Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'belfast'.



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 33 results

  1. CaptainObvious79

    Belfast vs Fiji

    Moinsen, bei den Briten gibt es zwei leichte Kreuzer, die ich geil finde: die Tier VII Belfast (Premium) und die Tier VII Fiji (Techtree). Ich habe beide, komme mit der Fiji aber deutlich besser klar. Die Belfast ist inzwischen nur noch sehr selten zu bekommen weil sehr stark. Andererseits spricht m E niemand davon die Fiji zu nerfen. Weshalb ist jetzt aber die Belfast so viel stärker? Für die Belfast spricht, dass sie bessere Verborgenheit hat und Zugang zum fünften Slot, so dass sie diese noch steigern kann. Zudem hat sie Zugriff auf AP und HE. (und Radar, das hatte ich ganz vergessen, stimmt!) Dafür hat die Fiji Torpedos und Heal.. Ich würde jetzt vermuten, dass die Fiki einsteigerfreundlicher ist, während die Belfast in den Händen von Könnern deutlich stärker ist? Eure Minungen? Grüße Obvious
  2. Tamalla

    World of Waships Legends

    Warum hat Legends hier keinen eigenen Bereich oder gar ein eigenes Forum? Man verkauft hier die "Belfast" nicht mehr, weil sie zu OP ist in der Kombination der Verbrauchsgüter und HE- nun kommt sie aber am Montag mit dem gleichen Setup auf die Konsole! Warum?
  3. I just thought it might be interesting to see if anyone actually get these ships that are dangeled in front of us to tease us to buy any of the Christmas containers. Of the whole list I choosen these four (Missouri, Musashi, Benham and Belfast) since imho I think these are what the mayority of the playerbase would consider the "Jackpot win" out of them all. Many of these are considered really rare and in some cases a bit OP. For instance I didnt include Kutuzov since its not really that OP/broken any more with likes of Colberts and Smolensks in the game. So I just wanna know, in the name of transparancy, who if any have actually gotten these mighty four out of the boxes. And I would like to see either a picture of when you got the ship (im guessing many would take a screenshot of a thing like that) or atleast a screenshot from the ship in your port with close to none XP on it. Thanks!
  4. So there are a number of premium ships that were considered to be over-performing to the point that they were removed from sale by WG. As a result of this WG are talking about making major changes tp the GC whilst simultaneously attempting to fire-fight the inevitable $hitstorm that accompanied the announcement. Well I have had an idea that I think could solve this issue once and for all to the satisfaction of all concerned. *Drum roll* Put them ALL back in the shop with a price tag of ~£5 (or equivalent in whatever currency) each. At that price, everyone can afford to own them and, as they are so cheap nobody can complain about not having one. WG would still be getting more revenue from these at a cut-down price than they are currently as even £5 is greater than the £0 they are currently getting for these ships. It's a win-win. Everyone is happy.
  5. Hello, Est-ce normal qu'avec l'arbre technologique étendu du pack de mods officiel j'arrive à cette page sans aucun soucis ? Parce que bon, le Belfast n'est plus en vente... Toutefois, je n'ai pas essayé d'aller au bout, pas envie de prendre le risque de perdre des doublons sur une action qui serait jugé malhonnête
  6. Atorpad

    Is Belfast gone for ever?

    Hi is belfast on the sale cycle or she is like missouri?
  7. Hello dear community, I have an idea for a new contest: fast and senseless death. But it must not be your own but rather a random team member, who you never met before. Like this guy here in his Belfast. It is a short video as he died, well, fast. Give it a look. And if you have taped a random team member's death in less than 2m40s, please let us know. Donnerturm.
  8. anonym_LLReW5QZVCVT

    Will Belfast Return ?

    Hi, A question for the developers, will the Belfast ever return to the game? When the ship was first released it was viewed as being overpowered etc. I am not interested in that debate, whilst you generally get the balance of ships right, on occasions it does go wrong. When you made changes to the smoke meta you offered people refunds which was the right thing to do, and Kudos for doing so. But then you removed the ship from the game. So are you planning to return the Belfast to the store in it's current state, or a revised version with some changes to it. i.e. dump hydro and add defensive AA, so more AA support and also more susceptible to the new deep water torps for example, or just remove hydro completely. I would love a response from the developers on what their future plans are for this iconic British ship are, and even other peoples opinion on what could be removed or added to make the ship more balanced so it comes back in to the game. Thx.
  9. Here I have a list that needs nerfing/reworking and my suggestions on how: British battleships - Fire chance should be greatly reduced, their overpowered heal should be set to a heal that is marginally better than their counterparts, and on higher tier ships their AA should be reduced a little Cruisers - Increase rudder shift time, increase turning circle radius, decrease RoF with high explosive loaded Belfast - Remove Radar and smoke Flint - Remove radar and smoke All Battleships - increase accuracy, reduce the chance to be set on fire HE in general - reduce fire chance and decrease RoF Large guns (above 283mm) increase RoF and increase accuracy Until these changes or something similar is implemented, the Belfast, Flint and British battleships should be BANNED from Random and ranked battles
  10. Hi all :) I have not really played WoWs for maybe a year and will not probably have time to do so till x mass.... But I have read there is an option to sell Kutuzov/Belfast/Perth for full doubloon price because of smoke changes. My question is about Kutuzov which I own - how is it doing in current meta? Is it worth keeping or should I sell it now and buy some BB when x mass sale hits the street instead? THX
  11. viceadmiral123

    if you can't fix it, milk it.

