Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'idea'.

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 24 results

  1. Hi all, Dear WG - simple "Quality of Life" idea - Place "*" in front every ship name that is spotted ONLY by player! Because we all have been in situation in game when we wondered whether we are the only ship that is spotting certain enemy or not... Leo "Apollo11"
  2. Freyr_90

    Future Clan Battles [idea]

    So.. a few days ago we were talking about clan battles on Discord when I thought I had come up with a decent idea for a future season. To put it simply, each team gets a a number of points and has to distribute these among different tiers, e.g. a T10 ship could be 10 points, a T6 would be 6 points, etc. I was promptly advised that there was already something similar in WoT, so the idea isn't mine, or new at all (sad) What do you think, can it be applied to WoWs as well? Would it bring more diversity and give us a chance to once again be torpedoing Yamatos in Umikazes? Or would it be dull with a few preferred compositions?
  3. Sirion_

    [IDEA] Carrier-focused scenario's

    Greetings, folks. I had this idea in mind for a while now, which would include a Scenario / Operation meant to be added to the weekly Ops that rotate including Killer Whale, Narai, etc. Basically what this idea of mine includes: * A tier VIII & IX Carrier-oriented operation which allows all nations, and all ship types/classes with tier VIII and IX. * Battle of Midway-styled operation, from Japanese point of view (So a fully offensive scenario where the player team will attack an island and has to fight heavy resistance). * Up to three carriers per player team. * Some allied AI ships, including at least one CV, which will aid in the player team's attack, and also help with immersion. Objectives could be: * [MAIN] Support the landing ships that have to reach the island with a certain amount of infantry still alive. * [MAIN] Destroy the Aerodrome(s) on the island. * [SECONDARY] Destroy enemy aircraft carriers in the vicinity. * [SECONDARY] Destroy particular enemy ships that are pushing certain positions and flanks of your fleet. * [SECONDARY] Destroy a certain number of fortresses and bunkers in the vicinity of the island. Key Strategies could be: * Carriers have to support and cover the team in pushing up the defences and holding off air raids from the island's Aerodromes and aircraft carriers. * Aerodromes and AA emplacements (Forts maybe?) have to be destroyed as quick as possible for best allied CV efficiency. * Battleship- and Heavy Cruiser-players should focus on fighting on-shore emplacements while the Destroyer- and Light Cruiser players should focus on fighting enemy ship hordes. AFTER CARRIER REWORK (???) The mission can generally stay the same, however since the CV rework isn't allowing you to play fighters for the time being, it might be a good tweak to remove some of the enemy CVs from my original idea. Yet what kinds of inspiration this gives me: More aerodromes, on-shore installations, and (moving) AI ground targets (i.e. tanks, trucks, convoys) for use with the new attack-role aircraft (aircraft with rockets). (And maybe even player-controlled aerodromes? Can work as static CV-gameplay, however for this to work the player-aerodrome(s) have to be on the defensive, otherwise it'd be a bit unrealistic unless you want to have B-25s, B-17s and B-24s to be player-controlled, which aren't even modelled in the game, unless we talk about the Japanese G4M's that participate in Operation Cherry Blossom as torpedo-bombers..) I'm very sure there's at least something we could work on? I've always wanted to see a more carrier-oriented scenario as in, where it's oriented about carrier-players. Also, because this scenario should include the higher tiers (VIII and IX) it should avoid a lot of problems with new CV players that don't know how the game works with CV meta. Nothing against new CV players though, but the Training Room and Co-Ops can be used to learn how to play CVs. I just love to see carrier-tactics and communication between CV players, which can't be achieved in the current state of the game since you can only have a division with one CV (which I understand due to balance. I wouldn't want a Random Battle with CV Divisions against me...). So I thought to lay my idea in front of the community, so I could get some feedback, and see what you guys think about such an Operation. Cheers, and let 'em have it! FIRE! ~ Sirion.
  4. Hi, i kinda felt the need to at least write up some sort of short view on current topics of discussion so I sat down for a bit and came up with a few things on the following 5 topics. 1.) Stalingrad 2.) Harugumo 3.) Worcester 4.) Role of the DD 5.) CBs/ranked/competitive. Its about 3 pages so for those who are interested feel free to take a look and share your opinion too. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W74nNODMFxw0R-BwObUshyPKOnpXgn96d4bUgL2iipo/edit?usp=sharing Mr_Dced P.s: By the way i dont have a clue what if im doing stuff on here correctly so if im not... sorry in advance i probably didnt know better.
  5. _Raskeria_

