10 through BB-12) Fate: All scrapped 1922 This class dropped the main battery back down to 4 × 12 in (305 mm), and had 2 × 18 in (457 mm) submerged torpedo tubes. They brought speed up to 18 knots the first since Texas to go this fast. Virginia-class (BB-13 through BB-17) Fate: Virginia and New Jersey sunk as targets, remainder sold for scrap, 1923 The main guns stayed the same as the previous class the 4 × 12 in (305 mm) guns they also had 4 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes the largest torpedoes on a US BB thus far, and they also were the fastest USN BB's thus far going 1 knot faster than the previous fastest BB's (19 knots). ​Connecticut-class (BB-18 through BB-22, including BB-25) Fate: Scrapped 1923-24 These retained most of the features from the Virginia-class except for weighing 1,000 tons heavier (US Tons) and losing 1 knot in speed reducing speed to 18 Knots. This class also holds the distinction of being the largest class of USN BB's ever BUILT. Mississippi-class (BB-23 through BB-24) Fate: Decommissioned 30 July 1914 and sold to Greece. Kilkis (ex-Mississippi) and Limnos (ex-Idaho) sunk by German bombers in April 1941. These are the last ships of the Pre-Dreadnought era built by the USN and again had the 4 × 12 in (305 mm) guns that were popular among the USN Pre-Dreadnoughts.They also had another feature that was common among the USN Pre-Dreadnoughts torpedoes they had the same torpedoes as the previous 2 classes (2 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes) except they had lost 2 of the tubes. These ships dropped down to the old speed of 17 knots. More on the way! Don't forget to leave a like if you enjoyed!
  10. Today, the 0.3.1 patch has finally landed, and everything's fair game once again! We see new ships from both the IJF and the USN! I'll be writing up on my first impressions on the USN Battleships, and list my thoughts as I slowly progress through the line. This post will be updated from time to time, and I will include videos if possible. First a little about myself. When I first played World of Warships, I actually took to Battleships initially, but went off to play Cruisers and Destroyers due to their torpedo capabilities. Well, I've finally gotten serious, and took my IJN Battleships to tier 6. Sailing the Fuso Class Battleship, I took to battles in a reserved and calculated manner, using the 30 seconds of reload to get as large an advantage before shooting down enemies. I'm not a great battleship player, but I tend to duel with other battleships well, making me sort of a brawler. Long range and short range engages are both important in my book, as every hit can make a difference. So that's enough about me, and more about USN Battleships. What you need to know in a somewhat shorter version. South Carolina: "So you thought the Warspite could turn" PROS -Epic rudder shifting time -Very small turning radius -Capable of turning to protect from citadel shots CONS -Slow, but you don't feel it -Low gun range -Crazy shell trajectory, somewhat high -High detectability -Slow from Full ahead to Full astern -No anti air -Unable to turn and aim at the same time The South Carolina Class historically consisted of two ships, the South Carolina and the Michigan. Under your replay files, you'll notice that the South Carolina is actually listed as the Michigan. Initially, you'll go into the South Carolina thinking: "Time to grind up the tiers to better Battleships- again." This is where you'll be wrong. At Tier III, the South Carolina is an extremely formidable ship. This is a ship that can bring out the best in a Battleship's captain, while the tier it's at seems to negate most of it's negative drawbacks. Let me highlight a few. Turning radius and Rudder Shift time: The South Carolina has a turning radius of 390m, while other ships like the Wyoming (Tier IV USN BB) has 490m and the Kawachi (Tier III IJN BB) has 480m. Fully upgraded, the South Carolina has a rudder shift time of 13.9s (19.5s at stock), compared to a flat 18s on the Kawachi and 23.3s on the Myogi (Tier IV IJN BB). What this means is that this ship can turn at a fast pace, increasing the tempo of battles and changing directions very quickly. You may not be able to dodge torpedoes due to a very limited top speed, which will be addressed later, but you will be able to twist and turn so quickly that most torpedo bombers and ships just do not have the chance to hit you properly. One main example is when you're sailing against an enemy ship, and you have to engage it at ranges where a citadel penetration can tip the scales in your favour, you have the ability to point your hull to the enemy when you're reloading, giving him a much lower chance to pull off citadel hits as they now have to penetrate through much more to hit vital components. You then swing your broadside back out, fire a full salvo, hit what you can before turning either direction to give either your hull or stern to the enemy again. The agility of this thing is really the highlight of this ship. Slow creep: Slow is not good. Slow means you can't cover ground and can't get around islands and can't chase Langleys (Tier IV USN CV). At 18kts, you're more likely to be outrun by a Langley, or any other ship for that matter. Even the St. Louis (Tier III USN CA) is faster. This will take some getting used to, and will also train you to decide how and where to sail your ship to achieve it's maximum effect. You do not have the speed to cover ground to another cap circle, or to sail all the way across maps to hunt down enemies because they'll be long gone before you arrive. St. Louis has the option of keeping you at range and just peppering you with it's guns (or gun, if it has to keep sailing away). This is your main drawback, and you'll have to get used to it. This does allow you to manoeuvre more before you come too close to enemies though, and allows you to pull off more rudder plays. It also counts for less in Lower Tier maps where it's smaller and has less ground to cover. Low Gun Range (relatively) and High Detectability: Your maximum range is 11.2km. You are detected at 13.9km. I will emphasize that if you're in a battle of all Tier III, this is only a mild disadvantage, as you'll mainly be spotted out by Destroyers looking to kill you, and you're likely to already be relatively safe due to the low ranges of Battleships at that tier. All Wyomings and Myogis can light you up though, but you should be able to dodge with simple rudder shifts. Combine that with the possibility of a low tier map, and these drawbacks don't really hurt you all that much. Really. Insane and almost weird Shell Trajectory: This is the one that hurt me the most. From a range of 4km, firing at a Yubari (IJN Tier IV CA), lining up my reticle witht he waterline of his ship and watching as all the shots fly over her. The South Carolina seems to have very high shell trajectory that works against it on ships that are close and have a relatively low profile. Aiming low seems to hit the water too early, and aiming high ever so slightly will cause the shots to miss altogether. It's something to get used to, but not enough to cause major problems. The higher shell trajectory does allow you to hit some ships that are hiding behind land masses easily though. Suddenly, Cruisers and Destroyers that manage to sneak up on you pose a much bigger threat, as hitting them is likely to be even harder. RNG may be involved but we cannot control that. Slow to hit that reverse: Well it's to be expected that a heavy mass moving forward would take a large amount of time to move backwards, and this is very evident in the USN Battleships thus far. I took until the Wyoming to notice this as I tended to run into islands more, and changing the direction of propulsion took extremely long. If you're ever stuck on an island, take note. You do not need a large amount of space to turn, so do not reverse too far. No Anti Air Armaments: Nothing new here, Lower tiered ships have relatively low AA. Unable to turn and aim simultaneously: For Battleships, to be able to be mobile and aim your guns is a relatively big plus, as you can turn and still maintain your guns aim on the target. This is simply because the USN Battleships are turning too fast, not due to slow gun traverse, that has always been slow. You have to sail straight ahead to aim properly, and this usually leads to a player wasting anywhere between 2 to 8 seconds. Planning your turns early and straightening out just before the reloads are done is important on this ship, and more to come. Conclusion: The South Carolina is a fun ship, but it's all over too fast as you'll progress to the Wyoming soon (in fact it took as long to research the Wyoming as it took to write this). She promotes good use of rudder on a Battleship, and has sufficient fire power at her tier to be able to do enough damage. Against higher Tiered ships, you're likely to have much less of an advantage, but you'll be able to change directions violently to avoid as much damage as possible. For a Tier III ship, I enjoyed whatever time I spent in it. Perhaps the rudder turn time and tight radius is a flavour of USN Battleships we will see in the future. Wyoming: "Hi! My name is Fus- I mean Wyoming!" Pros -Turns very tight -Rudder shift timing decent -4 Stern Guns -6 Guns total Cons -Seems to have wider shot dispersion -Most shots seem to drop early -Still slow -Cannot make use of rudder shift and turn radius well -Very slow from full ahead to full astern -Weak AA -Still unable to turn and aim Tight turning radius: For a battleship at this Tier, the Wyoming can really reposition very well. It does feel like you're losing much more speed though, as a full rudder turn typically costs you 5kts now. Once again, this is great for duelling, and can help you avoid torpedoes quite easily. But with a longer rudder shift time of 16.5s, you now cannot turn on a whim, and cannot switch directions quite as fast. Suddenly, the turning capability seems to work against your guns, as you have to plan to aim your guns properly, or risk losing good damage. This is a strong point of the Wyoming, but does not count for much in this Tier unless you're in a gunnery duel with another Battleship. You've hit Tier IV, duelling with a Cleveland (USN Tier VI CA) is nothing new. Guns, More Guns: More guns, more shells, more penetrations, more damage. That sounds great doesn't it? It is, if you hit. I will go into the randomness of the shots later, But at Tier IV, having 6 double barrelled high calibre guns really helps it assert it's authority on all Cruisers and even Destroyers. The decent turning and number of guns on this ship will allow it to hit even Destroyers just by the sheer number of shells. Need I say more? More guns is always better. Furthermore, the set up of the guns places 4 of them on the stern of the ship, and allows you to flee while firing 2 straight out of the back, and all 4 if you angle yourself slightly. That's already 60% of your total fire power to scare off any oncoming ships, allowing you to reposition and pick your fights more intelligently. 