    Taken from Update 0.6.12 notes: WG logic: Problem: "those ships turned out to be excessively efficient in certain battle situations. " Solution: we will keep them as they are, but we shall stop selling them after everyone has bought them. That should fix it.
  12. There is a rumor spreading across Polish section about Kutuzov, Belfast and Perth being withdrawn from sale due to incoming smoke mechanics changes and chance of fire nerf. Players who already own these ships can keep them or get refund in doubloons. Have anyone heard anything about this and could confirm or deny this rumor?
  13. AndyHill

    Fiji vs Belfast

    With the recent discussion about possible changes to IFHE and smoke I started thinking more about my recent experiences in the Belfast. The ship is generally considered overpowered and I'm not really saying it isn't, but I kind of tend to think that its overpoweredness is relative to how overpowered the Fiji is. In general people tend to do better in the Belfast, but in my hands the two ships are damned near equal in damage and quite close to other statistics (and I like them both a lot). I have IFHE, DE (on Belfast, not Fiji) and concealment on the Belfast so the build is kind of complete and not going to improve vastly. My win rate on Belfast is higher, but that's because I've played few games (30+) and I've been really lucky with teams. What should I do differently to make the Belfast outdo the Fiji? So far I kind of feel that Fiji's heal and torpedoes are kind of a match for the Belfast's radar - although the situations they shine in are very different. For some reason people seem to be doing much better in Belfast, though, and stats don't really lie (but there are potentially other explanations for Belfast's better performance than just its better characteristics). So what's the major differentiating factor between these two in your opinion and how do I make the Belfast perform better than the Fiji?
  14. ReapingKnight

    RN Prem Light Cruiser?

    Hi all, I've recently been think that since I hit the Neptune that I'd like to keep it and train another captain for the Minotaur but the Belfast doesn't seem that suited...don't get me wrong I think it's pretty good (as I am less than skilled, it's not OP in my hands) but the captain build isn't nearly as transferable...Are there any plans for a RN Cruiser like the current line in development? It just seems a little odd to add a Cruiser that has HE to train captains for a cruiser line that can't use HE...it just means you can't use a captain to their max potential unless you're willing to pay to change skills every time you want to use the Belfast or have a perm Belfast captain. Any clues? Cheers
  15. Likatare

    Dedicated captain for the Belfast?