    Friendly fire defensive AA

    I was wondering what kind of affect a friendly fire defensive AA would have, I mean the biggest problem CV's have right now is powerful AA and def AA, but if there were consequences to using def AA for both sides then people might be hesitant to use def AA. For example: Torp bombers going in for attack from enemy cv, a bb is its target and a cruiser is sat near it in def AA range, but on their side their CV's bombers and fighters are using the cruisers AA, the fighters intercept the bombers and the cruiser activates def AA. With the current system, def AA is activated and the bombers are panicked and the fighters help destroy them. With the system I am suggesting, the cruiser activates def AA, they begin to shoot down the enemy bombers, but also begin to destroy and panic the ally fighters and bombers. So it would really add quite an interesting system because there are pros and cons with activating def AA with this type of system, for one the friendly CV cant use the cruiser for AA, the ally fighters would have to be hesitant to intercept and the enemy CV's bombers get a nice clean drop off if neither the friendly CV or cruiser make a decision. It encourages more communication, the cruiser will have to tell their CV that they are activating their def AA, and the CV will have to talk to its allies during certain times to ensure that they dont overlap. There are pros to this, no more op def AA that just affects enemy aircraft, gives CV's more breathing room (which they definitely need right now (since AA is op on every ship type except DD's)), also adds a bit more micro management needed, because CV's cant just leave their fighters/bombers over a cruiser and think they are safe It would make CV's less hesitant to attacking, because these days as soon as a CV sees a cruiser that can slot def AA they almost always move their aircraft out of the area and that area instantly becomes a no fly zone, but with the system I am suggesting the no fly zone goes both ways, if the cruiser doesnt know what they are doing both sides suffer. Anyway tell me what you guys think, I am interested to see what people think to my suggestion. I am also a frequent player of every ship type, but I am predominately a BB main, but I am all for making CV's easier and more powerful.
  6. thunder3oo


    All right, I had enough of this. Time to talk. I'll write them down in the order they come to my mind, so: 1. The game needs a chat open/close button (I know someone said that before). Transparency is a good thing, still, we have the minimap, the chat, consumables, the compass... I think there are enough items to fill the view field. 2. Engine's volume of the "voice" is including the captain's voice, but not that voice which announces the start of the battle/capturing a base, etc. Really now... it's not necessary for "my" neighborhood to know that "ENEMY TEAM HAS CAPTURED A BASE", for example. 3. I see no antialiasing settings in the video section beside that FXAA, thing that cannot be used unless you get your graphic settings higher. 4. Details of the ships are nerve breaking. Come on, now, what pleasure and feedback do you expect from your players, when you set ships like New Mexico and Fuso to have a stock fire range at 13,5 KM?? They are big ships, they suppose to have the best optics/radars/guns. Instead of giving ships bad mobility, small view range (let's say the first body of the ship has a smaller citadel) or smaller/fewer guns... you chose to get them a small fire range. Ineffective is the word for those stock ships. When you drive a slow battleship - everybody wants a piece of you and almost everyone manage to hit you, without having the chance to fire back properly. Practically that's a floating cookie jar. 12 guns are not really a big thing, if you're unable to hit the targets because they're too far. Also Fuso doesn't have the option of buying a module for bigger fire range of the main turrets, as New Mexico does. 5. Descriptions of the ships are incomplete. Why there's no visual range, actual speed, acceleration, turning in seconds, reverse speed? Thickness of the armor? That "mobility" detail is not giving us much info, for example. 6. The ability to put a fire under control seems ineffective, again. As I said before, It's a ship surrounded by WATER, and it has a big crew. 7. I really don't understand what captain's skills have to do with the AA operators. The biggest is the xp on the captain of the ship, the better and rapidly AA is firing. Maybe these two should be split. That's one thing that could make the game more complex. Maybe I want a dumb captain, but an excellent AA crew. Unless you have few hundreds battles in that ship, AA is firing like a half-blind trembling old lady armed with a rusty shotgun. Come on! In real life I don't think the captain has to do every little thing. He has subordinates who carry the jobs, he doesn't have to whisper to the AA crew ear every second "fire now". It's like the crew is half deaf and completely retarded. "Captain, what? Oh, look, a target. It's moving away. Your orders were about that target, captain? Well, sorry. Torpedoes! We're doomed!" The range of the AA is again ineffective. There are players who all they do is set their carriers in a corner and send planes. Planes after planes, torpedoes on the left and torpedoes on the right, bombs above, plus everybody is firing upon you. Combine this with a tier 6 slow, not upgraded&small rangeguns battleship, and you'll see the big picture. 8. Torpedoes, torpedoes... and more torpedoes. In my opinion they ruin the game, which is already unbalanced. Since people make abuse of the unlimited torpedoes, my suggestion is that ammo capacity to be introduced. What I drive? A battleship. That would be less rounds for me, but less torpedoes for them. 9. Smoke and visibility. Not only that destroyers are small and fast, they use smoke. All right. If they do that, why the battleships can't? Now comes the best part. A destroyer moves WITHOUT smoke at some 2-4 km distance from my ship (which is big, tall, and have a tall citadel/observation chamber, and I said before - should have the best optics). ... and it disappears in front of my eyes, to reappear again few seconds later. There's no such thing in real life on clear weather, not even on smaller visibility determined by some humidity or heat. It's the same problem I have encountered in WoT, and you can trust me on this, there I have more than 37 K battles. 10. Horns. That would be fun (with some restrictions on number of use). 11. Gameplay BEFORE graphics and special effects, people. That should be the rule of designing games, in my opinion. This game uses too much CPU (a part of lag comes from there). Is not the video card that is hard stressed here, is the CPU. A good friend of mine gave me his old motherboard and his old CPU. I had an Athlon 64X2 4800+ (2,5GHz) OC to 3GHZ, and the game was barely playable with tweaks and settings and drivers. Now I have a Core2Duo 3GHz/6MB cache, and I use the same video card as I did some days ago. Guess what, no more stuttering, no more sound problems (and the sound is set on high in the game), I even dare to test high video settings and it was still playable. That's all for now. Thank you.
  7. drootsamar

