Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aft'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


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


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 8 results

  1. As the title, is AFT still recommended after all the changes to AA and carriers? (for any AA cruiser, but specifically RN - Neptune and Minotaur) I'm sceptical it's as much use as Radio Location would be, especially if radar is used now and again.. Any thoughts?
  2. who_dares_wins

    Flint in the current meta

    Okay, so I've very recently earned enough steel to buy myself a Flint, and it's fairly safe to say that I'm not doing very well in it. I don't think it's the overall style of ship, because I've played smoke cruisers, USN light cruisers and other machine gun style ships to a good standard before, leading me to conclude that my issue with the Flint is me not being used to playing cruisers with crappy range. I don't have enough points yet for AFT, and the 11.1km base range leads to me either being overly aggressive and getting killed early, or overly passive and not doing much damage. Additionally, whilst the AA cuts tier VI planes up like ribbons, Tier VIII CVs have enough staying power to spot me regularly enough to disrupt my positioning. This leads me to my question: How do I position the Flint in the current meta? I know the general idea: islands and smoke, DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA, and I intend to take AFT as soon as I can, but I'd like to know your tips on getting close enough to deal significant damage and also get out again. It's frustrating, because on those rare games I have where I manage to pull it off, Flint is really fun to play, but most of the time I end up screwing up and exploding spectacularly. Advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
  3. Hi all, Do you still use BFT & AFT on your ships (regarding free Commander re-spec in upcoming WoWs v0.8.2)? I had AFT on most of my cruisers but I will remove it in WoWs v0.8.2 because the AA effect is simply not worth it IMHO (I left it after WoWs v0.8.x just in case)! Therefore my one and only captain with BFT & AFT will remain the 19-point fully secondary specced commander of "Großer Kurfürst" (and "Tirpitz" / "Scharnhorst" / "Prinz Eitel Friedrich" / "König Albert")... Leo "Apollo11" P.S. Small clarification - I was asking regarding BFT & AFT mainly in light of AA benefit for CAs/CLs/BBs and not about gunboat DDs (which are class of their own).
  4. Bonjour, bonsoir à vous tous. Pour commencer: 1) j’espère ne pas poster au mauvais endroit 2)Non il ne s'agit pas d'un post ouin oui/réaction à chaud ou autre, seulement d'une proposition d'équilibrage. Vous connaissez tous (j’espère) les compétences de commandant BFT et AFT. En soit la compétence ne pose pas (enfin selon moi) de problème sur les destroyers et croiseurs. Le problème est pour moi centré sur les cuirassé orientés secondaires. Oui je parles de vous Bismark/FdG/GK et autre Alsace/République. Je ne joue pas CV, mais les streams/vidéo et autre screens avec des montant d'avions abattus sur des navires pas prévus à cet effet nous montres que ces navires qui sont pourtant sensé être faible vis à vis de l'aviation deviennent capables de découper des escadrons avec une "certaine facilité". Je me suis donc demandé si un rework de AFT/BFT ne serais pas envisageable. D'une part une version AA et de l'autre une version secondaire (soit en crééant une version AA et une versio Secondaire, soit en devant sélectionner le bonus de notre choix). Les bonus apportés serait très proches de la version existante de la compétence mais plus précis. Version AA Version Secondaire Bien entendu on ne touche pas au bonus de portée de la batterie principale pour ne pas impacter les navires comme les DD (Gearing, Akizuki ou autres...) qui prendront toujours AFT/BFT version AA, idem pour les croiseurs qui se monte AA qui garderons AFT/BFT en version AA. Les navires les plus touché seront les cuirassée, on ne verras plus de GK secondaire avec des l'AA (81.8 dps à 2.4km, 257.4 à 6 et 163.7 à 6.2) et des secondaires à 11.6km ou des République secondaire avec des secondaires à 12.1km et de l'AA (402.6dps à 5.4km, 43.6 à 6km et 165 à 6.2km). On verras ne pas non plus de Montana monté AA (même si ça se fait pas trop) avec de l'AA (95 dps à 2.9km, 159.7 à 2.9km, 418,4 à 5km et 207.2 à 7.5km) et des secondaires qui portes à 7.6km. Peut être que le rework des CV apporteras aussi un rework de l'AA et des compétences de commandant, mais pour le moment voici ce que je propose. J'espère avoir était assez clair et compréhensible. N’hésitaient pas à faire vos retour, poser vos question, continuer la réflexion. Bonne journée et bon jeu à tous. Ah, oui aussi, désolé si il y a des fautes de français/grammaire trop flagrantes ou quoi que se soit n'hésitaient pas à me le signaler.