    So the Belfast was on sale and I got it. Since it benifits nicely from IFHE I wondered if the rest of you have a dedicated captain for it? Was thinking of using my Minotaur captain and just accepting him having IFHE.
  16. Hello, I already wrote to customer service, 3 times for to repeat the obvious because they simply don't read what we write to them when open a ticket. I asked what for to say " Special offer only for your account and visible only for you " if: first: every my contact have the same "offer" second: if it is "special and only for me", why they offer me to buy Belfast that I already own and bought months ago? What for? Third: I couldn't buy it and gift to my friend.. it said: "only for you"... but If I already have it, what does it mean? is it a joke? Anyway, also this time, I can say that customer service is completely useless, near to irritate me till to the point to uninstall the game. They simply dont read and dont try to understand what you are asking for and this is not serious as respectful. the suggestions? - To read messages and try to understand them when a customer ask for info or help. - Dont reply with copy/paste messages, it irritates only as it doesn't solve nothing. - About the premium ship "personal offer", if you call it "personal offer", at least syncronize your system checking with ships owned from your customers and what you are offering to him.. it is without sense to offer a ship that the customer has already bought. " On the other hand, should you have feeback to share on this matter, please express your suggestions and feedback in the WoWs Game Forum. You may check this Forum thread for that matter. "
  17. Hallo zusammen, ich möchte mir dieses WE ein weiteres Premium-Schiff zulegen und bin aktuell etwas unschlüssig. Wie der Titel schon verrät schwanke ich zwischen der Duca, der Atago und der Belfast. Mir ist bewusst, dass dies drei sehr unterschiedliche Schiffe sind, auch von den Kosten her, letztlich geht es mir um einen guten, spaßigen Kreuzer. Kapitänstraining ist in diesem Fall für mich "nice-to-have", aber keine Hauptpriorität. Briten-Kreuzer fahre ich so gut wie gar nicht, Italiener gibt es noch nicht - einzig bei den Japanern wäre die Atago eben zusätzlich ein willkommener Kapitänstrainer. Zu mir: Ich bin ein bestenfalls durchschnittlicher Spieler, habe 2 Tier 8er und einen 9er und spiele primär Kreuzer, auch wenn sie bei der aktuellen BB-Schwemme teilweise recht frustig sein können. Mein Problem bezüglich der Entscheidung liegt darin, dass ich zur Belfast sehr viele Videos und Berichte gesehen habe, die aber ausnahmslos von wesentlich besseren Spielern als mir selbst stammen. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass sie nicht leicht (erfolgreich) zu fahren ist. Von der Duca habe ich eher das Fazit aus vielen Quellen vernommen, dass sie eher "meh" ist, als dass sie Spaß macht, speziell in Bezug auf die Reichweite, den mangelnden AP-Durchschlag, geringe Feuerchance und hohe und lange Zitadelle. Die Atago habe ich in Form der ARP Takao bereits gefahren und sie macht mir schon Spaß, allerdings habe ich etwas an der Reichweite zu knabbern. Ich denke, da fehlt mir noch ein wenig die Routine und Kartenkenntnis zumal sie ja auch Tier 10 trifft. Sollte allerdings primär die Atago empfohlen werden, werde ich bis zur nächsten Rabattierung warten. Zum Normalpreis ist sie mir etwas zu teuer für einen Kreuzer. Natürlich ist es mir auch lieber, 20 Euro auszugeben statt 30 oder 40, allerdings gebe ich lieber etwas mehr aus, wenn ich dann weiß, der Kahn macht mir auch Spaß bzw. ist auch von Nicht-Elitären Spielern mit gewissem Erfolg zu fahren. Ich möchte nicht zwingend ein OP-Schiff, sondern primär ein Schiff, dass Spaß macht, auch wenn es (was ja momentan häufig der Fall ist) in Matches gegen höhere Tiers kommt. Dass man dann vorsichtiger agieren muss ist klar, aber mit der Duca z.B. bin ich mir sehr unsicher ob ich mit meinem "Skill-Level" in Tier 8 Matches damit Spaß/Erfolg haben kann. In bin dankbar für Vorschläge, wenn möglich mit einem Einzeiler als Begründung, der mehr beinhaltet als "Nimm XY" ;)
  18. According to the website the Armored Patrol (https://thearmoredpatrol.com/category/world-of-warships/) there will soon be a new cruiser in WOWS: Italian Tier 6 Premium Cruiser Duca d’Aosta. This is nice, to finally have an Italian warship in WOWS, which in 2017 will purportedly be also joined by the fine Italian battleship "Roma". But that is not what this topic is about. One thing triggered me from the description of Duca d'Aosta: Consumables(3rd slot) Repair Team So there we have it. Another Premium Cruiser with the Repair Party Consumable, allowing the ship to regain vital Hit Points. This is nice to have on a ship which will presumably cost around 20 Euros. We have the following Premium Cruisers with the Repair Party Consumable, I might forget to mention one, but here we go: - "Graf Spee" (Germany, Tier 6) - "Duca d'Aosta" (Italy, Tier 6) (Edit: corrected, she does not or will not have it, according to "The Armored Patrol") - "Belfast" (Great Britain, Tier 7) (Edit: corrected, she does not have it (yet?), but British Tier 8 Edinburgh does have an enhanced Repair Party Consumable) - "Atago" (Japan, Tier 8) Next to that we have regular line Cruisers and even Destroyers (USSR ones, of course) with the Repair Party Consumable: - All British cruisers from Tier 3 to Tier 10 - USSR destroyers at Tier 9 and Tier 10 - All Tier 9 and 10 cruisers in WOWS (including the upcoming French cruisers) There is however one important ship missing in the list of Repair Party Consumable (Premium) cruisers which incidentally is the most expensive heavy cruiser in the game: the Tier 8 heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" which costs 41 Euros rounded up. If one goes over to: https://eu.warships.today/vehicles And selects Tier 8 Cruisers and looks at the stats of the last 2 weeks, then the Tier 7 heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" is: - the worst in survivability - the worst in damage inflicted - in the bottom two in kill/death ratio - in the bottom two in average kills - in the bottom three in win rate - in the bottom four in experience (XP) The only category in WOWS where "Prinz Eugen" does fairly well is in plane kills, although even in that category she is beaten by and quite a bit below the USSR Premium cruiser Tier 8 "Mikhail Kutuzow". The real world "Prinz Eugen" was easily the largest heavy cruiser (19,042 tons!) of WW2 and, looking at her total equipment suite, by far the heavy cruiser with the highest level of technical sophistication. Late in the war the "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" were the ships equipped with the most advanced German naval radar which was second to no radar used on any allied warship. One particularly well placed torpedo in WW2 severely damaged part of the stern of the ship, but she still remained afloat and could be steered to safety. The plentiful gunnery of "Prinz Eugen" in the Baltic at the end of the war was crucially important for several military operations and demonstrably accurate. The ship and her crew was honourably mentioned twice by the government for her service. Next to that this rather unique heavy cruiser after WW2 survived two atomic bomb tests (!) in which she was involved. No ship of her class can lay claim to that. So there are enough historical reasons to give this unique and largest heavy cruiser of WW2 a decent treatment in WOWS. There really are no historical or even logical reasons to represent "Prinz Eugen" so badly as has been done in WOWS, and asking 41 Euros for her in WOWS in the poor condition WOWS has chosen to represent her borders on insanity. In WOWS the "Prinz Eugen" is not only the most expensive WOWS cruiser in Euros, it is also the least impressive cruiser to meet as an adversary in any tier 8, 9, 10 match. This is both from an historical and commercial point of view rather stupid. I for one am interested in buying the ship in WOWS, but the way she is presented in WOWS