Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'battleship'.

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
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Outdated Mods
    • Archive
  • Developers' Section
    • Questions and Answers
  • Historical Section


  • Community Calendar
  • Deutschsprachige Community
  • Polska Społeczność
  • Communauté francophone
  • Česká a slovenská komunita
  • Comunidad de habla española
  • Türkçe Topluluk

Found 188 results

  1. Wich faction have the better BB?

    I have tier Nagato, New Mexico and Scharnhorst and I want to star other line of bb but I dont know what is better, ¿ English BB, french or germans? Thanks to all the people who answer my question.
  2. Musashi isn't balance

    Goodmorning, what do you think about the musachi? I think is too stronk tier 9 bb, i have the izumo and i can't do anything for counter that ship
  3. Iowa AA is missing

    I have observed long ago that Iowa is missing a ton of Oerlikon mounts, by the end of the War she had 19 quad Bofors mounts and 52 single Oerlikon mounts, however in the game once you hit C hull, she only has 32 dual Oerlikon mounts. I ask why? The Alabama has the exact number of 52 single Oerlikon mounts and they're great just the way they are, so why doesn't Iowa boast the same historically accurate loadout that the Alabama does? Iowa is missing: -2 Oerkilon mounts on her bow -2 Oerlikon mounts directly fore of her foremost two Bofors mounts, just in front of Turret #1 -3 Oerlikon mounts on top of Turret #2 -2/2 Oerlikon mounts on each side, 1/1 just behind 5" guns 51 and 52 (her foremost dual 5" mounts) For those that do not know, on the NC-class, SoDak-class and the Iowa-class, their 10 5" mounts were 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 on her starboard and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 on her port side, ie: 51, 52, 53, etc. the 5 indicating the caliber of the guns. And 1/1 Oerlikon mounts just fore of the two lateral Mark 37 gun directors on the two sides of the front funnel -9 Oerlikon mounts just aft of her #3 Turret Alabama's AA layout has been rendered in a historically accurate manner, Iowa's should be as well.
  4. Bullet Spread und Zielerfassung.

    Hey, bin noch recht neu in dem Spiel aber habe mich direkt in die Schlachtschiffe verliebt. Nun habe ich irgendwo gehört das man Ziele erfassen kann (Sichere Erfassung ?) damit die Granaten nicht so weit verteilt auf das anvisierte Schiff fliegen sondern in kleinen Gruppen mit höherer Trefferwahrscheinlichkeit. Jetzt interessiert mich eben ob es dafür eine manuelle Erfassung gibt die ich erst irgendwie aufschalten muss oder ob das Spiel das auch automatisch macht (Dieses Fadenkreuz um das gegnerische Schiffssymbol ? ) Danke schon mal im vorraus, MfG euer Hammond.
  5. Hey there everyone, So I'm in the process of grinding for credits in the Missouri, but there was a forum post on the NA sever, where someone said that if you go after DDs and a couple of cruisers, you'd make a higher amount of credits than if you were going after Battleships, due to the way the reward systems work. Is this true? I know that Missouri has the tools to hunt destroyers, but does it really pay off? and if it isn't true, what targets DO make your more credits? Missouri does NOT make 1,000,000 credits per game: This was the title of the post Until Next post, USSARIZONA_2015
  6. Strike Groups - 16 Team Tournament