    Idea: Admiral based gameplay

    Hi all, especially the Wargaming game design team! I'm a casual player, but I like that game... I have not too much time to play with WoW, but IMHO there's an annoying deficiency which ruins my short playtime. What if, there would be an Admiral on each side? That Admiral could be anyone, who want's to be, if there's more than one, the game decide on the player stats. Later, the player could collect Admiral stats (then skills like the ship's captain) and the game could choose the ideal Admiral for the game. That Admiral should get some extra controls on the tactical map (M) and could suggest or advice routes, positions, targets to each player. It wouldn't be an automatic control takeover, so the players have the control over their ship, but they could get an variation of a successful tactic from the team Admiral. My experience is, we lose 6 of 10 games because there's no tactics, but everybody moves ahead. Extra: if the players keep their positions and accepts the orders, they could get extra xp, or some kind of rewards. Cheers drootsamar
  8. Hi developpers ! I have a suggestion : could you display permanently on the screen the name of the player and the ship who kiiled us ? I often wanted to know who killed me but the mention disapeared to early. Thanks !
  9. I think that Survivability Expert skill need buff/Improvement now it give 400HP/tier which make it almost no useful for grab especially for 4 XP points. So I suggest some improvement like this: that skill give 550 or 750HP/tier + 5% armor bonus for BB, 10% for CL and 15% for DD/CV or 10% flat bonus for everyone What you think?
  10. 'lo all. This is my first time on the forums, but as a regular WoWS player, I'm one of the many who would like to see HMS Vanguard introduced into the game. I know this discussion has been recycled, a lot, but I haven't seen any really detailed threads. Maybe there are and I've just missed them! People want Vanguard. The problem is balancing it. She was the last and most modern battleship, ever built, so she has to be of a relatively high tier. The game already has four Tier 7 Royal Navy "battleships" (air quotes for Hood), so T7 is oversaturated. Her 8x 15" guns sound fine on T6, but there's no way Vanguard should be down in T6, she's way too modern and was the successor to the T7 KGV class! So... T8 is the best fit, but balancing an eight-gunned 15" battleship at Tier 8, save from turning her into a Bismarck clone, would be challenging. I've been thinking on this and have a few ideas. I would like to hear what other people have to say and give their input. What is needed, I believe, is to make the under-gunned Vanguard feel modern. I'm not talking about skipping around at high speed, avoiding any kind of detection, twirling around her clunky opponents, all while laughing and flicking the two-fingered salute... no, I'm talking about a ship that feels unique and enjoyable to play, offers a little something different, is free from any game-breaking buffs and is strong and competitve, without ruining the enjoyment for the opposing team. I believe this ship can be made viable, while maintaining historical accuracy (which is something that matters to me), with every characteristic being based off of real world stats (as much as possible, at least!). I'll be quoting a lot from Wikipedia. ARMAMENT -Primary Battery Eight (4x twin) BL 15" Mk1 guns. Same as Warspite & Hood. This is the first hurdle: Warspite is to be feared in T6 matches and respected when fighting T8's. However, as a T8, Vanguard will have to face T10's... with eight 15" guns (!!). Big problem. What usually happens, in this scenario, is the ship is given an artificially-increased reload speed, to compensate for smaller guns, or lack of, or both (25s for Monarch, 26s for Bismarck & Tirpitz, 28s for Gascogne). It would be easy to slap a 25s reload on Vanguard and hope... but, please, don't!! Stick with the historically accurate 30s! A rate of fire buff is not required, to make this ship competitive. No, seriously, hear me out... The guns are small, for a Tier 8, yes. They are few, for a Tier 8, yes. They don't have a special reload, yes. So her shells don't do a lot of individual damage, she has a relatively small broadside and she doesn't fire that quickly. However... The guns in Vanguard were modernised, to the Mk I(N) RP12 design (more range). She could also utilise supercharges, increasing muzzle velocity, penetration and range. My idea would be to implement Vanguard into the game, so that her main guns are always using supercharges. If implemented properly, this would make Vanguard's guns competitive, despite the reduced number, smaller size and standard reload. An added benefit, is the people at WG could make the firing animation and sound of Vanguard's guns SPECTACULAR, owing to the supercharges! Imagine... a huge, thundering crack, an enormous muzzle-flash and an almighty spit of flame! She would have a badass reputation, from that, alone! Stats are as follows: Firing range- 30.68km (34.63km with supercharges). Now, obviously WoWs doesn't deal with actual ranges, more effective ranges (Warspite hit Giulio Cesare at 24.1km, but her in-game range is only 16.3km, for example), but it would be reasonable to give Vanguard an in-game range of around 20km, give-or-take. Muzzle Velocity- 749m/s (nothing