makes her such a "loser" that I cannot justify buying a bad ship like that for any price, let alone 41 Euros. Sure there are some people that bought her for "emotional" reasons, but that is fortunately an exception because I rarely see the ship in matches. No doubt many of the players which have a "Prinz Eugen" choose to leave her in port, where she looks great but that is about it. It appears that from time to time the good folks at WOWS seem to listen to what is written on the forum, but it appears that this is only the case when a lot of people "complain" about things, the more people virtually "shout" on the forum the more likely it is that people at WOWS sit up and take attention. And from what I see the English language part of the forum seems rather oblivious to the newly released German destroyers being generally mediocre/bad at best and the largest WW2 cruiser "Prinz Eugen" being not only really, really bad in WOWS but also the most expensive cruiser at a whopping 41 Euros, and that for inferiority incarnate. It is amazing how many forum "complaints" topics there were about the "Hydro Acoustics Search Equipment" consumable on "Bismarck", which in my opinion had no game changing effect on WOWS. In stark contrast to the really insignificant impact of that "Hydro Acoustics Search Equipment" consumable on "Bismarck", I have seen "Belfast" in action over the past few weeks and she indeed has quite an impact on matches from random to ranked. I have even seen matches with three "Belfasts" in a division, sailing together in a tight unit in formation, erasing everything in front of them with their combined fire and smoke screens making them virtually untouchable. The impact of the latest USSR destroyer changes (unnecessary "buffs" only really) and the latest added USSR destroyers is clearly for all to see far greater in both random and ranked matches, but this too does not gather much "complaining" on the forum. Not compared to all the "complaints" over the past few weeks on the English language forum about the "Hydro Acoustics Search Equipment" consumable on "Bismarck", this complaining however was eventually rewarded by WOWS by "nerfing" "Bismarck". "Belfast" and especially "Mikhail Kutuzow" have not and probably will never been "nerfed" however, no matter how good their in game performance stats are. It is easy to suspect that (British and other nationality) forum users are quite (and understandably) happy that "Belfast" is as clearly overpowered as she is, and that the English language forum users are by now so used to USSR ships over performing for their class that they no longer object to it. Maybe the English language forum users are also just as used to that as to German cruisers and destroyers in WOWS generally being generally presented as unremarkable, insignificant and under performing compared to their real world equivalents. That does not make it right or fair though. In like manner I pointed out in another topic about the growing inferiority of the Premium battleship "Tirpitz", of which the "last two weeks" stats can every month be regularly checked at: https://eu.warships.today/vehicles This Premium battleship in 2016 has suffered from successive "Tirpitz" specific "nerfs" to rudder response rate, (horizontal) armour thickness, accuracy (sigma value), torpedo attack angles, main gun range, main gun turret traverse speed etc. and only receiving few "buffs" in return which were not particular to her but were part of general battleship class "buffs". Other line and Premium battleships over the past year have seen important and successive "buffs" to their accuracy (sigma) which are indirect "nerfs" of "Tirpitz" because she was left out of these "buffs" that some of her key adversaries received. By regularly checking the "last two weeks" stats over a period of months on the https://eu.warships.today/vehicles site it becomes apparent that "Tirpitz" clearly is - compared to other Premium battleships - stat wise the worst performing Premium battleship and even the worst performing battleship in her Tier unlike other Premium battleships which are always the best performers in their Tiers. In fact "Tirpitz" is the only Premium battleship in WOWS which performs considerably worse than her line equivalent (in WOWS "Bismarck" has unjustly and unauthentically received longer ranged secondary and tertiary weaponry, has more accurate main guns and has better AAA and even more consumables compared to "Tirpitz") where in real life "Tirpitz" her equipment state, horizontal armour protection and general performance was superior to her older and smaller sister ship "Bismarck". And "Tirpitz" is also the only Premium battleship which is not displayed in her final wartime (1944) equipment state unlike ALL other Premium battleships in WOWS which are ALL displayed in their final wartime equipment state in WOWS. Instead "Tirpitz" is displayed in WOWS in her early wartime (1942) equipment state, making her even weaker by comparison to other (Premium) battleships which are ALL displayed in their final wartime (1944) equipment state. In real life a total of 26 (!) Allied air attacks were launched against the real world “Tirpitz” by well over 1,101 (!) Allied aircraft. No ship in history was attacked so many times and by so many aircraft in military history. Nor did any other ship in history sustain hits by "ship killer" 5.4 ton monster bombs and survive two such hits and several near misses which are at least just as dangerous if not more so due to shock waves etc. Those 1,101 Allied aircraft only managed to score about 21 hits on “Tirpitz” and even attacks by three allied aircraft carriers all at once could not sink "Tirpitz". The Allies admitted the loss of at least 37+ aircraft (no battleship in WW2 shot down more aircraft than "Tirpitz") to the generally solitary “Tirpitz”, whose AAA was severely handicapped because she could not even use her main AAA guns, the hard hitting long range 10.5 cm AAA guns, due to the Norwegian fjords/mountains blocking their field of fire while at anchor. In WOWS however the best AAA effectiveness and highest air attack survivability goes not to "Tirpitz" which deserves it due to her historical war record, but to USA battleships which never fought solitary and which never came close to demonstrating the resilience to air attacks of "Tirpitz" nor matched the effectiveness of her radar guided and computer controlled AAA armament in solitary combat. The newly released WOWS ship lines and Premium ships (USSR, British, USA) of the last six or so months are generally stronger/superior in performance stat and equipment wise (except for of course the "new" German destroyers), and other already existing older ships keep getting buffed (USSR destroyers etc.) without "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" enjoying the same "buff" benefit and instead being "left behind". The end effect is that both "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" keep getting worse stats and in game performance over the past few months. Apparently it does not have to be so for all ships however. Some are more equal than others it seems. Premium battleship "Missouri" for example is superior to line "Iowa" (her sister) in WOWS, not because her real life gun range, accuracy and equipment state was superior but because she is a Premium and WOWS chooses to display her as superior to "Iowa". But for "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" it is the other way round with these ships being displayed unhistorical and unjustly inferior in performance and stats and equipment wise in WOWS compared to their line equivalents in WOWS ("Bismarck" and "Admiral Hipper") as well as to other ships which could not match their size, armour, general level of high tech equipment suite. And those sorry inferior stats and under performance of the WOWS "Tirpitz" can be bought for 45+Euros making "Tirpitz" the most expensive Premium ship to date, which of course draws a comparison with the equally inferior stats and under performance