    Strike Groups A unique gameplay mode not currently offered in Warships. Currently Carrier gameplay is either solitary 1v1 or unorganised 2v2 (Tier 7 and below) matches in random battles. In “competitive” game modes Carriers are excluded from Clan Battles and in King of the Sea, the Carrier is relegated to a glorified scout unable to effectively strike (until very late-game) due to the hostile Anti-Air & Defensive fire nature of Tier 8-10 gameplay. There is no gamemode similar to the Battle of Midway for example with organised Strike groups battling it out against each other. So lets make our own then! In this 3CV1BB game mode, the Strike Group must learn to work together in the chaotic battle-space on April the 28th 2018! The Gameplay ruleset is a little different from anything done before. Team composition: Teams must consist of three carriers and one battleship All ships must be Tier 7 Maximum of two Premium ships allowed per team Each premium must be unique (ie one of each only) Hiryu and Saipan must played in a “Balanced setup” Hiryu 2-2-2, Saipan 2-2-0 Teams that bring 3-1-2 or 3-0-1 setups will forfeit that game! Tournament format: (Glossary; Game = Single battle between two teams, Round = Best of 3 played games) 16 teams in a single elimination format tournament on the European Server Each round of the tournament is played in a Best of 3 games format Maps: Both teams play as North and South on the map “Okinawa” Tiebreaker (1-1 score) games are played on the map “Ocean” Game format: Battles take place in the "Training Room" Game mode is “Standard Battle” with 20 minutes gametime Teams must take screenshots of the match result to help resolve any disputes At least one member of a team must have replays enabled to help resolve any disputes Teams can swap lineups after each game Teams can “gg” to admit defeat in a game Game Victory conditions; Sink all enemy ships Capture enemy base Win by ingame points if 20 minutes gametime expires If a Draw occurs (equal points after 20 minutes) neither team scores a point If score is 1-0 and a draw occurs neither team scores a point. The team with 1 point wins the best of 3 (tiebreaker is only for 0-0 or 1-1 scores) If first game ends in a draw, the winner of the second game wins the best of 3 (tiebreaker is only for 0-0 or 1-1 scores) If the second game results in a draw the Tiebreaker is played (ie 0-0 score after two games) If a tiebreaker game ends in a draw the winning team is decided by most enemy planes killed In the highly unlikely event a tiebreaker ends in a draw and both teams have equal enemy plane kills… I’m going to flip a coin. Teams signup: Teams can sign up via our Discord, or in this thread (only requests after 7th April 09:00 CEST will secure a position in the tournament) Sign up is on a first come basis Teams sign up as either from a Clan group or a custom named team (ie multiple teams from one clan or members from multiple clans coming together to form one team) Teams can be no larger than 5 players (4 active & 1 reserve) Teams that sign up must provide a roster of their members No player can play for more than one team/clan Discord: Discord is the main platform for answering questions and posting updates for teams. At least one of your team members must be available on discord. You can join using this link Rewards: Thanks to WarGaming for providing prizes to the top three placed teams First place is awarded a Tier 7 Premium Battleship or Aircraft Carrier of choice Second place is awarded 25 x FTW Camouflage + 25 x Hydra signal Third place is awarded 7 days premium (bonus code) Schedule & Stream: Entire tournament takes place over Saturday the 28th April 2018 First Round starts at 14:00 CEST with the Finals ending no later than 20:00 CEST Estimated Round Start times can be found here Challonge Tournament Bracket Link can be found after we have 16 signed up teams (I hope we get 16!) Most of the tournament will be casted & streamed by Farazelleth (ie me) @ twitch.tv/farazelleth Anyone else wishing to cast additional games please feel free to get in contact. Signups will open on Saturday the 7th of April at 09:00 CEST Please read the rules fully before registering
  7. Eventually Vanguard would make its appearence in World of warships, Hopefully in the tier 8 or even 9 bracket. What would you like to be the ships features and characteristics? I hope for a design that emphasizes on AP rather than HE, deadly accurate guns, nice handling, good penetration values. Since it was the world last battleship to be completed, it should reflect qualities that made the ship better than its predecessors. Although it has only 8 15" guns similar to Warspite, Hood and many other RN battleships, it could make use of the supercharge propellant and better fire control direction. What do you think?
  8. American battleships' Gun Director bug

    Why do the Mark 37 gun directors (4 can be found on most battleships and on destroyers like the Fletcher, Benson, etc.) on American battleships turn with the main batteries? The Mark 37s guided the dual purpose 5" guns. It was only the Mark 38s that guided the main batteries (the ones on the two highest points of US BBs: can be observed on Iowa-class, Montana-class, North Carolina-class, South Dakota-class). Wargaming only got the Alabama's directors right as they don't turn with the main batteries, only the Mark 38s do. Although it would be cool if the Mark 37s did turn with the Mark 28 5" dual turrets on BBs.
  9. Missouri performance.