confirmed for supercharges). This isn't enough. Luckily, if we follow the "Vanguard with supercharges" logic, we can boost that. I've seen quoted figues of over 850m/s, but let's say, for the sake of gameplay/balance, that Vanguard's guns have a velocity of around 920m/s. Let's also say, for the sake of balance, that her shells maintain good momentum, with low drag and good arcs (the shells fired are more modern than those of Warspite/Hood). This would give her 15" shells strong punching power. So another string to her bow would be increased penetration and normilisation angles. Krupp value would need to be increased, to make this work properly. "Ahh, but Roma has 15" guns and very good penetration, but suffers from over-pens on cruisers and bounces on battleships"... yes, but carrying-on the WoWs tradition that most British ships have fast-arming fuses on their AP shells, we give Vanguard the same 0.01s fuse times as the rest of the Royal Navy fleet (or similar, anyway). The fast fuses will ensure consistant penetrations -with less over-penetrations-, on cruisers... whereas the fast shells, with good normalisation angles would allow the shells to penetrate Battleship armour, before exploding, ensuring consistant penetrations and less bounces. This would mean that Vanguard would not be a long-range HE spammer and could reliably fire AP at battleships, at medium and long ranges. Obviously, they are still only 15" shells, so proper battleship & heavy cruiser angling & bow-tanking would defeat them, requiring a switch to HE. Proposed AP stats: Around 12k, extremely fast, enhanced normalisation, short fuse. Proposed HE stats: The same as Monarch would be fine. Vanguard has 1 less gun (broadside) and 2 less guns (bow-on), with less DPM, so she wouldn't be the devil fire-starter that opponents hate! Now, this is important: These guns have to be accurate. No, not accurate, but ACCURATE. I would propose WG make Vanguard the most accurate battleship in the game, with brilliant (for a battleship, we're not talking cruiser, here) horizontal & vertical dispersion and a sigma rating of 2.1. Yes, 2.1. Bearing in mind, this is not only an under-gunned battleship, but also THE MOST MODERN battleship, in the world, with extrordinarily advanced fire control systems: "Vanguard was unique among British battleships in having remote power control (RPC) for her main, secondary and tertiary guns along with the Admiralty Fire Control Table Mk X for surface fire control of the main armament. There were two director control towers (DCT) for the 15-inch guns, each carrying a "double cheese" Type 274 fire-control radar for range finding and spotting the fall of shot." " When the 15-inch gun turrets were modernised, their existing 15-foot (4.6 m) rangefinders were replaced by 30-foot (9.1 m) ones in all turrets except for 'A' and they were fitted for RPC in azimuth only. The turrets were also provided with de-humidifying equipment and insulation to improve their habitability." There is arguement here, to make Vanguard so accurate. Both with historical facts and gameplay balance in-mind. She can't throw as many -nor the biggest- shells down-range, so she needs to make each attack count. She could also be blessed with comfortable gunnery; fast (ish) rotating turrets, which would lend themselves to the more modern feel. Wherever you aim, these shells go! -In short, Vanguard's guns would provide less damage output per-shot, a weaker broadside, an ordinary reload and poor DPM... compared with those of almost all her rivals. But she would compensate, by having hard-hitting, deep-biting, reliable AP penetration and strong, dependable HE shells, both with high projectile speed, good arcs, shorter lead-times and monster accuracy. -Secondary Battery "The secondary armament consisted of sixteen 50-calibre QF 5.25-inch Mk I* dual-purpose guns in eight twin gun mounts. They had a maximum depression of −5° and a maximum elevation of 70°. They fired an 80-pound (36.3 kg) high-explosive shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,672 ft/s (814 m/s). The improved 5.25 turrets on Vanguard were claimed to be fully automatic, with a power-rammed breech and automatic tracking and elevation under radar control enabling a rate of fire of about 18 rounds per minute." OK, so 16 (8x twin) 5.25" rapid-firing secondaries. Not particularly impressive. Good for lightning fires, maybe. Give it a range of around 5km, give-or-take? The automatic tracking and elevation under radar control is interesting, make these the most accurate (if, somewhat weak) secondaries in the game. Dual purpose, also good for AA. Nice and modern! -AA "Short-range air defence was provided by 73 Bofors 40 mm AA guns in a variety of mountings. Vanguard had ten sextuple-barrel power-operated mounts concentrated in the superstructure and stern, a twin-barrel mount on 'B' turret, and 11 power-operated single mounts on the upper deck and rear superstructure. All mounts could depress to −10° and elevate to a maximum of +90°. The 40-millimetre (1.6 in) gun fired a 1.97-pound (0.89 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,890 ft/s (880 m/s) to a distance of 10,750 yards (9,830 m). The gun's rate of fire was approximately 120 rounds per minute." Pretty monstrous! In addition to the dual purpose secondaries, you have 10x sextuple (that's 60), 1x