of "Prinz Eugen" in WOWS for 41 Euros. If the good people at WOWS think that their upcoming Premium German aircraft carrier "Graf Zeppelin" is going to be a good seller if it gets the same bad treatment as the WOWS "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen", you better think again. Since we apparently do not have hundreds of people on the forum that "complain" about this sorry state of affairs, either because they have no in depth detailed knowledge of these historic ships, or maybe because they have no "emotional"/"national" investment in them, it seems to be OK for WOWS to display these ships in such a bad way. However, if a hundred people "complain", their numbers do not make them more "right" then when two or more people "complain". The weight of the arguments should be what counts for WOWS on the forum, not just the number of people selectively complaining for "emotional" or whatever reasons. I could just imagine the Russian language forum when the light cruiser "Mikhail Kutuzow" would have been presented as so utterly inept as heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" is in WOWS. Or how the British players would have reacted if the light cruiser "Belfast" would be as utterly inept as the heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen". Both "Mikhail Kutuzow" and "Belfast" are ships to be taken serious and therefore worth both the time to use them and thus buy them, and rightly so. It is more than a little strange however that both of the Premium light cruisers "Mikhail Kutuzow" (Tier 8) and "Belfast" (Tier 7) seriously outperform the Premium heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen" (Tier 8) and Premium battleship "Tirpitz" (Tier 8) in all categories that matter. Let that sink in for a while, two Premium light cruisers (one USSR and one British) constantly and consistently seriously outperform the two most expensive Premium (German) heavy cruiser and battleship in WOWS in all categories that matter. And it does not end there, since USA Tier 9 Premium battleship "Missouri" also seriously outperforms the two expensive German premiums at Tier 8. Anybody that regularly checks the "two weeks" stats on https://eu.warships.today/vehicles can plainly see that, as well as witness it in WOWS in generally every match. The upcoming release of USA Tier 8 Premium battleship "Alabama" no doubt will further lead to and add to "Tirpitz" and "Prinz Eugen" falling back even further in the in game performance stats. When it comes to "Prinz Eugen", "Tirpitz" and generally the German cruisers and destroyers there seems to be no virtual "shouting" on the forum so things will apparently remain as they are, no matter how bad their stats and how inept/mediocre their in game performance is compared to their Tier and/or Premium equivalent ships in WOWS, which is clear for all to see who face them in a match. Since I have two 19 level German ship commanders I really have no use for a 41 Euro bad ship to "train" commanders, so that too is not a selling point for me. Since so many Premium Cruisers and even line destroyers and cruisers have the Repair Party Consumable there really is no excuse not to also give it to "Prinz Eugen", unless WOWS does not want to sell her of course. But even the Repair Party Consumable is not enough to make "Prinz Eugen" worth 41 Euros. "Mikhail Kutuzow", "Belfast" and "Atago" have a "bite", they can hit and hit hard in a match. That is what "Prinz Eugen" cannot, and which WOWS could easily implement like done for other Premiums. As is, even the inept WOWS "Admiral Hipper" is better than the WOWS "Prinz Eugen". When I meet a "Prinz Eugen" in a match on the opposing side, she is not dangerous at all, even more so when compared to say a "Mikhael Kutuzow", "Atago" and "Belfast". All three of those Premium ships, which all cost less than "Prinz Eugen" are "special", they bring something "special" to a match and are dangerous foes to be respected generally. Not so the WOWS "Prinz Eugen", it is even painfully clear in matches that the equally unimpressive WOWS "Admiral Hipper" is a better ship than the WOWS "Prinz Eugen". Instead of taking this unauthentic approach to historic warships, I advocate that WOWS would strive to represent historic ships an "authentic" treatment. To be sure, I do NOT mean a "simulator" or "realistic" approach, but an "authentic" one. For those that do not understand the difference: Authentic - "Conforming to an original and/or the real world so as to reproduce essential features". Simulator - "A computer simulation (or "sim") is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer under real world conditions". Realistic - "Resembling or simulating real life (conditions)". WOWS is not striving to be realistic and neither do I advocate that it should be. But it can and should be authentic, because if WOWS is not even that, then one might as well start playing some fantasy space combat game and not a game featuring historic ships whose stats and performance are based on real world performance. For the largest and overall best equipped heavy cruiser of WW2 I think the people of WOWS can change things to make the ship better in WOWS and actually worth 41 Euros. Give "Prinz Eugen" some of that "Mikhail Kutuzow" and "Belfast" "special" treatment for example. Like an improvement in gunnery accuracy for example and also give her the Repair Party Consumable not only because many other Premium cruisers have it but also because surviving two atomic bomb blasts in the real world counts for something. Not to mention "Prinz Eugen's" exceptional advanced late war radar which should also count for something. If however the good people at WOWS do not want to sell their "Prinz Eugen" and rather keep her in the current utterly inept state, then by all means let the 41 Euro "Prinz Eugen" remain as inferior as she currently is in WOWS and release some more new and better less expensive Premiums instead. The same applies to "Tirpitz" either display the ship in an authentic manner making her worth 45 Euros, or keep displaying her in her currently inferior and authentic form which keeps becoming worse with each new superior Premium released and each successive "nerf" applied to her either directly or indirectly as has been the case since February 2016 up till now. Here is one overview of ship stat data of the past two weeks. To be sure, anyone who has had regularly checked the last "two weeks" on this website over the past few months can see that these stats have remained a constant. This is important, because the last "two weeks" weeds out all the stat data concerning the "Tirpitz" when she was first released in WOWS in 2015. Looking at the following stats it becomes quite clear that "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" are not only the most expensive Premium ships in WOWS but also the ONLY losers in their respective Tiers and classes. The price for "Missouri" is fictitious since one cannot directly buy the ship for Euros only as is the case with "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz", because one needs to have 750,000 free XP first for the "Missouri". I can present many more of these data overviews. Instead of that I refer anyone to the "War Ships Today" website where one can easily check for oneself that generally EVERY PREMIUM cruiser and battleship is either the best performing ship in her Tier and class or among the top 3 in those cases where there is more than one Premium in a Tier and class, EXCEPT for "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz". German cruisers and destroyers in WOWS are generally so badly depicted in WOWS that they generally are the stat losers in their respective Tiers and Classes, but the most expensive Premium cruiser "Prinz Eugen" is the ONLY Premium cruiser which actually is the worst performing cruiser in her Tier and class. If one only looks at the battleship Premiums (and ignoring the silly Arpeggio battleships), and battleships being the most played class, the fact that "Tirpitz" too is the only