    How's Missouri performing for you, battleship captains? I mean recent performance. I don't want to suggest anything, but from my meager observations, and other reports from clans and forums, a lot of people started to complain about this ship. Dispersion, penetration and AP damage got worse - mainly that is what people often say about Missouri. Don't want to put a tin foil hat on my head, but I am just wondering whether there's more people who observed something similar.
  10. Which class determines victory? Answer the poll above - A really simple question which I find myself arguing over endlessly with clanmates. I find there is also a very big problem currently with the game because of my opinion on this. If equal numbers of ships on each team, which carries? Which class seriously and simply outright determines the outcome of a battle? We're talking random battles here and I've left carriers out of this poll on purpose.
  11. Star Wars Tech Vs Arpeggio of Blue Steel Tech

    Hey There Fellas, Before any of you ask why I'm asking this, I am currently writing a story, and I am stuck at a problem. since Normal Ships cannot harm arpeggio Ships without using a vibration warhead, I was going to implement the Imperial I Class Star Destroyer as a way of countering the Fleet of fog, but would It work? can a Star Destroyer's weapons Break through an Arpeggio ships force field, or a "Klein Field" ? Or maybe better stated, Can a Star Destroyers Tech overcome Arpeggio Tech? Thanks for any Info! Until Next Post, USSARIZONA_2015 PS, I'm an Idiot for asking this :S
  12. Get rid of Izumo

    Before we go any further I do have experience with the Dunkerque with its two forward turrets and I deliberately bought this ship in order to get used to the unusual gun configuration that would be on the Izumo. In other words I know how to play the ship. The Izumo as a battleship at tier 9 is simply just not cut out for the tier. The Amagi would be better suited for tier 9 than the Izumo. Due to the large size of the Izumo it has poor concealment even with the upgrades resulting in many occasions where a cruiser can spam HE rounds without revealing their position to me that's how bad it is. The 410mm guns are nothing short of shotguns and that's with the B Hull. They do little damage if they even hit the target and completely fail to penetrate an Iowa at 5km. Playing with the Amagi these guns were good even with the RNG. Just simply put the Izumo a fire magnet and I'll confess I've enjoyed shooting at them with the Amagi the ship is an easy target to hit. There were many design prototypes back in the 1930s with Izumo being one of them, perhaps WG should look into finding something else or rearrange the tech tree like they did with Japanese destroyers, i.e. the Fubuki becoming tier 6. What do you guys think, is it worth keeping it at tier 9 on the Japanese tech tree or should another ship take its place?
  13. The question is, devs forgot about this module(maybe because it wasn't avilable for bbs since now) or we eventually get it to battleships too, because currently we can't use it on them as the description says :(
  14. How To Play American Battleships?

    hey there Fellas, So I know this might have already been answered years and Years ago, but i wanted to ask for myself... How do I play American Battleships in today's meta and the meta to come? such as how to support your fleet in the right way, or when is the right time to push, or when it isn't the right time to push, or when to tank and how to do it properly, or what tier is good for practicing US BBs. I will be upfront and say that I'm aggressive when it comes to playing American Battleships, mostly because I don't want to be known as a camper, but I end up usually sinking in the end because of how I push, and its led me to ask, what am I doing wrong? I appreciate any advice given! Until Next Post, USSARIZONA_2015
  15. Heavy Baguettes