twin, 11x single 40mm Bofors AA guns! The AA rating on this thing should be pretty high and be very, very good for short-ranged defence. Not so much use for supporting teammates, however. SPEED AND MANEUVERABILITY She has the speed. She was designed to have 130,000shp and reach 30kn, but during trials, she achieved over 136,000shp and reached 31.57kn. In-game, I think the 136,000shp should be quoted, with a speed of 31.5kn. That's fair and would make her a very speedy (but not overly-so) battleship, able to respond to threats and push forward, into position... be the VANGUARD, so to speak! As for maneuverability... well, she's a large vessel (248.2m, or 814ft 4 inch). Almost 50 feet longer than KGV! So this would translate to a large turning circle. KGV's turning circle is 790m, so Vanguard's would have to realistically be nearer 810m, or something. However, due to complaints of the KGV class having poor seaworthiness: "The King George V-class ships had been built with almost no sheer to the main deck forwards to allow 'A' turret to fire straight forward at zero elevation, resulting in a poor sea boat that took a lot of water over the bow. Vanguard was redesigned as a result of this experience, significant sheer and flare being added to the bow. The ship was well regarded as seaworthy, able to keep an even keel in rough seas." This could realistically translate to a ship with a relatively quick rudder-shift time, that answers her rudder quickly (OK, the above has nothing to do with rudder, but we have little to play with, when talking about HANDLING in-game) and maintain good speed in a turn. Again, this will feel MODERN. ARMOUR AND HEALTH As you can see from the above photo, Vanguard is very similar to KGV. In-fact, the armour scheme was based on that of KGV. In-game, that could translate to having almost identical armour and health as Monarch, only slightly better. As wikipedia shall explain: "The ship's armour scheme was based on that of the King George V class with a thinner waterline belt and additional splinter protection. Originally the belt armour was equal to that of the older ships, but it had to be reduced to offset weight increases when the design was modified to reflect wartime experience. The waterline 460-foot (140.2 m) main belt was composed of Krupp cemented armour (KCA) 13 inches (330 mm) thick, but increased to 14 inches (356 mm) abreast the magazines. It was 24 feet (7.3 m) high and tapered to a thickness of 4.5 inches (114 mm) at the bottom edge of the belt. Fore and aft of the 12-inch (305 mm) transverse bulkheads that closed off the central citadel, the belt continued almost to the ends of the ship. Forward it tapered to a thickness of 2 inches (51 mm) and a height of 8 feet (2.4 m) and aft to the same thickness, but a height of 11 feet (3.4 m). At the aft end of the steering gear compartment was a 4-inch (102 mm) transverse bulkhead. After the Battle of the Denmark Strait in 1941, 1.5-inch (38 mm) non-cemented armour bulkheads were added on the sides of the magazines, to protect them from splinters from any hits from plunging shells that might have penetrated the ship's side beneath her belt. When the gun turrets from the First World War-era battlecruisers were modernised, their KCA faceplates were replaced by new ones 13 inches thick, and their roofs were replaced by 6-inch (152 mm) non-cemented armour plates. Their sides remained 7–9 inches (180–230 mm) in thickness. The barbettes for the 15-inch guns were 13 inches thick on the sides, but tapered to 11–12 inches (279–305 mm) closer to the centreline of the ship. The side and roof armour of the 5.25-inch turrets was 2.5 inches (64 mm) thick. Their ammunition hoists were protected by armour 2–6 inches (51–152 mm) thick. Intended to resist the impact of a 1,000-pound (450 kg) armour-piercing bomb dropped from a height of 14,000 feet (4,300 m), Vanguard's deck protection was identical to that of the King George V class. It consisted of six-inch non-cemented armour over the magazines that reduced to 5 inches (127 mm) over the machinery spaces. The armour continued forward and aft of the citadel at the lower-deck level. Forward it tapered in steps from five inches down to 2.5 inches near the bow. Aft, it protected the steering gear and propeller shafts with 4.5 inches of armour before tapering to a thickness of 2.5 inches near the stern. Unlike the Germans, French and Americans, the British no longer believed that heavy armour for the conning tower served any real purpose given that the chance of hitting it was very small; Vanguard's conning tower was therefore protected with 3 inches (76 mm) of armour on the face and 2.5 inches on the sides and rear. The secondary conning tower aft had 2 inches (51 mm) of armour on its sides. Vanguard's underwater protection was enhanced when she was redesigned in 1942 to reflect the lessons learned when Prince of Wales was sunk by Japanese torpedo bombers. It still consisted of a three-layer system of voids and liquid-filled compartments meant to absorb the energy of an underwater explosion. It was bounded on the inside by the 1.75–1.5-inch (44–38 mm) torpedo bulkhead. Her enlarged oil tanks reduced the empty spaces that could flood and cause the ship to list and greater provision was made to pump these spaces out. The longitudinal bulkheads of the side protection system were