Premium battleship loser in her Tier and class becomes quite clear as well: - USA Premium battleships: 5 (all the publicly released ones are the top performing Premium battleships in their Tier) - German Premium battleships: 3 (3 of them are the only Premium battleships in their Tier, but only one of them is the worst performing battleship in her Tier ("TIRPITZ") and the ONLY Premium to do so in WOWS) - Japanese Premium battleships: 2 (1 ship is the only battleship in her Tier, and the other one is ranked behind the USA Premium in its Tier) - Russian Premium battleships: 1 (TOP PERFORMING BATTLESHIP IN HER TIER AHEAD OF THE USA PREMIUM, THE ONLY NON-USA PREMIUM WHERE THIS IS THE CASE) - British Premium battleships: 1 (Inferior to the USA and French Premium battleships in her Tier) - French Premium battleships: 1 (Inferior to the USA Premium battleship in her Tier) As can be seen the Premiums "Belfast", "Mikhail Kutuzow" and "Atago" not only are the clear winners in their respective Tiers and classes but Tier 7 Premium cruiser "Belfast" even outperforms the top Tier 8 Premium cruisers. And all three of them seriously and dramatically outperform the most expensive Premium cruiser in WOWS, the 41 Euro Tier 8 heavy cruiser "Prinz Eugen". To add insult to injury even the clear Tier 8 cruiser class loser "Admiral Hipper" is still able to beat the Premium "Prinz Eugen" stat wise! In like manner Tier 8 silver doubloon line battleships "Amagi" and "Bismarck" seriously and dramatically outperform the most expensive Premium battleship in WOWS, the 45 Euro Tier 8 battleship "Tirpitz". That makes the "Tirpitz" the only Premium battleship which is not only beaten stat wise by silver doubloon battleships in her Tier and class but also the ONLY Premium battleship to finish dead last stat wise in her Tier and class, and that for 45 Euros! The Premium Tier 9 battleship "Missouri" however seriously and dramatically outperforms all other Tier 9 battleships. The "Missouri" however can be unlocked for "free" if a player has 750,000 free XP, this cannot be done for the 45 Euro "Tirpitz". There is NO valid reason, not commercially, not historically, nor from the point of game "balance" to have the two most expensive Premium ships underperform so badly compared to all other Premiums and silver doubloons ships in their respective Tiers and classes. That makes "Prinz Eugen" and "Tirpitz" not only the most expensive Premiums, but also the only PAY TO LOSE ships in WOWS, stat wise. ALL USA Premium battleships and even the British Premium battleship (Warspite, commissioned in 1915(!)) in WOWS are ALL given their end WW2 (1944-1945) equipment state, most specifically and most notably their Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) armament EXCEPT for “Tirpitz”. Take for example the 1914 (!) commissioned Premium Tier 5 USA battleship “USS Texas”. That Premium ship has the AAA equipment state of 1945! If you look up every USA and British battleship it is quite clear that their equipment state is generally based on what they historically had in 1944+. Instead the WOWS “Tirpitz” is in sort of a hybrid 1941-1942 equipment state, meaning its Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) is based on roughly the 1941-1942 equipment state. So "Tirpitz" on purpose is given a huge disadvantage compared to the USA and British Premium battleships and even compared to its line/tree equivalent “Bismarck”. Since “Tirpitz” in WOWS mostly faces Tier 8, 9 and 10 battles it means that more often than not its Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) cannot deal as effective with enemy aircraft as the WOWS “Bismarck”. This is even more ridiculous from an authenticity point of view since no real world battleship, or ship for that matter, ever endured more aircraft attacks directed to it personally and beat them off successfully for years AND additionally shot down more aircraft in the process than any other (battle)ship in history. And there is no reason for this state of affairs, simply also give the "TIRPITZ" her authentic mid-1944 AAA setup of: 6x2 150mm (which used special AAA burst ammunition) 8x2 105mm 8x1 20mm 18x4 20mm 8x2 37mm Now IF the current WOWS “TIRPITZ” was statistically performing superior to all other Tier 8 battleships then there MIGHT be an argument to not bring “TIRPITZ” in WOWS up to “BISMARCK” strength in terms of accuracy, gun range etc. But the fact is that “TIRPITZ” is the worst performing Tier 8 battleship in WOWS in terms of damage inflicted and kill/death ratio. That is simply unacceptable for a ship which was bought for on average 70 Euros by players/customers. And it could be easily fixed by implementing an authentic “TIRPITZ” instead of the "nerfed" to mediocrity one which we have now. I can analyse every single Premium battleship in WOWS compared to its line/tree equivalent and everyone single one is superior to its line/tree equivalent EXCEPT for “TIRPITZ”. Take FOR EXAMPLE the "USS MISSOURI" compared to the "USS IOWA", the "USS MISSOURI" in WOWS has: - Better armour in some areas. - Better Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) in terms of range and Damage Per Second. - Longer ranged heavy artillery and medium artillery. - Better consumable (Surveillance Radar). “TIRPITZ” is a WOWS Premium 2015 battleship and apparently it has not been "updated" to 2016+ Premium status compared to the other Premium battleships in their respective Tiers. This is unfair and unacceptable. For example, if the new standard for tier 8+ (Premiums or otherwise) is that they have special consumables that should be added to “TIRPITZ” as well. The “TIRPITZ” having torpedoes was an authentic historic fact and not a "consumable" or "flavour" so that does not compensate for “TIRPITZ” not having a "special" consumable like its sister “BISMARCK” or the “USS MISSOURI”. The Premium Tier 9 battleship “USS MISSOURI” in WOWS has better armour, better accuracy (without any real authentic real world justification for it) and several other extras which in WOWS puts “USS MISSOURI” way ahead of her sister ship Line Tier 9 battleship “USS IOWA”. The question beckons: why is Premium “TIRPITZ” inferior to “BISMARCK” in WOWS? Whereas Premium “USS MISSOURI” is superior to “USS IOWA” in WOWS, as indeed are all other Premium battleships compared to their line/tree equivalent. I can generally make comparisons like these between every Premium battleship and its line/tree equivalent in WOWS. EACH Premium battleship is superior in WOWS to its line/tree equivalent EXCEPT for “TIRPITZ”. Now if there were some "authentic" reason for “BISMARCK” being superior to “TIRPITZ” it would be fine with me and I would not waste one post or word on it. There is NO “authentic” reason for this state of affairs however. “TIRPITZ” in real life was superior to “BISMARCK” and so it should be in WOWS. That “BISMARCK” outperforms other Tier 8 ships is irrelevant. "TIRPITZ” is statistically not only severely outperformed by “BISMARCK” but also by generally all other Tier 8 line/tree battleships in the areas which matter the most (damage inflicted, kill/death ratio) as statistics make clear. And that makes “TIRPITZ” the ONLY Premium battleship in WOWS which is outperformed by generally all the other battleships in its Tier. And what has WOWS done to “TIRPITZ” compared to “BISMARCK”: “TIRPITZ” is less accurate (at best 257 meter dispersion) than “BISMARCK” with its heavy artillery (38 cm) (at best 255 meter dispersion). “TIRPITZ” has considerably less range on her secondary and tertiary sea target artillery. “TIRPITZ” has inferior 1941/1942 Anti Aircraft Artillery, both in range and in Damage Per second. “TIRPITZ” is slower than “BISMARCK”. “TIRPITZ” is inferior armoured compared to “BISMARCK” (the belt armour 315 to 320). “TIRPITZ” has no “Hydro Acoustic Search” consumable, meaning it has one less consumable than “BISMARCK”. Now compare that to what is “authentic” (= conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features): “TIRPITZ” was AT LEAST as accurate as “BISMARCK” with