6 big guns does not always mean you run headlong into a cruiser pack and expect to come out alive. It just doesn't happen. I took on 2 Clevelands and 1 Destroyer and only managed to sink one and leave the other Cleveland on 10% hp, which is decent, but I could have done it if I had played smarter as well, and engaged them one at a time. The 4 turrets at the rear provide a really formidable force to reckon with, if they hit, and allows you to run while trading damage efficiently. Spray and Pray: USN Battleships seem to have a weird trend with their guns. They all seem to be cursed by the Lord and Destroyer, RNGesus. For the Wyoming, Most of the shots scatter heavily even at ranges like 5km, mostly suffering from vertical spread. Lining up the reticle's horizon with the waterline of the enemy ship usually results in a majority of the shells hitting the water, dealing no damage at all. I would recommend placing the horizon around the superstructure of the ship, allowing most of your shells to hit properly. However, I would like to highlight this may just be RNG working against me, even though I have experienced this drop in shells multiple times. Do try it for yourself, and remember to fire ranging shots to more or less notice the trend where most of the shots drop out of the air early. Seriously though, pray hard. Slow to the point of no return: The speed of the Wyoming takes a much larger toll now that we're approaching Tier IV and V, as much faster Destroyers like the Minekaze and Cruisers like the Omaha are now capable of much more then 35kts. While Cruisers cannot use the speed to kill you, they can sure use it to get out of your range, and at 14.1km, with a concealment of 14km, they can take evasive manoeuvres quite easily and pick their fights with you. Destroyers, on the other hand, will be able to better sneak up on you, as they can close in from any angle quickly and hit you before you see them. While evasive manoeuvres are still very good against torpedoes, A DD from 4km away is not going to miss everything easily. Add to that the fact that you no longer see lower tiered maps, your speed and range now affect your overall game play more. Agility, Smehgility: The Wyoming exists in the middle, where it's agility is good, but not good enough. You really have to plan your routes, as your low top speed is now really crucial. I will not take away the fact that the turning is really good, but it just does not feel as effective as it did back at the lower Tier III. I personally feel that I am simply feeling this way due to the drawback of turning and changing directions when you have such a low top speed, as it'll delay the amount of time taken to reach objectives and main choke points. It's good, but that speed is really a problem now. Throw in the fact that the ship still takes very long to shift from full ahead to full astern, any unnecessary change in propulsion will cost more than it ever did. Anti Air! Finally: You may have a rating of only 13, But those guns are enough to shoot down one or two planes if they linger too long over your ship. An experienced drop will still be undeterred, but at least you're now able to shoot some down. It's not very good, but it'll do for a Tier IV Battleship. Still can't multitask: Your turrets are still unable to aim when you're turning, giving you the same need to sail straight and plan ahead to point most of your guns at the enemy Conclusion: The Wyoming left a somewhat sour taste in my mouth, like I was shown both the good side and the bad side in both the South Carolina and the Wyoming, the latter being the bad side. It's weak against the ships it now has to kill, and it does not matter hoe many guns you have, if you still have that weird trajectory. I could not find it in me to hit any citadel shot while I was sailing the Wyoming. None. Not one. Not even one from 5km out. This thing could hit a destroyer just by spamming, and it can't aim for a citadel. The general sentiment is that it's not a very good ship, and I have to agree. It turns fine, sails fine, slow to boot, and has 6 guns. I think the bottom line is, for the Wyoming, if you can land multiple shots, it's spectacular, if not, you'll sink like everything else. New York: "When things go right." Pros -Nice and tight turning circle -Accurate guns (it's amazing this has to be a point) -Five guns -Decent AA Cons -Still slow -Still cannot turn and shoot -Still slow to accelerate Some Videos: Just keep turning: I think it's by now a recognisable flavour of the USN Battleships, the fact that they can all dance around torpedoes and salvoes if you're noticing where and when they're fired. With a rudder shift time of 16.3s and a turning radius of 490m, the turns are similar to that of the Wyoming, but the ship itself doesn't seem to drag it's heels through the turn. Unlike the Wyoming, it no longer has a majority of it's guns on the rear, but can still fire up to three guns when fleeing simply by angling slightly, and fire all five just by turning slightly more. I cannot emphasize how important it is to keep shaking that ship, as cruiser HE will more than likely be raining upon you, and avoiding those fires is seemingly one of the largest priorities on a Battleship. Laser Guided Salvoes!: Yes, the New York is MUCH more accurate than the Wyoming, and firing now feels very on point. I think this is what made the South Carolina a fun ship for me, that I could seek out Citadel shots easily as well. In the videos above, you can see how cruisers are simply erased off the map from properly aimed salvoes that fire into the Citadel. At longer range, the effectiveness oh HE is also amplified by, well, hitting, as well as the large calibre of the gun. It seems to be able to set ships on fire easily, and Battleship captains now can consider firing one or two salvoes of HE just to light their enemies up. TO be able to manage HE and AP is now becoming very important on Battleships, where you have to find the middle point from which you can penetrate and deal heavy damage, and that where you can just fire HE and hope to light them up for additional damage. Quantity or Quality? Both!: More guns means more damage holds true, if you hit. This ship can hit, and can really hit and can really hit. I think I've made my point on the guns. Tora! Tora! To- Oh, no more planes? Anti-air is not excellent, but you can finally defend yourself against planes that keep repositioning over you. You can and probably will shoot down whole squadrons of IJF planes, and USN planes are likely to survive longer. Combine this with your agility, and you really have no excuse to be sunk by Torpedo bombers. In fact torpedo bombers should really avoid USN Battleships as much as possible. The chances that they dodge your torpedoes is high, and they have enough HP to survive a full spread from one squadron. You have to land just over 60% of your torpedoes to sink one, and you're probably not going to do it. That said, I have eaten a full spread before, as I was wildly distracted writing this (such an excuse), so it's not impossible, just improbable. Ugraded turbines! Higher Speed! A whole knot more! (get it? because knot and lot rhyme?) 21kts is the new top speed, and it's really nothing new. Especially not when you have to deal with Cruisers and Destroyers and literally anything else can run rings around you. With new maps with more cap points, you really have to move towards those points, or risk losing a good game simply by cap. What's new in the USN Battleship lines anyway? Alike to the Wyoming, the 21kts matter more in these higher tier maps, and you're more likely to see large maps like the Tier 8 Iceberg. Slow speed can be mitigated by proper planning, so plan ahead! you're not likely to be shooting anything soon anyway! Same old turrets: After the New York, I think I'll stop listing this as a CON, as there really isn't any battleship that should be able to turn at that pace and still turn to point their guns at their targets. It's something to note though, as the high turning rate of these ships tend to affect your fire rate, especially if your gun management is not very good and you take a long time to re-aim all your guns again. Conclusion: I enjoyed the New York. It was simply a pleasure to sail, and reliably land shots if you aim properly. She's a ship that can and will reward your work with kills and high damage and hits. Alternating between HE and AP is crucial to get better fights, and noticing everything around you becomes that much more important to get better results. I think so far, all USN Battleships are high calibre gunships that have high agility but low mobility. Play them like brawlers and you'll be able to get favourable results. The New York was nice, but moving on to the New Mexico, with 4 triple barrels, you're unlikely to linger on the New York for long. New Mexico: "You have double barrels? That's cute." Pros -Triple barrels -Same tight turning -Guns that are accurate Cons -Triple barrels -Low top speed
  11. dasCKD