    Question is , who was lucky enough to get a misson from the boxes and got the french battleships now , are we going to keep them after they gets released?
  16. After abusing my new uberlikes to further my anti-battleship agenda and finally digging myself out of my self-perpetuated cycle of procrastination, I'm baaaack~ Before we go on into this article, I would like to extend my public and formal apology to @El2aZeR for something else. He has helped me greatly in creating an article meant to instruct newer carrier players on the art of carriers. That has been indefinitely postponed. The Universal Class The term "universal class" can mean different things. It could mean a generalist class that could do just about anything, it could mean the most average class with the most balanced abilities across the stat sheets, or it could mean the class that is meant to take up the largest numbers of spots in a team. In a game where a single player manages many units, this is fundamentally different from a game where the matchmaker has a first come first serve policy. A game where the class that is meant to occupy the largest number of spots in a team but doesn't is an imbalanced game. The battleship numbers at the medium to high tiers in particular is passed imbalanced. The scale has tipped off balanced, tumbled off the table, and rolled itself into the Marinara trenched. A panda's diet is more balanced than the game right now, and the nerfs to the battleship class and buffs to the cruiser class has done little to address the problems with the game. This article isn't about what to nerf on battleships but to talk about why I think that the battleship plague was as inevitable as the heat death or any conversation about religion, politics, or waifus destroying friendships. The problem ultimately is relatively simple: cruisers fail as a universal class. People may think of this as an oversimplification, so to refute this I would like to cite the third law of thermodynamics: "das is always right". Whilst many war games would start newer players off with a smaller unit and let them work their way up to heavier armed units, WoWS starts you off with a cruiser. Cruisers, as opposed to destroyers, are also the most numerous class in the game in terms of variety with them contributing far more silver ships than any other class. This is all the more worrying in the context of the game where cruiser numbers quite commonly can go as low as 1 per team where it's an anomaly for battleship numbers to dip below 3 and numbers from 4-6 are far from rare. There are many who argue against the battleship plague even being a thing, but the numbers speak far louder than any flimsy ad hoc justification and arguments from personal incredulity possibly could. It is a fact that some of the worst players in the game find battleships rewarding and that battleships are far more common than just about any other class at the higher tiers in particular. I am of the belief that players will eventually gravitate towards the state of maximum reward for minimum effort which is where I believe the problem comes in. The problem isn't that battleships overperform or that they have too much armor or even that they could do too much damage. Being the class that does the most damage or has the most armor isn't fundamentally a problem, it's the way that the problems compound that causes the problem. The underlying issue is that battleships are simply performs the role of a better universal ship class than cruisers and the issue lies with the game mechanics themselves and will not be fixed by twiddling with the class performance. The Battleship Problem Much has been made of the battleship plague. The nigh-extinction of cruisers and carriers at the medium to higher tiers, the resurgence in torpedo boat destroyers, and the dominance of the Midway on damage charts are all symptoms of the larger battleship problem. The battleship problem is far reaching due to the fact that the game is built around them not being the universal class. The ability for battleships to kill other ship classes in a single salvo whilst persistently resisting incoming damage would be fine if they were a slightly rarer and more difficult to master class from a gameplay perspective. The problem, however, is that everything in the battleship class from the way that overmatching functions to the ease on transitioning between nations is characteristic of a universal and not a specialist class. Bang Bang Goes the Sniper Attack of the Clones Compensation Much? More Unnecessary Armor Battleships, Shore to Salty Shore Playing the Numbers Power of the Heart Cruisers and the Specialist Class Before I make this point, I would like to you a little more about myself. I am terrible with destroyers. Destroyers, basically being small ships, are a bit like children and I react to children like most people react to parasitic worms. That is what children are anyways with their tiny malformed bodies and- The point behind this is that despite being a poor destroyer captain, I chose the American destroyers as one of my first destroyer lines. With the Farragut, I would be able to average 40k damage against enemy ships by sitting in a smoke screen and raining fire on enemy battleships. For reference, this meant that my first tier 6 destroyer averaged better damage than my first tier 8 cruiser. I was able to do this because back then, high explosive caliber basically didn’t matter. As long as you could get shells down range and hit the target, you would deal hideous amounts of damage against whatever you are shooting at. It was the age where the St. Louis, Cleveland, and Mogami were the most powerful ships in the seas. I would talk about some solutions, but I quite frankly think that this article has gone on for quite long enough even by my standards. If this feels like an abrupt end, that’s because it really was. You may consider this to be an artifact of me going rusty after not having done an article for so long but you’d be wrong. There are things that Wargaming could do from tooling battleship into something more or a generalist class than it is now to changes to the cruiser class to make them the easier class for newer players. That will have to wait until later. It’s a bit like a DLC to milk even more attention.So you see, I’m not incompetent. I’m just evil. All the best.
  17. Alabama bug