its heavy artillery (38 cm). In fact “TIRPITZ” during its various gunnery trials built up an amazing and proven track record of accurate long range shooting unmatched by any other Kriegsmarine ship, including “BISMARCK”, or any other 1940s battleship for that matter. “TIRPITZ” had the EXCACT same secondary and tertiary sea target artillery as “BISMARCK” had. In fact the tertiary sea target artillery of “TIRPITZ” was better because all eight turrets were of the newer model, whereas in “BISMARCK” half of them were of the older model which led to them firing too long since the targeting computer was set to the newer model. “TIRPITZ” had the superior Anti Aircraft Artillery (AAA). The 15 cm secondary artillery had special “burst” ammunition which allowed them to fire on aircraft, something “BISMARCK” could never do because he never received that late war ammunition due to sinking. The 10.5 cm Anti Aircraft Artillery of “TIRPITZ” was better because all eight turrets were of the newer model, whereas in “BISMARCK” half of them were of the older model which led to them firing too long since the targeting computer was set to the newer model. No Kriegsmarine ship ever came close to how many aircraft were shot down by “TIRPITZ” (37+), least of all “BISMARCK” and no Kriegsmarine ship ever had a more powerful AAA armament than “TIRPITZ”. "TIRPITZ” was faster than “BISMARCK” and had significantly more powerful turbines. “TIRPITZ” did have thinner belt armour (horizontal protection) (315 mm) compared to “BISMARCK” (320 mm) BUT that was because “TIRPITZ” had superior deck armour (vertical protection) than “BISMARCK” had. “TIRPITZ” had the exact same “Hydro Acoustic” equipment on board as “BISMARCK”. Some more information on “TIRPITZ” heavy artillery (38 cm) gunnery accuracy comes from real world German wartime GKdos-100 files containing actual primary source gunnery training firing exercises data, which gives the “TIRPITZ” a dispersion of 112 meters at 21 km. This is a far cry from the base 276 meters (257 meters at best) which the “TIRPITZ” has been given in WOW. http://www.kbismarck.com/38cm.html Based on this primary source gunnery training firing exercises data “TIRPITZ” had the LEAST dispersion of any World War II battleship. Not only that but there are no Japanese, British or USA wartime gunnery training firing exercise records which demonstrate that any Japanese, British and/or USA battleship ever achieved a dispersion at 21 km of 112 meters during the 1940s. And that includes the “USS IOWA” class. “TIRPITZ” performed several live heavy artillery firing tests during her existence. For example in August 1941 it fired on the remote controlled target ship “HESSEN”, which was an old 140 meter long pre-dreadnought capital ship. Most interestingly, the “HESSEN” was hit 9 times by “TIRPITZ” with her 38 cm rounds at a range of 25 km (25000 meters, 27340 yards) during the tests for example. Those 9 hits at 25 km were the longest range consistent gun hits in the world by any battleship in the 1940s and this performance to my knowledge has never been equalled or outdone by any other battleship. “HESSEN” was a radio controlled target ship especially up-armoured and altered to use it for target practice. “HESSEN” could move up to 21 knots, and was turning during the gunnery practice to make it a more difficult target to hit for “TIRPITZ”. "HESSEN" could change speed, turn and actively smoke, all remote controlled. Here an image of "HESSEN" being targeted by "TIPITZ": To put the historic battleship gunnery accuracy data into perspective based on the German Kriegsmarine and US Navy real world training firing exercise evaluation figures the following comparison can be made: - a “USS NEW MEXICO” battleship firing twelve 14"/35.6 cm naval guns at her maximum 1.75 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .10 hits per gun per minute would have 2.10 hits per minute at a range of 30 km. - a “USS COLORADO” battleship firing eight 16"/40.6 cm naval guns at her maximum 1.5 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .10 hits per gun per minute would have 1.20 hits per minute at a range of 30 km. - a “ USS NORTH CAROLINA” battleship firing nine 16"/40.6 cm naval guns at her maximum 2 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .12 hits per gun per minute would have 2.16 hits per minute at a range of 30 km. - a “TIRPITZ” battleship firing eight 15"/38 cm naval guns at her maximum 3.3 rounds per minute at a hit rate of .225 hits per gun per minute would have 5.94 hits per minute at a range of 30 km. There are also US Navy estimates based on US Navy statistical data. A US Naval War College study performed during World War II which was not based on actual real world training firing exercises estimated that an “USS IOWA” Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship “BISMARCK” would be (at best) expected to achieve the following hit percentage: - 2.7% "USS IOWA" hits at 30,000 yards (274 hm / 27 km) for “USS IOWA's” nine 16"/40.6 cm naval guns. This US Navy War College “USS IOWA” Class battleship World War II study hit percentage of 2.7% at 27 km against a target the size of “BISMARCK” is not exactly all that impressive compared to the: - 11.1% “TIRPITZ” hit percentage at 30 km; - 6.4% “SCHARNHORST” hit percentage at 30 km; - 4.8% “ADMIRAL SCHEER” hit percentage at 30 km; as described in the German wartime GKdos-100 files which are based on the evaluation of actual and repeated WW2 gunnery training firing exercises. The “USS IOWA” study figures are even less impressive compared to the actual German test results when one considers that the number of hits generally increase when the range is decreased, as is evident from both training and combat. In other words the "TIRPITZ", "SCHARNHORST" and "ADMIRAL SCHEER" hit percentages at 27 km are higher than the ones listed at 30 km above. Which is even more bad news for the "USS IOWA". And I have not even mentioned that for example all USA battleships have their theoretical highest rate of fire for their heavy artillery in WOWS which they never actually could attain in real life, neither during training nor in actual combat. Whereas "BISMARCK" and "TIRPITZ" with 38 cm heavy artillery demonstrably could fire an amazing 3.3 rounds per minute, these two ships however both have been given a low rate of fire of about only 2 rounds per minute which is in WOWS about equal to the best USA battleships at tier 7-10. And those USA battleships in real life could not even reach 2 rounds per minute during training, let alone in combat. For those hearty souls who are interested in the details of the AAA armament of the USA battleships compared to "Tirpitz" in WOWS, here is some of it:
  19. I've been playing the Belfast a lot lately, great ship, just unlocked my fourth skill tier and bought the Inertia Fuse perk. My question is, when and where should I use HE? I've been testing out both AP and HE shells on targets and I'm not entirely sure which is better and for what situation. On the one hand, AP shells should do more damage, if they are able to penetrate, generally speaking that's either up close or from plunging fire (is there a useful chart to show the distances you need to be over/under in order not to bounce stuff?). Not to mention citadel hits which are always nice to get. However with the penetrating HE shells (plus the Demo Expert in combo) while I may not penetrate, I am nearly always causing a good amount of damage, plus killing off modules and sometimes causing a fire which is equally good. Then there's the question of what I should be targeting (battleships I generally spam HE at, but I've also gotten good damage when I get plunging fire on them with AP, would HE be more consistent though?) I'm going to have a look for a damage indicator mod to see what differences there are myself. However given what I've said above, plus the general capabilities of the Belfast's AP and firing arcs, what would you advise should be my go-to ammunition for each ship, and at what range? Thanks.
  20. aleksandrov2