raised one deck higher to further subdivide the spaces behind the waterline armour belt. The side protection system had a maximum depth of 15 feet (4.6 m), but this decreased significantly as the ship narrowed at its ends. Over the length of the citadel, this system was found to be proof against 1,000 pounds (450 kg) of TNT during full-scale trials." So, a slightly reduced armour belt is the only are that Vanguard would lack, compared to KGV & Monarch. Her increased splinter-protection could translate to extra protection against HE shells and she also has seriously good torpedo protection. More on that: "Vanguard's design was revised again, while the ship was under construction in 1942, to reflect lessons learned from the loss of the King George V-class battleship Prince of Wales and operations with the other battleships. The space between the inboard and outboard propeller shafts was increased from 33.5 to 51.5 feet (10.2 to 15.7 m) to prevent a single torpedo from wrecking both shafts, and watertight access trunks were added to all spaces below the deep waterline to prevent progressive flooding through open watertight doors and hatches as happened to Prince of Wales." This could be reflected in higher torpdedo-damage-reduction, than her contemporaries, which would help, given her large turning circle. It would also make sense if she suffered flooding for a shorter period of time. As the "crew" on your WoWS battleship sealed the various compartments, this shorter flooding time would reflect the thought and design that went into the ship. She also had a double-bottom arrangement (two "skins") and was "divided into 27 main compartments, with water-tight bulkheads". Overall, her armour would be tougher than Monarch, with better torpedo defence and increased damage recovery. She would also have more health. However, she might be slightly more susceptible to citadel damage. CONCEALMENT AND STEALTH OK, she's a big, long, wide ship. However, she does have quite a sleek side-profile/silhouette and looks quite sleek, overall. See below: I would be tempted to reflect this with pretty good surface detectibility. Not Monarch, nor Roma stealth, but better than average. Overall, pretty sneaky, but won't surprise any cruisers. I would also reflect the enormous length and width with pretty average-to-poor air detectibility. Planes will see this thing from above, it's not a Yamato or Grosser Kurfurst, but it's no light cruiser! EXTRAS Now, if... BIG IF... she still wasn't quite up to snuff, there is one other thing I thought of... I don't believe it is necessary, but I'd like to know what people think: Now, obviously, almost all WW2 battleships had radar... WAIT! WAIT! LET ME FINISH!... and Vanguard's would be the best of them... I SAID LET ME FINISH!!... The thing is, I am not a fan of radar in WoWS, certainly not on a battleship (or Belfast) and I know most people feel the same. However, this super modern battleship, last of its kind, does feel a bit blind, with no spotter plane and no hydro. Add hydro, if you want, standard hydro isn't that powerful on a battleship. What if they gave Vanguard a completely unique form of radar, where it is a pulse, or a PING... extremely long ranged, the entire map, even... but it only highlighted every enemy ship for 1 second?? Like the radar gadget thing on Aliens Vs Predator! Or like a real sonar pulse. PING!... every enemy ship is spotted for one second... and they're gone again. This would not allow anyone to fire upon the enemy, there is just no time, but it would allow the fleet to know roughly where the enemies are (I say "roughly", as there's no way the enemy ships would maintain position). It would only have maybe 3 charges and would CERTAINLY not break the game! No-one would get shot, as a result... but it would give a brief glimpse into the enemy's plans. I can see this being quite uselful in clan battles, but not a deciding factor. Basically, that's my idea on Vanguard, it's taken me a LOOOONG time to type this up, but I am keen to know what others think. Thanks for reading (those who have). I'll leave a brief summary: VANGUARD Tier 8 Pros: -Fast battleship -Good armour scheme with additional torpedo & flooding protection -Good AA protection -Comfortable gun handling -Maintains speed in a turn -EXTREMELY accurate guns (for a battleship), with supercharges -Very fast shells, with short lead-times and good arcs -Very good AP penetration, with enhanced normalisation & krupp rating -Good, dependable HE shells, with good damage and fire chance -Pretty good concealment from sea -(possible unique radar pulse) Cons: -Small guns for tier, no overmatch -Normal reload and only 8 guns; gives poor DPM -Lower damage per AP shell, than most rivals -Smaller broadside than most rivals -Pretty lacklustre secondary armament -Large turning circle -Pretty poor concealment from air -No spotter plane Overall, I think this would be a fine ship. Dependable, fun to play, does a good job at maintaining historical accuracy, but still allows for game balance. I think the modern "flavour" would shine through, giving an entirely unique -but still quintessentially Battleship- form of gameplay. It would also NOT ruin the fun for the enemy team, nor would it be any better than the non-premium tech tree ships, which I think is extremely important. Thanks, everyone.
  11. MacFergus