    Missiles on carriers

    Before you ask: yes, I am completely insane. What of it? I'll keep publishing these until the psychiatric services catches up with me. I also noticed that I am not getting the reception I want, and so I made changes to the article title. Not only am I insane, I'm also a shameless Edited. It is a common sentiment that USN carriers should be given better dive bombers in order to distinguish them from the IJN counterparts and to make them viable again. It is really not a controversial statement to say that the American carriers are outclassed by their Japanese counterparts. A certain YouTuber, (Notser I think it was, it could be any of them really) stated that the accuracy of USN bombers should be buffed. Yeah, it probably is Notser. Buffing the accuracy of the USN dive bombers to bring them in line with their IJN contemporaries, is after all about the worst thing you could possibly do to buff the USN carriers. This thread is about torpedo bombers, why they're such a good weapon system, and what missiles has to do with any of this. Missiles This is the point where I take a few sentences out of this post to gloat about how missiles are already in games in the form of ship artillery and how everyone is Englishing wrong. Everyone knows what I mean when I say missiles though: those things that release fires from one end and big explosions on the other. By replacing USN dive bombers with missile squads, I believe that it would allow for USN carriers to shine again. Missiles have to be handled extremely carefully however. Much like carriers themselves, the introduction of missiles has made large caliber ship artillery largely obsolete. Below is my detailing as to how missiles can be handled as plane squads, how it could be introduced in such a way that it emphasizes the skills of gameplay comprehension over raw mechanical prowess, and how to could be balanced in such a way that it won't entirely break the game. Figure 2, missiles! Air dropped torpedoes in many ways has given a very strong template in what terms of attack pattern is somewhat acceptable in terms of in game design. Whilst many players complain about the various aspects of AA and how it's skill-less, I disagree with this sentiment. The basics of ship to carrier interaction is relatively simple: a carrier wants the perfect drop so they have to place their plane within the AA aura whilst a ship wants to exhaust the carrier. It therefore comes as a conflict between two sides. A carrier attempts to get into the perfect drop position as soon as they possibly could, whilst the ship being attacked is trying to delay the enemy carrier's drop for as long as possible so planes get shot down. As torpedo bomber attacks are quite obviously telegraphed and requires a quite extensive runup, I think that it is a good system of ship interaction. A large number of problems comes from how AA is arranged and the idea of AA ships and non-AA ships in the game. The foundation holds firm however. A carrier can only drop from so many angles to maintain effectiveness. A ship needs to stop them from getting that perfect angle for as long as I can. A dive bomber has no such thing. Attack command The combat attack pattern behind the missile strike fleet that I've designed is based upon the foundation laid by the torpedo bomber drop. Whereas the Japanese carrier torpedo attack has an inverted drop, the imagined American missile drop has a spread drop. The attack pattern is the same in concept with a longer run up, meaning that the missile attack will have a longer telegraphing period. The expanding spread is a placeholder. It might be more appropriate, given some rudimentary testing, The torpedo power is augmented in this example, but only in the region of around 1k points. The primary difference in missile and torpedo performance in this design is the smaller effective region. All other commands are the same, and the missile impact zone is calibrated to ship height. This point will be more clear later on in the system description. Figure 3, missile drop reticle In terms of performance, missiles are obviously going to be faster than torpedoes. In this case, I scaled back the speed to something far within the ability of most smaller ships to evade, being slower than the fastest torpedoes in the game but without the possibility to further augment the speed. Whilst the missiles themselves would be incredibly difficult to dodge, it would be possible to dodge the missiles by turning in advance the moment the missile aircraft begins telegraphing the attack. The powered missile will fly straight from the point of launch in a straight line until it hits the water surface and becomes inactive, following similar attack patters as the ballistics of a very flat arced artillery salvo albeit at a far lower speed. In this case, the 6(7) squad dive bombers will be replaced with a 4(5) squad strong one, meaning that it would be significantly easier to shoot down this new missile attack squad compared to previous dive bombers. It is also much more difficult to catch destroyers in a crossdrop as the missiles will have to be dropped in far faster succession than torpedoes. It will act like torpedo bombers, the missile flying a short distance until it hits the target then explodes. This means that the use of these missile strike squads will take direct player skill instead of depending on luck and perfect mechanical skill. It also means that players under attack won't get screwed just because they were unlucky, but neither will they get a free pass just because they were lucky. Much like torpedoes, the flight path of missiles is fixed and can be anticipated for. Angle of approach & impact You might have noticed the red and yellow boxes before. Whilst these boxes would likely be invisible in the game, what they are is another balancing characteristic of the missile. You might rightly note that a projectile flying at 75 knots dropped that close to a destroyer would be impossible to dodge even in autodrop by a destroyer considering how awkward the angle will be. That is why the red zone exists, sitting squarely around the center of rotation that sits in the middle of the autodrop command. Whilst taller ships will get hit whilst in the red zone, destroyers are short enough that missiles will fly over them when they're in the red zone. The missiles flies in at a shallow angle. In the yellow zone, the missile will hit and explode against anything. In the red zone however, the missile has a chance of flying over a ship and not detonating. This means that drops on destroyers will need to be performed from longer away which provides improved protection and evasive options to destroyers under the attack of a missile armed carrier strike squad. These zones are not as rigid as presented in this example; the missile is probably best modeled as any other shell in the context of the game. The fixed zones are here purely for representative purposes. Damage performance You might have noted that the missile alpha damage is higher than the alpha damage of the torpedo and rightfully worry about what this might do to the game. The missile is a HE warhead however, meaning that it will do HE damage. When hitting a target, it would do around 30% of the stated alpha damage in a standard penetration. A torpedo, launched even against the belt of a ship like the Yamato, will still do 45% of the listed damage. This means that the missile will do typically less damage compared to a torpedo of identical alpha performance. The other balancing factor is the fact that missiles are HE warheads, meaning that they will set fires instead of causing flooding. Fires, whilst infuriating, are far less debilitating than floods. The missile performance compared with the fact that the spread widens and there are less missiles in the first place, will mean that the damage will tend to be lower than that of the current dive bombers. In exchange, the missiles will be far more reliable and leave a far clearer method for target ships to evade damage or to lessen the impact of the coming damage. The 94 mm of HE penetration is set as such because it would prevent citadel penetrations to ships of tiers 7-10 by HE missiles, at least without IFHE. Depending on the impact of missiles, it might be necessary to prevent missiles from being able to receive the benefits of IFHE. The missiles can shatter modules and cripple exposed modules like an HE shell would. Missiles on ships Seeing as how my ideas would not be likely to get implemented due to how pathologically averse WG seems to be to logical game design, I thought it might be fun to come up with an idea that almost certainly would not be implemented. Nevertheless, it was fun conceptualizing the missile and imagining how it could be balanced to fit in the game. I thought it would be a good idea at least. Not completely comically broken, but it would stop USN carriers from being completely annihilated by their Japanese counterparts. The speed of the missile might need addressing, but otherwise I am quite happy when it comes to how the missile system could fit inside of the game. This post has been edited by the moderation team due to swearing.
  12. ImSteve

    A Short Destroyer Montage :)