    BELFAST RANKED

    I just wanted to thank smart people in WG who came with the idea to release Belfast. The most broken ship in the entire game. But even better is that now they decided to have tier 7 ships in ranked and guess what, in higher ranks there are more and more Belfasts. Try caping a point in a DD when there are only 2 Belfasts on enemy team. They both sit in smoke, radar and all DDs dead in 3 minutes. Thank you WG
  21. Die Belfast ist viel zu stark für ihr Tierlevel. verlgleichbar mit der Atlanta nur mit mehr HP und mit Nebel. Hier meine Forderung an Wargaming: Die Belfast verliert ihren Nebel bzw ihr HE, Oder die Belfast wir auf T8 gestellt. Man kann überall nachlesen dass die Belfast das Schwesternschiff der Edinburgh ist, aber hier ist es auf T7, Edinburgh auf T8. Das ist so als ob die Bismark auf T8 ist und die Tirpitz auf T7 gelegt wird. Hier nur ein Link zur Edinburg Klasse: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town-Klasse_(1936)
  22. DutchDelightsNL

    Ranked Season 6 "search the F-team"

    Ranked Season 6 is coming!!! IF you look, you can find them would you like and win a "free" Belfast ...(EU&NA only)follow the link and find out how----->>> http://bit.ly/RankedBelfast
  23. hopeasusi

    Belfast Armor vs Edinburgh

    So I was looking at the armor models of these 2 ships of the SAME class, but Belfast has somehow less armor in fore and aft ends. Edinburgh has 16mm and Belfast 13mm, can anyone explain why? Or is this just Wail Gaming's balancing at it's "finest".
  24. Hello lads! While goofing around in the tech-tree I also checked some premium vessels. I took a look on the Belfast and found something weird. I found out that the Belfast got some seriously op Bofors AA guns. Not in terms of Balance but the Bofors themselves. She doesn't sound like much of an AA boat on the first look. She got 6x2 40mm Bofors & 4x2 102mm with an AA rating of 55. That really surprised me because she got 2 points more than her US Counterpart Cleveland who actually has more AA. Cleveland has besides the 40mm also some 20mm guns + more & higher caliber dual-purpose guns. So I checked the Damage of the British Bofors & found out that they do astonishing 140 damage! That doesn't sound too special I know but the US Bofors only do 68 damage & are also 6x2 40mm. So that's basically more than twice as much as the US ones. In this very moment I got the incredible (boring for you) idea to compare all the Bofors just to find out which are the best! The Bofors guns in the game: Name Nation Caliber Mount AA Range AA Damage AA Damage (if 1x2) Ship examples Bofors Mk1 US 40mm 1x2 3,5km ~11 ~11 Omaha, Cleveland, New Orleans, Baltimore, Flint, Bogue, Midway, Montana, Benson, Fletscher, Gearing,.. Bofors Mk1 SU 40mm 1x2 3,5km ~11 ~11 Murmansk Bofors Mk1 PA 40mm 1x2 3,5km ~11 ~11 Lo Yang Bofors Mk2 US 40mm 1x4 3,5km ~16 ~8 North Carolina, Texas, Iowa, Montana, Saipan, Indianapolis, Ranger, Essex, Midway, Lexington, Colorado,.. Bofors Mk3 US 40mm 1x1 3,5km ~7,5 ~15 New Mexiko Bofors Mk II UK 40mm 1x4 3,5km ~16 ~8 Leander, Fiji Bofors Mk V UK 40mm 1x2 3,5km ~13 ~13 Fiji, Neptune Bofors Mk V RP50 UK 40mm 1x2 3,5km ~23 ~23 Belfast Bofors Mk VI UK 40mm 1x6 3,5km ~29 ~10 Edinburgh Bofors "Chi" Type 98 JPN 40mm 1x2 3,5km ~11 ~11 Taiho, Ibuki, Zao, Hakuryu Bofors wz. 36 PL 40mm 1x2 3,5km ~11 ~11 Blyskawica 50 wz. 34/36 Bofors PL 120mm 1x1/1x2 - - - Blyskawica As you can see the 1x6 Bofors Mk VI does the most damage per mount but the 1x2 Bofors Mk RP50 does more damage than all other Bofors mounts in the game when in 1x2 mount which makes them the best Bofors & one of the best AA guns in the whole game! So in conclusion the British know how to make some incredible good AA. If they would have send the blueprints to the US, they would have probably not lost a single ship in combat against Japanese aviation. Well whatever craphappens & I know it's only a game. When we compare these ~23 Damage "Wunderwaffen" (almost as lethal as the two Atom bombs) they're way better than the crappy German Flakzwilling 30 which only do ~3(!) Damage (Almost 8x better) & the not so crappy German LM/42 which do about ~10 Damage (More than 2x the Damage). They're almost as good as the 76,2mm AA from the Des Moines which do about ~28 Damage per Mount (& have almost double the caliber). & They're actually almost doing the same Damage as the 152mm AA from the Minotaur which do about ~24 Damage per Mount (& are more than 3x the caliber). But now the best part: If we would these British OP Bofors on the Montana instead of the peasant US ones in Dual Mounts we would get staggering 920 Damage from the 40mm alone!! You get the point that these Belfast AA guns are nothing to be laughed about.
  25. ... i będzie dostępny za dublony. 30 minut po końcu promocji (-30%) na premki VII poziomu Przynajmniej wiadomo dlaczego oferta promocyjna na III tydzień przedświąteczny kończy się w czwartek, a nie w piątek - jak dwie poprzednie. To, że 23.12. nie ma żadnej aktywnej oferty promocyjnej to zasługa HMS Belfast
×