    Bring back Stealth Firing

    And why not with the overpopulation of BBs in the game at the moment what better time than to bring this sorely missed mechanic back to the game and stop the gimmicks that are killing the game. What is Stealth Firing?. Stealth firing for newer players was where certain ships like DDs and CAs could open fire without being spotted or in effect have a cushion of so many km in which they could safely fire and not be seen. Why was is good for the Game?. BBs were reliant on there teams to spot for them which meant that any sensible BB captain would keep pace with his CAs so as not to be rendered blind a lone BB was basically a sunk BB. CA and DDs were more attractive to play and fulfilled the important role of spotting ships so there BBs could inflict damage. Encourage better team play and more aggression , simply being passive gave you no rewards and games lasted longer due to CAs and DDs not getting annihilated by WG gimmicks and overpopulated BBs. Why did WG remove it?. In my view removing SF was down to 2 reasons . 1/ WG wanted to introduce gimmicks like radar and smoke. 2/ The constant whining by BB players that it was unfair they could be shot at but couldn't shoot back ( Mainly by campers and snipers it didn't worry BBs who kept up with there team). Why should we have it back in the game?. Well I'm sure people have noticed the huge amount of BBs in the queues to some capping BBs is a good idea and I can understand that theory but what you don't want to do is alienate the most popular class in the game , Instead you want people to play other classes because its fun and by re introducing SF in the game would guarantee more people would play CAs and DDs thus bring the balance of game back naturally without buffs or nerfs or capping ships. As the game stands at the moment its far to passive and with good reasons the amount of BBs make both DDs and more importantly CA/CL hell to play hence the unbalance of ship classes the higher skill cap it takes to play a CA/CL is causing this huge divide between BBs and lighter classes , Why on earth would an average player like myself play a CA or DD for fun? What fun I don't have the skill level to play either of those and getting deleted in one shot is not my idea of fun hence I play BBs. It would be good to see what the community thinks on this topic and if you feel the game was far better balanced before SF was removed imho it was and by removing it WG opened the floodgates to the huge BB baby boom we have now. WG do the right thing. Thx for reading. MacFergus
  12. MrMacavity

    Possibility to sell harbour slots?

    Would be nice if you could sell empty shipslots you feel you no longer have use for, say for 75% of the value perhaps, to get something back but still make you a bit cautious about the process. For instance when I first started I kept EVERY ship I researched and ended up with so many I felt overwhelmed, then I sold the ones I didn't need, and I now I have 6 unused ship slots that kinda would be good to free up or re-sell to get some doubloons back. I do realize there are more ships coming later, and I MIGHT end up having to use those slots later, but still would be nice to have the option at least. Options are good. And making the value only 75% of what you spend to buy a ship-slot would make it somewhat balanced I feel, no need for 100% value back really, but some would be good if you feel you're never gonna get that many slots used up again. Thoughts? And please keep your answers constructive and detailed and well thought out, no need for quick knee-jerk "no" or "lol you suck" replies. You're better than that.
  13. MacFergus

    Removing Stealth from BBs

    I think BBs should be spottable regardless of where they are on the map I find it insane how a damaged BB can sneak off heal and sneak back , They should even take the Camo Mod off them as well I don't say this because I hate BBs because I'm a BB player mainly , I also think this would be good for CAs and DDs and good challenge for BB captains. Maybe if getting rid of camo on a BB is to far how bout they just increase there spotting distance I mean c'mon some BBs have11-13km stealth that virtually the same as a CA whats peoples thoughts on this?.
  14. T0rad