    Hey guys, a short montage I made using Destroyers. Hope you enjoy!
  13. Per3c

    CV gameplay favors USN

    The idea would be great to have 4 squadrons with 6 planes (USN) and 6 squadrons with 4 planes (IJN) as ballancing. 6 planes are a formidable attacking wing but the 4 planes squadrons are in service in notime. The biggest issue for me with the implementation of WG's idea that american CVs have options in flight controlls (defensive/offensive) but japanese CVs really don't have an option just at tier VII with the Hiryu. IJN CVs on the defensive option will only have 4 fighters in the sky at max till tier VI. The Hiryu with 2 squardons of fighters already gives more of an opportunity to scout, defend allied ships and bring back proper CV play with both team's CVs fighting for air supremacy. Perfect example was a game I've played with my friends during the weekend I was in my tier VII USN CV Ranger and since my division had a BB and a DD I've chosen to take defensive flight controll to scout for them and bomb annoying DDs to burning wrecks. There was two enemy CVs an Independence and a Ryujo (both tier VI). Still with the enemy USN CV going defensive I've managed to get 56 planes shot down with minimal casualties (all my squadrons were still at their full fighting potentials when I've noticed that there were no enemy plane activities on the whole map). My suggestion is: Let the IJN CVs have a 2 fighter squadron option from tier V because every USN CV player will just erase any kind of japanese wings in the skies no matter if fighters or other. I have read on the forum that 1 vs 1 USN CVs will always win. That's not exactly true: In my Hosho against a Langley I've managed to close the distance to effective AA range and used my superb service time to launch torp salvos in such a fast rate that he hadn't had a chance. I've started my attack when his fighters ran out of ammo a half a map away (I had to sacrifice 4 torp bombers but since I had no losses till that moment - it was an acceptable exchange to lose 4 planes to get the enemy CV) and after my AAs killed off a few landing fighters I've sunk him while he tried to get his planes in the air fast enough.
  14. RavenSCO

    USS S

    Why cant we buy sims from the premium shop I WANT THIS SHIP ......
  15. MarcusFuriusCamillus

    This is ridiculous - The Gearing

    I know there's a "Ships" subforum but nobody even replies there or views the threads so I decided to post this here. Is the Gearing for real? While I love the guns ETC the state of higher tier DDs is atrocious, every single shell and I do mean SINGLE shell takes out a module. Let's ignore the ridiculous Health on the turrets that explode for no reason(on the Gearing), The speed is ridiculously low, We get set on fire too fast and USN DD's HE barely sets other people on fire. For instance I was chased by an Atago(That appeared behind an Island at about 7km), He got into my range and I couldn't shake him off because we have the same speed??(!) Really...? Besides the fact he hit me only 3 times, twice the first salvo took my steering and engine straight away without even a blink, Then I repair and he took my engine away leaving me helpless completely. Last stand Is not viable because Gearing has a terrible range on it's guns for a "Gunboat" I'm at 13.3 WITH AFT Even if it was realistic, USN DD's fill no niche, We're not fast at all, We can barely torpedo, Our guns barely damage larger ships with HE and Japanese DD's can put up a good enough fight that we do not counter them that bad as they'd make you think. I mean for real? A mediocre T8 Cruiser means certain death for a T10 DD... Does it ring good by you? There's a reason the Gearing is the most underperforming ship at T10, But it doesn't mean you should neglect it or not have a fleshed role for it at T10 games.
  16. Votre chasse vous amène vers quelles eaux lorsque vous êtes à la tête de la flotte américaine ? En ce qui me concerne les DD adverses deviennent mes proies favorites, même si je ne suis pas contre le fait de sauter à la gorge d'un cuirassé ou croiseur égaré !
  17. So, yesterday there was a Flamuus stream where Mr.Conway was a guest. So, I've asked a question about the matter of USN cruisers. My question was, do they plan to do anything with USN cruisers (aka buff them) because high tier ones are clearly underperforming as shown by stats. His official response was: "Well, cruisers are soon getting rudder shift upgrade in 6th slot, so we will see what happens. Maybe people will ditch the concealment upgrade for rudder shift and just dodge most of shells, thus increasing their overall performance." (something along these lines) So, there we go guys... Out of 10 problems USN cruisers are currently facing, slapping rudder shift upgrade and ignoring the stealth will suddenly improve most of them. It will obviously help them with DD hunting, with using radar, with coming into brawling range, with shooting things from range with their arcs... It will be a blast... That was not really an answer I was looking for...
  18. Hello captains je m'en viens parler un peu du Fletcher, il reste apparemment très peu discuté (En tout cas sur la communauté francophone) peut être qu'on a rien a dire de très grave dessus ... Ayant de très bonne impression sur ce navire, je m'en viens quand même parler de lui, histoire de motiver certain a monter la branche des destroyer USN, qui fut compliquer a certain moment, le début quand tu cerne pas le gameplay et certain navire genre farragut T6, Mahan T7 ... N'ayant encore jamais test le gearing (Le TX) le Fletcher est pour moi le dernier navire de la branche pour l'instant , et je ne regrette pas du tout d'en être arriver la, bon sang que j'aime ce navire Déjà je n'en parlerais pas stock, mais bien full (tout le monde sait qu'il ne faut pas juger un navire stock voyons) Alors pourquoi le Fletcher est sans doute mon destroyer actuel préféré (Sachant que j'ai joué les japonais également jusqu'au T8 actuellement) Déjà il suit grandement le gameplay de son prédécesseur, le Benson (Le t8) qui ont va dire fait rentrer les DD US efficace dans beaucoup de domaine différent, ont perd sur certain point également vous allez voir (notamment un qui est bien embêtant) Alors parlons du Fletcher : -Les canons : Pour tout ceux qui ont jouer DD USN les canons ne changent pas beaucoup depuis le T5, ont reste sur le même calibre, du 127mm, grâce au nouvelle amélioration, ont peut arriver a une vitesse de tir de 20.4tir/minute, sachant qu'on passe a 5 canon, c'est une véritable pluie de feu sur l'adversaire et avec cette vitesse de tir, même si les russes ont de quoi vous affrontez, vous ne serez pas sans défense, en naviguant bien, votre temps de rechargement fera le reste, et les japonais (Et son équivalent T9), mieux vaut pas qu'il ne vous croise, surtout si leur croiseur est loin derrière (Les 1vs1 entre USN et IJN niveau destroyer, sont très désavantageux pour les IJN, du a la grande différence de leur canon), les tirs sont moyennement efficace contre les croiseurs et forcément bien peu efficace sur les cuirassé (Même si en visant bien vous pouvez quand même faire du 1000/2000 par salve, sans conté les saints incendie) Donc la du tout bon, rien a redire, ont reste sur du terrain connus mais amélioré, surtout qu'on passe a une portée de 12.9km Des torpilles : Alors le fletcher comme je l'ai dit plus haut suit le benson en rentrant dans less DD efficace a la torpille, même si le Kagero le domine quand même, le Fletcher a de quoi pesé lui aussi dans la partie, comparons donc ses torpilles au japonais: -Les dégâts : Le Kagero (DD T9 IJN) peut infligé un maximum de 21k dommages par torpille le Fletcher lui 19k il arrive donc presque a égaler les maîtres de la torpilles niveau dégât (Quand ont a déjà jouer avec des torpilles 11k dommage, ont est content d'avoir 19k). -La vitesse : Tout le monde qui joue avec des torpilles, sait que la vitesse est grandement appréciable, donnant moins de temps au ennemis pour réagir, les torpilles du Kagero se déplace a 67knots, le Fletcher lui 66knots, ils sont donc quasiment similaire a ce niveau. -Cadence de tir : Généralement, ça dépendra des différente amélioration et compétence du commandant, ça reste très équilibré aussi, ont est a environs du 0.6coup/minute pour les deux. -Le nombre : La ont a un léger avantage pour le Fletcher, qui possède deux tube quintuple, il lance donc 5 torpilles par tir (Donc 10 par salve) la ou le Kagero a deux tubes quadruple, donc 4 torpilles par tir (8 par salve). -La distance : Probablement sur ce point que tu vois largement plus le savoir faire japonais en matière de torpille le Kagero a le double de la distance que le Fletcher quasiment, ont est a 10.5km de portée pour le Fletcher comparais au 20km du Kagero. Donc comme vous pouvez voir le Fletcher se défend, d'ailleurs se sont les meilleurs torpilles depuis le début chez les USN que ça soit en terme de vitesse, de dégât, de portée, ce sont des torpilles utile, qui permet au Fletcher de largement jouer avec sans dépendre de ses canon, par exemple la ou les russes ne peuvent vraiment les utiliser que en embuscade. La dissimulation : Avec tout les amélioration sur le sujet (Que je vous conseil grandement de prendre) le Fletcher doit tomber dans les 6km (Commandant et amélioration inclus) une très bonne discrétion qui vous permet de largement donc jouer avec vos torpilles (4.5km de marge) cette portée est également très gênante pour les Russe ou les Japonais en face, Le russe sera toujours repéré bien avant vous vous laissant un marge de temps pour soit fuir, ou l'intercepter selon votre situation. Le kagero qui lui aura (sous les même conditions, amélioration et commandant orienté discrétion) une meilleurs discrétion que vous, vous resterez surement sont cauchemar, car généralement quand il va vous spot, son temps de réaction est tellement court (Environs 0.4km, sachant que généralement vous vous rapprocherez l'un de l'autre) que si il vous repère, vous êtes assurer de le repéré dans les deux seconde qui suivent et rappelons qu'en cas de contact avec lui, il sera grandement désavantagé contre votre cadence de tir et vos canon. De plus une telle distance d'interception (6km vous séparant) vous ne serez que plus précis avec vos canons La manœuvrabilité : c'est surement pour moi l'un des plus gros point faible du navire (Même si bon vous aurez normalement déjà jouer avec le Mahan et ses 35knots) l'un des seuls point qui ne s'améliore pas comparais a son prédécesseurs vous passez a une vitesse de 36.5knots, pas terrible car les 38knots de son prédécesseur était plus agréable, vous resterez meilleurs que les japonais qui sont a 35knots mais vous serez quand même largement en dessous du Russe T9 qui est a 40knots, par contre ont gagne en temps de basculement du gouvernail, pas énorme La capacité de survie : La pareille ont gagne 2000 point de structure comparais au Benson, (Ont passe a 17 100, en comparaison le Kagero a 15 100 l'Udaloi est a 18 800) vous restez toujours aussi fragile mais ce nombre de point de vie vous permettra de survivre en cas de torpille malheureuse, en plus donc de vous faire tenir correctement en cas d'affrontement contre un DD Voila je ne parlerais pas vraiment de l'anti aerien, qui reste l'un des meilleurs parmis les DD mais qui reste largement peu efficace comparais au croiseurs ou BB (Même si le tir AA défensive en consommable pourrait aider, sacrifier sont boost moteur ... mouais) En conclusion de mon point de vus : Le Fletcher est presque l'évolution final des DD USN, ils est la polyvalence même , forcément moins efficace dans un domaine particulier, c'est un navire qui peut ce sortir de toute situation, ses canons lui permettent de se défendre contre d'autre DD la ou les japonais n'en sont pas vraiment capable, même en soutient contre des plus gros navire, ses torpilles peuvent pesé sur la partie au même titre que les japonais, il garde une bonne survie, une manœuvrabilité moyenne, un bon camouflage en bref il colle parfaitement en amélioration du gameplay que vous vous trimbalez jusqu'ici et avec toute l'expérience donner par ses prédécesseur il est vraiment agréable a la prise en mains, vraiment très agréable (Si vous êtes arrivez jusque la, vous arriverez forcément a faire quelque chose avec lui) arrivez la ont ne regrette vraiment pas la branche USN, sans conté donc le prochain (Le Gearing) qui a l'aire d’être encore une amélioration du fletcher en tout point le rendant encore plus efficace sur n'importe quel front Et voila, ça sera tout, je ferais un effort sur l'orthographe, désolé si vos yeux saignent, enfin je tenais quand même a donner mes impressions sur le navire, même si vous ne m'avez pas lus jusqu'au bout, n’hésitez pas a faire part du vôtre, voila d’habitude ont crée un topic sur le navire pour se plaindre, et bien moi je voulais rendre hommage au navire
  19. 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!
  20. gekkehenkie50