    I possess the American Tier 8 Premium battleship, the USS Alabama, I have played many many games with her seeing as how it's my favorite ship inside and outside of the game. I have observed that the forward and aft Mark 37 Fire Directors do not turn with the guns towards the target as they would on other battleships like the North Carolina, Iowa, etc.It's a small graphic issue, but it has been bugging me for quite a while. I hope that this issue will get a fix.
  18. Alabama bug

    I possess the American Tier 8 Premium battleship, the USS Alabama, I have played many many games with her seeing as how it's my favorite ship inside and outside of the game. I have observed that the forward and aft Mark 37 Fire Directors do not turn with the guns towards the target as they would on other battleships like the North Carolina, Iowa, etc.It's a small graphic issue, but it has been bugging me for quite a while. I hope that this issue will get a fix.
  19. 8. seviye Amerikan uçak gemisi aldım. Eşleştirmelerde durmadan 9 ve 10. seviye gemilere denk geliyorum. Sadece bir 9. seviye battleship zırhlı gemi 48 uçağımı ben atış yapamadan düşürdü. 9. seviye destroyer muhrip aynı anda baskın yapan 12 adet bombardıman uçağını düşürdü. 7. seviye uçak gemisiyle 100.000 hasar verirken 8. seviyede sadece 30.000 hasar verebiliyorum. Bunu tecrübe eden başkası var mı? Bu seviyelerde uçak gemisinin bir değeri kalmıyor mu?
  20. Gneisenau

    Just screenshots of results of battle Maybe, you can post other screen result of battle per damage>150 000?
  21. carrier balance suggestion.

    the carriers need more love and maybe become a little more forgiving so more people will play them. I got a suggestion that will make deleting a battleship nearly inpossible but still balance it out bey making the planes last longer. maybe instead of making AA more prominent make the planes harder to kill but still easyer to desperse. the battleships where actually very well protected from the smaller payload of of the carrier planes. so the carriers can do nearly no damage to the torpedo protection of a battleship but can still do alot of damage to a cruiser (that can dodge more easely). so carriers need to hit the nose or tail of the ship to do damage and cause a flood. so for example grober currywurst: 25% torpedo protection /78% airdropped torpedo protection (on the belt only and also variate the bulge so most protection in the center). and then balance it out by making planes harder to kill. carriers will be able to play a whole game with there squadrons + do alot of damage with floods/fires etc by making a hit on the nose or aft a near certain flood. then ofc the only problem will be the DD,s wont be able to kill the scout constantly lighting them up. u can solve this by making the planes more velnerable the longer they are near the same target. wy woudnt AA crews learn the habits of a pilot after staring at his acrobatics for an extended period of time :-D
  22. Musashi P2W