  5. Hey I been wondering if the developers have even noticed / cared about what happened to Marblehead. AFT nerf has hit hard to many ships but i think Mablehead suffered the most of it. They buffed some ships like Albany and Kutuzov for the loss of range. But i think Marblehead needs 1-2km more range for the compensation. It will be spotted before it can shoot. Only way now to fix this issue is having Concealment Expert but i think its kinda harsh. Marblehead has always been in "not so good ship category" with alot of flaws. But dont get me wrong, I love this ship and thats why i made this thread because i care : )
  6. Hi all, IMHO the gradual dispersion for everything is always better than strict "binary ON/OFF" cut-off points! This would mean that all classes of ships (DD, CA/CL, BB) would benefit and that no user would be feeling "cheated"! In other words... Basic Firing Training -10% to reload time of guns with a caliber of up to 139 mm (was 155 mm till v0.5.3).+10% to AA efficiency (accuracy). Why not introduce gradual dispersion based on caliber (for example)? -10% up to 139 mm -8% from 139 mm to 155 mm -5% from 155 mm to 203 mm -3% from 203 mm to 460 mm Advanced Firing Training +20% to firing range of guns with caliber of up to 139 mm (was 155 mm till v0.5.3).+20% to AA defense firing range. Why not introduce gradual dispersion based on caliber (for example)? +20% up to 139 mm +15% from 139 mm to 155 mm +10% from 155 mm to 203 mm +5% from 203 mm to 460 mm Expert Marksman +2.5 deg/s to the traverse speed of guns with a caliber of up to 139 mm (was 155 mm till v0.5.3).+0.7 deg/s to the traverse speed of guns with a caliber above 139 mm (was 155 mm till v0.5.3). Why not introduce gradual dispersion based on caliber (for example)? +2.5 deg/s up to 139 mm +2 deg/s 139 mm to 155 mm +1 deg/s from 155 mm to 203 mm +0.7 deg/s from 203 mm to 460 mm Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament -15% to the maximum dispersion of secondary armament shells for Tier I-VI ships -60% to the maximum dispersion of secondary armament shells for Tier VII-Х ships Why not introduce gradual dispersion based on Tier (for example)? -15% for Tier I -20% for Tier II -25% for Tier III -30% for Tier IV -35% for Tier V -40% for Tier VI -45% for Tier VII -50% for Tier VIII -55% for Tier IX -60% for Tier X This was gradual increases would make everyone feeling that they all got something! Please reconsider! Leo "Apollo11"
  7. Considering all the issues with AFT/BFT/EM in 0.5.3. and corresponding Kutuzov buffs I think it would be wise to add Kutuzov for all/most players taking part in second round of testing starting tomorrow. It would allow to collect import data about the ship and its performance after supposed changes in 0.5.3.
  8. In this thread [LINK] someone asks a question about the maximum AA-rating you can reach on a ship. So my curiosity shows up. I current own the Iowa with the C-Hull. The "pure" AA-rating is 67. If I now add my commander with BFT (1-point-skill; +10% efficiency) the rating raises from 67 to 70. The AA Gun Modification 2 (+20% firing range) raises the rating from 67 to 79. (no commander) Both (BFT and AA-GM2) will give you 82. So it seems that the bonus is always calculated by the base value. Adding the the AA Gun Modification 3 (+20% effectiveness)* to the AA-GM2 raises the AA-value from 79 to 85. (no commander) Assign again the commander with BFT to the ship with AA-GM2 and AA-GM3 raises the AA-rating from 85 to 88. Giving the commander also the AFT (4-point-skill; +20% firig range) raises the value from 88 to 98. You can raise your AA-Defense raiting from 67 with two skills and two modules to 98. * I wonder if there is a difference between efficiency and effectiveness? Here I am only guessing: the Basis Firing Training gives you a bonus of ~4.5% the Advanced Firing Training gives you a bonus of ~15% the AA Gun Modification 2 gives you a bonus of ~18% the AA Gun Modification 3 gives you a bonus of ~9% I just tested it on my only american premium ship with an AA-rating: the Albany. The ship alone has a rating of 4. A commander with BFT and AFT should add 19.5%. So the rating should raise from 4 to 4.78 with a commander with these two skills. And the result ingame is a rating of 5. So it seem correct. Second test: Cleveland has base value of 40. With the AA-GM2 is raises to 48. Here is the first discrepancy, because 40+18% is only 47.2. Adding a commander with BFT and AFT raises the value to 60. But again calculating with the values above 40+4.5%+15%+18% is only 55 not 60. So, there are two questions left: Is there a difference between efficiency and effectiveness? Can some else verify or falsify those values?