    Help for the Iowa

    So, I know there is already a post for this, and yes, I have been looking around internet, but I cannot find any help for the Iowa that seems to work for me. The problems I encounter: She turns like a brick Often I find myself in situations where it is simply impossible to angle towards every ship, and I must decide between angling towards that Nagato or the Amagi etc. When I do go head on I feel trapped, once commited, I'm on that path until I'm dead, there is not turning back because, unlike in the NC, Iowa takes MASSIVE damage to her broadside Often when fighting my team does indeed use me as a tank, which I'm fine with because that's my role, but then they take that as a bail out option; when 1 ship turns for whatever reason, my entire back-up just routes, they all run away whilest I soak up the damage... (But, of course, this is just asking for team work in a Random battle, which is very rare as it is) The guns do not seem to be more accurate then the NC, despite everyone telling me they are It's AA seems worse than the NC Usually when tanking I lose atleast 1 of my frontal turrets, sometimes both Overall, I would really like to be able to be of assistance to my team, but I have no idea how I should handle Iowa. I tried sniping one game (I know I shouldn't) and, it actually got me more xp and credits than when I tank. I did notice however, that I am less accurate in the Iowa because it shell flight times are different (I think) compared to NC. Any tips are welcome, but my main question is how do I tank efficiently, without taking too much focus fire from multiple flanks and angles? Tier Battles Win rate PR Average Damage Avg. frags Avg. planes destroyed Iowa 9 3 0% 16 24 460 0 2
  21. Hi all, USN dd captain here, currently of the Mighty Farragut. I see a lot of complaint and question threads around about USN dds and how they suck at low/high tier, so I thought, how about gathering some data? Everyone post your favorite and most hated USN dds (2 each) here and lets talk about why! My Favorite: Clemson (insane # of guns!!) Nicholas (love tier V gameplay) Worst: Sampson Farragut (due to planes flying all over the map)
  22. Hey guys I recently went over US carrier plane configurations and found that many of them are unbalanced/unviable, have obvious choices and obvious bad choices. I think that it needs to be rebalanced to make ALL configs viable and the choice harder and based on gameplay style rather than be based on what is clearly the best choice for every sane person. I wrote a ticket to WG about this, and wanted to know what everyone thinks about it, as i think it can make the game more interesting and not have totally useless configs that no sane person will use. (when i was writing the ticket and mentioned fighter/torp/bomber, i ment fighter squad, torpedo bomber squad, dive bomber squad) this is what i wrote in the ticket: Please let me know what is your opinion, by answering the poll, and/or writing comments here.
  23. LittleWhiteMouse