    With the Reviews in from LWM and Notser it is what I suspected an easy to play idiot proof BB that requires little skill and again gives the middle finger to the community in the current climate of BB meta. For me as an average player this would be an ideal ship however out of principle I will not be getting it , As of right now I was hoping to be more active in Wows as I have a bit more spare time on my hands getting near retirement and all but from the release of the Musashi WG have abandoned any notion of curbing the current BB meta and if anything are increasing and promoting it thus providing even more stale gameplay and camping. I've been playing Wows since Closed Beta it was fun the mechanics were fun before all the gimmicks arrived games were fast and numbers seemed even on all classes , 30k-40k numbers at peak proved how fun those times were , But now numbers have declined the Meta has gone sour and despite numerous threads by WG loyal forum members about the BB meta and the Mighty Mo WG in all there wisdom have decided to release a potato friendly point and click beast at T9 thus making sure that for T7-T10 will be full of prem BBs far better than there silver line equivalent in essence p2w. As I have mentioned in other threads the impact of this ship on mid tier gameplay will be huge all the strengths of the other BBs will be mute the KGV belt armour , The Tirpitz Bow , The Nelsons positioning and the poor old Rado will simply be blown out of the water by the stupidity of allowing 460mm guns at tier 9 combined with its awesome armour layout make it a park and shoot the ducks. What's even more laughable its so called weaknesses like higher citadel and lack of AA are meaningless , WG have all but abandoned CVs even mid tier you might see 1 in 3 games and even if the CV does get a good strike on the monster 55% Torp protection means feck all to a 97k beast , As for the citadel well if this thing goes bow on and uses the channels unless your flank gets wiped or your a complete idiot the chance of you getting citadelled are slim to say the least I've learnt that in the Nelson with less armour although in the Nelson you can get bow citadelled now and again. I'm sorry to say with the release of this ship WG have basically abandoned skill for ease of use and are in effect killing off there own game imho , I saw the same thing happen in Wowp where one tier 9 heavy German fighter ruined the whole meta but at least you had to grind the silver lines to get it and it wasn't a premium. Anyone who thinks this ship is a good addition to the game needs there head testing its probably thee most overpowered ship ever to be released imho , At least ships like the Belfast and Kami need some element of skill to play this monster needs feck all. Well done WG for yet again you have totally disregarded your CCs and your community and yet again a ship that is so op makes it past the testers not for first time but for the 10th just to make a fast buck I really think Wows is now in decline and by releasing this ship sort of proves the point they have gone past caring. Thx for reading.........
  23. IJN BB and BC tree

    Firstly the intro Im a spanish guy (and i already apologize for bad english) who loves the IJN BCs and 8 8 fleet plan So i wanted the Ashitaka and Kii Sadly my wallet cant take them, at least for now I have done 3 topics regarding buffs and improvements to the Eugen and the Kii plus a cry post on the Ashitaka You can check them here if you dare reading in Spanish Sadly you will probably dont catch the jokes Eugen topic Kii Ashitaka Now the problem As i said, i want to make a full tree of IJN BB and BC starting in the Kawa and then from tier 4 upwards the line will be splitted https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10SkC-pjMCGE2Xta92yDBOqQoOwkjuwr0z2puWwACDPc I hope the link works I will use Fuso preliminar for the “Fuso prot” spot Yamashiro 39 is a placeholder, same as Hiei 42 The Owari is used cause Kii is premium The Yamato prot aka Izumo could be changed thus i prefer to say that rather than the ingame one Finally i want to say than this is difficult and a bit time limited cause my real life status (university problems) I really hope you all who read this have a nice day and if some of you who have the ships i ask, i would like you to help me Again, sry for bad english
  24. yamato or conqueror?

    ahoy folks, quick question.. im about to grind a bb line and im torn between yamato and conqueror. i get mixed messages from youtube etc about how well they perform. i have fun with both lines tier 5 and 6 so far but effectively only really time to grind one out. what would you suggest as first tier x battleship?
  25. In the video Musashi has the 44 refit of more Anti-Air guns and removed some secondary guns for it. ¨While the ship was under repair in April 1944, the two 15.5 cm wing turrets were removed and replaced with three triple 25 mm gun mounts each. A total of twenty-one triple 25 mm mounts and 25 single mounts were added at that time, giving the ship a light AA armament that numbered one hundred and thirty 25 mm guns.¨ Why is the Naval Legends using the '44 refit in the video, but not the Musashi we will see in-game?? I think this is a poor balancing of Tier in the matchmaking of not using the latest upgrade Musashi got. Musashi wasn't know for shooting planes down like a boss, but would do a good job of defending it self to it's capability. Think Wargaming should give us the final version of Musashi, not the first build.