    Premium Ship Review: USS Missouri

    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 Mighty. Quick Summary: A modified Iowa-class Battleship with reinforced forward and rear citadel protection, a radar consumable and tremendous credit earning potential. Cost: 750,000 free experience. This works out to 30,000 doubloons for conversion, or approximately €100 ($110 USD). Patch & Date Written: 0.5.15, December 6th, 2016 Closest in-Game Contemporary Iowa, Tier 9 American BattleshipDegree of Similarity: Clone / Sister-Ship / Related Class / Similar Role / Unique I don't think anyone is surprised here. The differences between the Iowa and the Missouri are minor and well advertised. The Missouri loses the aircraft of the Iowa and gains radar instead. There's slight differences to their AA load out. Most telling, the Missouri has reinforced citadel armour along the transverse bulkheads, making her better at bow-tanking while avoiding citadel damage at this angle. PROs: Reinforced forward bulkheads, providing better forward protection than the Iowa. Versatile guns with tremendous AP hitting power for their tier. Guns can specialize for either the best medium range battleship accuracy in the game or for the best battleship DPM at her tier. Excellent range of 23.4km which can be increased to 27.1km with a module. Very good anti-aircraft firepower, especially at medium range. For a Battleship her size, she's very fast at 33.0 knots. Has the same radar as the tier 9 Baltimore-class cruiser. Choice of two camouflage patterns. Earns 100% bonus experience. Earns 50% more credits than a tier 8 Premium, 100% more than a tech-tree ship. Available for "free" just by playing the game. CONs: Extremely vulnerable citadel that sits high over the water. Bow is easily overmatched by the 460mm rifles of the Yamato. Poor torpedo defense with only a 25% reduction from hits. Large base dispersion values coupled with a low muzzle velocity on her AP rounds. Without the accuracy module, the Missouri is one of the least accurate ships in the game. Wide 920m turning circle and 19.4s rudder shift time. The amount of free experience required to unlock her is prohibitively high and will nominally require clever use of premium time, consumables or simply spending money to acquire her. The Missouri doesn't correct a lot of the problems found on the Iowa-class. In fact, for those accustomed to the Iowa, she will seem familiar -- perhaps painfully so. The Missouri is the twelfth premium Battleship to be added to World of Warships (not including the Arpeggio Kongo-class sisters) and she certainly tops all of the others for the attention she's grabbing. The promotion of a certain action-hero aside, the Missouri is an important historical vessel. Wargaming has paid a nod to both their Hollywood endorsement and the Mighty Mo's 15 minutes of fame with fun details visible on her decks in port. But perhaps most importantly to players of World of Warships, the Missouri represents a departure from premium ships that have come before it. This is a premium tier 9 ship with accelerated economic boons. She earns 50% more experience and credits than tier 8 premiums. It's this latter ability that made me raise an eyebrow. A lack of credit earning has long been the bottleneck in progression in World of Warships and the Missouri steps all over this. If you have her, earning a couple million credits in the span of an hour's worth of casual game play is laughably simple. Players with this ship will be at a marked advantage over those who don't when it comes to acquiring new vessels or simply financing premium consumables or high tier content. In fact, the Missouri could be an utter potato boat and she'd be worth looking at if only for these economic gains. But let's take a closer look at what Wargaming has cooked up for us and see if she's worth the astronomical sum of 750,000 free experience. Options There's two big points to mention in regards to the Missouri's options. The first, during testing we had two camouflage patterns to play with. These both did the same thing, providing a bonus 100% to experience gains as opposed to the 50% normally provided by premium ship camouflage between tiers 6 and 8. This is on par with premium camouflage purchased for tech tree ships at tiers 9+, though, so it's good to see the Missouri keeping pace. Note that the Missouri's credit earning potential isn't baked into her premium camouflage, but rather the ship itself. The camouflage also doesn't provide any reduction to repair costs. So your choice between the two is purely cosmetic. Or you could use some other camouflage in your reserves if you prefer. It won't hurt your credit earning. In addition, the Missouri has access to Radar. This has a 9.45km range with a 35 second active period. This is identical to the radar found on the tier 9 USN Cruiser, Baltimore. She does not have the option for any kind of aircraft. Consumables: Damage Control Party Repair Party Radar Module Upgrades: Six slots, standard USN Battleship options. Premium Camouflage: There are two versions of the Missouri's camouflage. Both provide a 3% concealment bonus, a 4% increase to enemy gunnery dispersion and a 100% bonus to experience gains. The two colour schemes for the Missouri. One nearly matches the colour scheme of the premium camouflage of the Iowa. Firepower Primary Battery: Nine 406mm rifles in 3x3 turrets in an A-B-X configuration. B is stationed in a super firing position over top of A. These have a stock range of 23.4km. Secondary Battery: Twenty 127mm dual purpose rifles in 10x2 turrets along the sides of the ship. The American 406mm 50-calibers Mk7 rifles are interesting. They combine some of the hardest hitting shells at their tier with some of the worst gun dispersion. Yet, thanks to the combination of modules the American ships can take, the Missouri can potentially be the most accurate Battleship in the game at ranges around 12km, and on par with the IJN Battleships at about 18km but at the cost of her rate of fire. It's that 6th module slot which unlocks at tier 9 which is the culprit for this. Every other nation in the game gets a 7% dispersion reduction module for their 2nd slot (found at tier 5+) with Aiming Systems Modification 1. The American Battleships instead have a range boosting module. It's only with the 6th slot where the USN can reduce their dispersion. Artillery Plotting Room Modification 2 provides an 11% reduction to dispersion. However this comes at a price. The other module competing for everyone's attention in the 6th slot is Main Battery Modification 3 which provides a rate of fire increase. This forces USN players to choose between DPM and Accuracy. Player preference will largely dictate which setup they prefer. If a player chooses to accelerate her reload then the Missouri, like the Iowa, will have the best DPM of any of the tier 9 Battleships with her AP shells. At 13,500hp per citadel hit, these can quickly doom anyone rash enough to make themselves a target. I personally believe that the accelerated reload is the way to go though there's a firm argument to be made in favour of accuracy. There are two primary downsides to these guns. The first has been touched upon already. Their dispersion, unless properly mitigated, can be downright trollish. This is combined by a rather slow muzzle velocity for her shells of 762m/s with her AP rounds. They thankfully retain energy well due to their heavy mass but this still leads to a longer lead time than with the IJN guns, for example. The only other 'bad' point worth mentioning is that due to the overmatch mechanics, anything with 32mm of bow armour can tank the Missouri's guns and remains largely immune to her AP shells so long as they keep their prow pointed towards her. This includes all tier 8+ Battleships which can make for long, drawn out stalemates. The secondary gun batteries of the Missouri are regrettably forgettable. While deadly enough to a low health destroyer that strays within range, the Missouri doesn't put out the same fearsome volume of fire of the German or Japanese Battleships. While it's possible to specialize into their performance, this usually happens as a happy coincidence rather than a deliberate act, with skills such as Basic and Advanced Fire Training being taken primarily to boost her AA power rather than with an aim to increase her secondary potency. Summary: Versatile guns that can be specialized for either high DPM or high accuracy. Excellent range. Very hard hitting AP shell with excellent alpha strike potential. Struggles somewhat against angled enemy Battleships due to overmatch mechanics. Secondaries are adequate but weaker than her contemporaries With a range that can exceed 27km, the Missouri often finds herself engaging enemies from one extreme of the map to another. Without an accuracy modification, doing any damage at these distances is chancy at best. Like all Battleships, she really starts coming into her own at medium to close range, however her fragility makes getting this near to the enemy extremely risky. Sometimes the rewards are worth it. Maneuverability Top Speed: 33.0 knotsTurning Radius: 920mRudder Shift: 19.4s The Missouri has some very long legs. It's a shame she so seldom gets to flex them in the current high-tier meta. At 33 knots, the Missouri and Iowa are the fastest Battleships in the game, bar none. This should, in theory, allow her to dictate the range of any engagement with other Battleships while also allowing her to redeploy as needed. However, this straight line speed comes at a cost. Her handling is downright horrific with a 920m turning circle and a sluggish rudder shift to boot. So while you can navigate from point A to B with alacrity, you're not going to want to do so under fire as it will expose your Missouri to enemy artillery and torpedoes. Dodging the latter, never mind the former will be an extreme challenge. DurabilityHit Points: 78,300Maximum Protection: Up to 368mm + 38mm external citadel protection, 432mm turret faces, 439mm conning tower. Min Bow & Deck Armour: 32mm (immunity to 420mm rifles)Torpedo Damage Reduction: 25% The Missouri is much lauded for its improved forward protection with the reinforcements made to her transverse bulkheads. This beefs up her citadel protection to 368mm + 19mm at best or 297mm + 19mm at worst, depending on how high or low these forward penetration shells strike. The only ship that will severely be testing these forward bulkheads is the Yamato unless you over angle your Missouri. While this looks great on paper, it pays to look at the Missouri (and the Iowa-class overall) objectively where her durability is concerned. For people hoping that the Missouri would correct the errors in the Iowa citadel placement, don't hold your breath. It's still enormous. It's still extends well above the water line. She bow tanks decently, and that's about it. The buffs to her transverse bulkheads aside, the Missouri isn't the fixed Iowa-class some have been praying for. The German Battleships created a new standard for what "good" armour protection is back when they were introduced in the third quarter of this year. I hate to parrot my Iowa-review, but the Missouri doesn't have good protection. Her citadel is placed far too high in the water for that. If an enemy ship catches her broadside, you will take citadel damage -- it's almost a matter of course. Combined onto this, she has weak torpedo defenses with a paltry 1/4 reduction of torpedo strikes She also still has that enormous hole in her citadel protection directly to the rear, just beneath her #3 turret. In order to stay safe, the Missouri needs to bow tank -- keep all of her enemies directly in front of her. In this way, she can bounce an enormous level of punishment, forcing enemies to instead pick on her superstructure or switch over to high explosive fire in order to stack any reasonable form of damage. This isn't a trait unique to the Missouri or the Iowa-class as a whole. The Friedrich der Große is just as good at it, if not better with her improved deck armour around the turrets which can make even Battleship caliber HE explode for no damage. So what does this buff to the Missouri's transverse forward bulkhead mean, exactly? Well, it means it's a little harder for a Yamato to citadel you through the bow. It might occasionally come into play if you over angle and another battleship tries to bulls-eye your citadel from the front. I couldn't test this out in a training room to see for certain so pay close attention to this if you pick her up. Bow-tanking. It's not pretty. It's not historical. But it is effective. Concealment & Camouflage Surface Detection Range: 16.2km Air Detection Range: 14.2 km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 12.16km Concealment Penalty while Firing: +12.2km (vs 27.1km gun range) For a tier 9 Battleship, the Missouri has good concealment, particularly if she specializes into keeping herself undetectable by enemies. This allows her to finally make use of her speed and redeploy without nearly as much fear of having her citadel blown out the moment she's not presenting her bow towards her opponents. This all goes away the moment you fire her guns though, but that's to be expected with any Battleship. Anti-Aircraft DefenseAA Battery Calibers: 127mm / 40mm / 20mmAA Umbrella Ranges: 5.0km / 3.5km / 2.0kmAA DPS per Aura: 151 / 318 / 104 One of the most significant differences between the Missouri and the Iowa is her AA power. The Iowa has nineteen quad 40mm Bofors mounts while the Mighty Mo has twenty. The Iowa bests her with small caliber guns with thirty two dual-20mm Oerlikon mounts (for a total of 60 guns) to the twenty-nine single mounts found on the Missouri. It's these Oerlikon mounts which makes the difference giving the Iowa a 75dps advantage over the Mighty Mo up close. In practical terms? No CV player is going to want to get close to the Missouri when there are softer targets available, especially lower tiered carriers. Still, she shouldn't venture alone when there's an enterprising CV present. Midway and Hakuryu are more than capable of overwhelming even the formidable guns of the Missouri and ruining her day, especially with her general lack of agility to facilitate dodging a point blank drop. Nope.jpg. Try again, Hiryu. Overall Impressions Skill Floor:Simple/ Casual / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling:Low/ Moderate / High / Extreme How patient are you? Patience and planning largely defines success in the Iowa-class and the Missouri is no different. Reckless aggression will get you sunk in a hurry. Being overly cautious may preserve your ship but it won't win you any battles as your guns keep idle for fear of reprisals. This is a challenging ship to do well in, largely because of her fragility and how the bow-tanking and passive meta found in high tier game play will make finding those juicy targets so much more difficult. When top tier, you carry the heavy burden of needing to punch at your weight class and do a lion's share of the damage, but the Missouri's fragility to being caught broadside makes finding those opportunities difficult. Much of what I said in my Iowa review holds true to the Missouri. She's not terribly forgiving. If you catch the enemy in a bad position, you will look like a total rockstar, farming enormous amounts of damage. But if you just opt to trade fire with wary opponents, your results will be very lackluster. The truly excellent Iowa players look for and create these opportunities to shine while the mediocre wait for those one off games which hand them great results. Mouse's Summary: Excellent guns. Her protection almost seems good enough until it isn't. Which is often. Turns like a pregnant Yak in a mud wallow. Very respectable AA power. Pees on the high-tier economy and laughs at everyone who struggles to afford their tier 10 boats like they were filthy peasants. I spent a lot of time in Co-Op with the Missouri trying to isolate her credit earning potential. I suppose I owe the few not-bot team mates a sincere apology for my lack of performance in said matches. The only way to reliably get a measure of just how much the Missouri earned compared to other premiums involved getting myself killed without doing anything of consequence. A half dozen matches in the Missouri and the same done in the Tirpitz, Atago and Mikhail Kutuzov helped pin down the value of the Missouri's credit income. I can say with confidence: She earns approximately 50% more credits than a tier 8 premium ship. This is before any expenses, of course. For repair costs, the Missouri will set you back 60,000 credits. Compare this to the Iowa with premium camouflage, which spends 96,000 credits to fix the ship and earns only half of what the Missouri does. In the days leading up to the Missouri's release, there's been a lot of talk about equivalents to the Missouri's earning potential. This naturally comes at a consequence of the very high cost of the Missouri. 750,000 free experience is nothing to sneeze at. If you weren't already sitting on a significant pile of free experience before the price was leaked, you weren't likely to see this as an affordable sum -- not without some herculean grinding tolerances. While ships like the Montana and Iowa can match the Missouri for experience gains, they cannot touch her where credit earning is concerned. Tier 8 premiums are comparable to her earnings but even they fall short. In terms of time spent to rewards earned, the Missouri will outpace the tier 8 premiums. You'll need to play 3 games in your Atago to equate 2 in the Missouri for income earned. For those players who feel perpetually strapped for credits, I cannot stress how liberating this ship will be for them once they own it. Bad games in Random Battles will net you 200,000 to 300,000 credits. Good games can score upwards of a million. Even Co-Op becomes economically feasible for grinding credits with the Missouri and a premium account. So long as you can earn a minimum of 250 to 300 base experience, you will make money (not much at that low experience, but a fair chunk at 500xp games or higher). Once you peel back all of this money talk, the Missouri is an Iowa-class at the end of the day. She can bow tank. She can spank enemies with her 406mm rifles just as well as the Wisconsin ever could. But the buff to her forward armour didn't solve the vulnerability problems inherent with the class. The Iowa-class has always been reasonably strong when bow tanking -- that's not where the problem was. It's that enormous, high-water citadel that causes so many issues for the ship and that's not corrected in the Missouri. If you were hoping for an improved Iowa, I'm sorry to disappoint, the Missouri is only an incremental improvement in that regard and not the big step forward some of us were hoping for. Cool stuff like this only happens when someone royally screws up. Would I Recommend? So let's talk about cost. The Missouri will set you back 750,000 free experience. This will make her largely inaccessible for non-veteran players in World of Warships and reflects a rather unique way of selling a premium ship. Theoretically, any player of World of Warships could earn her for free given enough time. Realistically and practically speaking, most players are going to end up spending some form of real-world money to facilitate acquiring this ship. There's some pretty ingenious suggestions out there, such as combining signal flags and premium camouflage onto an Anshan or tier 9+ tech tree ship with premium camouflage for maximum free-experience gains. For someone to pay for enough doubloons for the equivalent, the EU server has a bundle of 30,500 doubloons (500 more than needed) for €100 -- which is about $110 USD. Of course, said bundle isn't (currently) available on the NA server which means on this side of the pond, a player will be shelling out about $130 USD. For different players, this represents an obstacle of varying difficulty. Some will be able to throw that kind of quid at the ship without a second thought while others will see it as insurmountable. Few ships create such a change in the game experience as the Missouri, if only from trivializing credit earning. Let me be clear, it's not like the amount of credits she earns cannot be obtained by other means. She simply makes it easier and laughably so. Time is money, after all, and those with the Missouri will have time to spare. ForRandom Battle Grinding: I would absolutely recommend her for grinding. She is, hands down, the best USN training ship and credit earning ship in the game -- a fact that is unlikely to be challenged anytime soon. The only ship that comes close to her totals is the German Prinz Eugen for Captain Training, but the German ship doesn't come close to her credit earning potential. So if you want to earn bank and accelerate training up your Captains, the Missouri is a must have. For Competitive Gaming: Is the Iowa-class competitive? You'd be a fool to take her instead of the Friedrich der Große, IMO. But this whole question is sort of moot with there being a distinctive lack of tier 9 competitive game play. If it ever comes up? No, don't use your Missouri. Use the Friedrich instead. For Collectors: What's wrong with you? Yes, it's the Missouri. For Fun Factor: I don't like the current high-tier meta in Random Battles of World of Warships. So the Missouri wasn't fun for me. I prefer my action up close and personal and that's difficult to achieve in high tier games on the North American server. Most Battleships seem terrified of getting anywhere near the cap circles. Engagement ranges are usually up in the 18km vicinity. It's passive, dull and heart breaking. It involves waiting for one side to make a mistake and punishing those that try and make a move. Outfitting your Mighty Mo I'm totally cutting corners here and repeating what I said for the Iowa. When you're equipping your Missouri, there are two primary roles to consider. The first is whether or not you intend to fully specialize her as an AA-Ship or not. This is hardly an optimal build, but if you hate Carriers with a vengeance, it has its merits. If you decide against this, you can instead choose one of two gunship builds which focus on either accuracy or firepower. Recommended Modules If you are selecting an AA build, you want the following choices to best optimize your firepower. This will provide extra range and extra DPS off of your AA guns. In addition, this build also adds to your agility, reducing your rudder shift time. For your first slot, take Main Armaments Modification 1. Even if you're specializing for anti-aircraft firepower, you're still a Battleship and increasing your main battery survival should be near paramount. If you really hate detonations, you can alternatively take Magazine Modification 1. This will make the chances of it happening absolutely miniscule. For your second slot, take AA Guns Modifaction 2 to increase your AA range by 20% if you want to be a flak-boat. Otherwise, you should be taking Artillery Plotting Room Modification 1. This will boost your secondary range and accuracy by 5% and your main battery range by 16% which is huge. For your third slot, AA Guns Modification 3 is your next choice for an AA-ship. This will add an additional 25% to your AA power. If you're choosing to be a gunship, now you have the choice. If you want to go for rate of fire, take Main Battery Modification 3. If you want to go for accuracy, take Artillery Plotting Room Modification 2. All of the choices in the fourth slot are pretty terrible. At least Damage Control System Modification 1 will add 2% to your torpedo damage reduction, so take that one. You're again faced with a choice here for the fifth slot and each have their own merits. If you want to improve your rudder shift time, take Steering Gears Modification 2. If you would prefer to reduce the amount of damage you take from fires that are left to burn for their full duration, then Damage Control System Modification 2 is your best choice. And lastly, for your sixth slot, between the two options, Concealment Modification 1 is the better option for all builds. Recommended Consumables When it comes to premium consumables, it's easy just to splurge with the Missouri because of how many credits she tends to earn. The only players that need really concern themselves with their inherent costs would be those without a premium account looking to focus primarily on Co-Op. However, there are some that are just worth taking from a game play perspective. The premium version of both the Damage Control Party and Repair Party are both very important for mitigating damage in a Battleship. This reduces their reset timer considerably and it can (and will) save your ship on numerous occasions. Of less importance is taking a premium version of the Radar consumable. This will reduce the reset timer from three minutes down to two. I find the Radar on the Missouri to be highly situational. I went for a premium version, but to be honest, I seldom use it. Recommended Captain Skills Again, depending on whether or not you want to specialize as an anti-aircraft vessel or not will affect your Captain Skill choices. Optimally, you'll want to build towards specializing her for concealment and firepower, not for anti-aircraft duties. From tier 1, Basic Fire Training is your best choice. Basics of Survivability is a nice follow up after you've unlocked your 16th skill point. From tier 2, Expert Marksman is best. At tier 3 you've got a choice. Superintendent is nice for the extra charge of your Repair Party, but is only really worthwhile if you regularly find yourself going through all four charges that you have with the premium version of the consumable. Alternatively, Vigilance can assist with spotting torpedoes early which is of more importance on the Missouri without access to a float plane. Lastly, High Alert is handy for reducing the strain on your already taxed Damage Control Party. At tier 4 this is where you will differ between AA and gunship builds. For both builds, take Advanced Fire Training first. AA builds should follow up with Manual Targeting for AA Armament to make CV lives miserable. Lastly at tier 5, Concealment Expert is very handy for the Missouri. It gives her the opportunity to finally use her long legs and redeploy as needs be -- or simply fade from a gunfight she doesn't want to participate in anymore.
  24. Darky_007

    Tripitz vs USN DD

    Well yesterday i got this problem T8 Tripitz vs T6 USN DD basically normal MM, but .... IJN BB and USN BB don't have torpedoes Tripitz have 6 km torpedo, USN DD who suppose to sunk him have 5.5 km.... and now better and better USN T7 DD stock have 4,5 km??? how to get DD on 3 km on T8 BB and survive????? So I got guns, but 127 mm vs T8 BB is Now BB have better torps then DD... Question for developers: What are you thinking when you give torpedoes to Tripitz???? Now you broke balance
  25. Hallo Seebären, also ich grinde die USN CVs hoch und habe mir vorgenommen nur Fighter Loadouts zu nehmen. Bis Tier 5 ging das auch relativ gut aber seid ich die Independence habe kommt es mir so vor als ob ich nichts mehr ausrichten kann gegen IJN CVs wegen höheren MM Ranking. Um die Performance der Flugzeuge zu vergleichen werde ich potenziellen Jägerschaden einführen (PJS), welches folgend berechnet wird: [Anzahl Staffeln]*[Munition]*[DPS pro Flugzeug]*[Anzahl Flugzeuge pro Staffel]=[PJS]* Mir ist klar, das der reale Schaden ausgewürfelt wird aber das Würfeln ist für alle Tiers gleich also wird das nicht berücksichtigt. Außerdem werde ich die Variable potenzielles Leben (PLT) für Torpedobomber einführen, welches folgend berechnet wird: [Anzahl Staffeln]*[HP pro Flugzeug]*[Anzahl Flugzeuge pro Staffel]=[PLT]* *[PJS] und [PLT] werden OHNE Modifikationen und Käptn Skills berechnet Kampfkraft des USN Fighter Loadouts nach Tiers Tier PJS Cruise Speed V 19080 127 VI 18576 125 VII 31248 147 Insgesamtes Leben aller Torpedobomberstaffeln des IJN Strike Setups nach Tiers Tier PLT Cruise Speed V 11880 99 VI 14160 107 VII 16440 111 Allein wenn man sich die Zahlen anschaut erkennt man, das die Independence ein Rückschritt gegenüber der Bogue ist und nichts im Tier VI zu suchen hat. Es fällt ausserdem auf, das man nicht genug Muntion bzw Jäger zur Verfügung hat um ALLE Gegnerstaffeln abzuschießen sondern nur die Torpedobomber (die Independence kann nicht mal das). In der Realität ist es aber etwas anders: Man muss erstmal die Bomber finden und wenn man mit einen Bomber kämpft dann wird dieser langsamer und fällt aus der Formation. Dies macht die Jäger auch langsamer. Dadurch kommen alle anderen Bomber ins Ziel bis auf den einen den man angegriffen hat. Da man 2 Jäger hat, kann man 2 Bomber aufhalten. Also ein Torpedobomber und alle anderen Sturzbomber kommen ins Ziel. Im Match heißt das, ohne Kreuzer Geleitschutz bin ich als Independence tot. Wenn die Bomber ihre Ladung abgeworfen haben, dann sind sie in etwa genau so schnell wie meine Jäger, sprich nicht mehr einholbar. Ich habe zwar noch keine Ranger aber ich gehe davon aus, das bei der Ranger genau das selbe passieren würde. Das heißt pro Angriff verliert man als IJN CV mindestens 2 TB Staffeln + Verluste durch meine Flugabwehr. Man kann auch nicht viel anders machen da man es nicht schafft die Jäger wieder landen und starten zu lassen während des Angriffs. Ein großes Problem hat man mit 2 IJN CVs im Gegnerteam: Die Masse an Staffeln kann man alleine nicht mehr handhaben. Mein Vorschlag wäre es entweder: Den Schaden der USN Fighter massiv zu buffen oder ihnen eine zusätzliche Staffel zur Verfügung zu stellen. Dann stellt sich aber die Frage wie man das mit den USN Striker Loadouts balancen möchte, denn die haben ja nur ein TB am Start. Was meinen die IJN CV Käptns dazu? Euch müsste es auch aufgefallen sein, dass die USN Fighter ein schlechter Witz geworden sind. [EDIT der Tabellen wegen falscher Berechnung]
×