    Hello, I've been playing WoWs for quite some time now and i would like to propose an array of features that i think should be added and it would make game better. Now i know you'd think i might be naive, but let's not jump to conccluions . Separate turret control - ability of controling turrets separately and having them locked on different targets and chosing separate type of ammo for each -this feature woud be most useful for whips with many turrets with different angle of vision and slow traverse speed, so mainly BBs and heavy cruisers. Idea came to me when i watched some naval documentary and there is quite common, that turrets of big ships would fire each at its own target. Idea of implementig would be quite similar like control of engines in old FSX. you pressed seleciton key and then numbers of engines you wanted to use. so e + 3 + 4 (in sequence) would chose the engines 3 and 4 to be adjusted. It would not be mandatory. it would let some players fire at multiple sides and utilize theis ship more. Radar - added feature that would show position of enemy ships beyond visual visible range -radars of that time were far from perfect, but usable. I believe that Sharnhorst was sunk only using radar and never having him in visual range. Also not all ships had radar. My idea of implemetation would be having a "compas-like" bar, that would show heading to the ship, and size of its radar trace (it would not have identification. some BBs are smaller than some cruisers ;) -but also islands and terrain) and it would show range. with more precise radars this information could be more precise. Now bear in mind it would not show targets speed, heading or anything. and you would have to find that range for aiming manualy. but it would have 20+ km range and it would find ships in smoke, darkness, anywhere in LOS. but utilizing it would be very hard. Only best captains would gain advantage. This would also enable night battles. gun flashes would navigate ships with no radars. Secondary armament control - ability to control ships secondary guns manualy - i dont really see why dont we have this option natively. If you played any of the "battlestations" series games, the implementation there was pretty clear. all are automatic unless chosen to be controled manually. You could fire into smoke and aim better with them. On the contrary i really dont think players should be able to control AA fire. That system seems pretty balanced to me. Torpedo failure rate / gun jamming - torpedos could fail during their journey to the target or upon impact or being hit by shockwave of another torpedo exploding nearby - guns could jam - this was acctualy pretty common in those times from what ive read. Torpedos would fail all the time, guns would have technical difficluties. this could change with advanceness of the ships. just an idea safety protocols override - captain could chose not to follow security protocols gaining rate of fire - watch documentary on battle of jutland. you would fire faster, but when your turret got hit, the flash would be almost certain. (i think that animation for "detonation" sould be MUCH greater - watch the documentary, you'll see what i mean). implementing it would mean that changin protocols on and off would mean 2 minutes of main batteries fire halt - so it would be decision to consider carefully. I think these changes would let captains of the world be better, while almost non penalizing those, who chose to play just for fun and nice ships. I also think that captains here are capable and would manage to utilize this. whether to play gambit with rate of fire, being able to efectively shoot from all their turrets or finding a targets that are not visible.
  15. So with all the threads complaining about fellow teammates lack of skill and with some people wanting to punish poor players for bad gameplay I though of a simple idea to stop all the ranting and accusations by players that there teams let them down not them. Why not reward the top 3 players on the losing-side with a bonus of not having a defeat on there stats and also grant them the same rewards in xp and credits as the victors I will explain my reasons for this I know it sounds daft but I really think this could work. 1/ It doesn't reward poor players. 2/ It stops static games , people will try harder for there teams if you camp you might not make the top 3 3/ Reduces the stress of being a good player but RNG hates you when you go in random. 4/ Could possibly increase the player base 5/ Poor DD players might actually want to cap for a change (joking on this one) In a nutshell it would reward people who are good at the basics but have just had rotten luck with teams . Should they really be punished by having a large losing streak just because RNG hates them?. What you guys think?.
  16. PixelMK

    Submarine idea

    First of all i know this topic probably belongs in General discussion, but i put it here to be safe. We all know about the depth problem,so i just sat for 5 minutes and though about it. I have no historical facts here so bear with me pls. Make submarines something like destroyers (you cant dive into the water) but instead you basically cruise in the water, with a little of your submarine floating out of the water, you can be hit ofc. Since you would be REALLY hard to hit (and detect) make sonar/hydrocaustic search/catapult fighter/airplanes literally EVERYTHING that can be consumed able to detect you. Shots on you will deal EXTRA damage, like srsly much. (not like you will have HP thats on par with a BB, duh) In the game atm hovewer there is no need for submarines, this is only a wild idea that crossed me, so.. Thoughts?
  17. Stalker911

    Random idea about BBs armaments

    Ok so I noticed BBs have up to 3 different caliber weapons, but only the main battery is player controlled. Why not make the main(310mm or 410mm) AND secondary batteries(152mm, 127mm) player controlled and the rest AI controlled? Its just a random idea I got and I'm posting here since I have no idea where else to post
  18. sprototles

    Little things to do

    Hi all captains I created this threat for us basically if you have any small idea how to improve gameplay or some effects or feature, i think its better to put it all in one thread instead of creating 100s of topic per every idea lets say we will post ideas and comments separately, so it will be easier to like/disloke someone's idea I hope so you will like this idea and consider this thread as useful
  19. Hi guys, I'll be brief. Things I would like to see in the game after playing for some time: 1) Every ship should have an ammo limit... shells/torpedoes/bombs (CVs) based on historical values. Running out of ammo was an important aspect that literally decided the outcome of many sea battles. 2) Destroyers: mines and guided torpedoes (rationed) - mines - laying mines was an important part of marine warfare... It would be fun to see destroyers with limited torps but it'd be even more fun to see them protect their CVs and BBs by laying minefields to cut off probable approach paths for enemy destroyers - guided torpedoes - WW2 saw 3 types of those: with acoustic guidance (like 1943 German G7e or G7es), plus pattern-following (these would be fun to see) and wake-homing (not necessarily). Since these would be very powerful indeed maybe there should be a limit (explained by limited availability and thus supply of e.g. 10 per day or so... 3) Shell hits below waterline - these happened too and yet I don't see flooding caused by shells - especially AP ones. 4) Siege mode - an idea I had just now. Imagine a fiord with a harbour protected by a fort (operated automatically by AI) and two teams clashing together protecting/attacking the port. Also a vs. AI version would be fun to play with some increased difficulty for more satisfaction. That's all. Thanks. Stan
  20. __Themistocles__

    Give IJN DD's Radar+sonar stealth consumable

    So I thought to myself, if USN DD's get defensive AA, why shouldn't IJN DD's get something in return? Speed boost, as buffed as it's getting in next patch, is bad. So why not give them a consumable that makes them invisible to all radar and sonar (normal visibility rules apply though-if you're spotted without them you're spotted) for like 2 minutes? It would fit their role and could give IJN DD's actual motivation to go in "minekaze style" to do their job. Not to mention that at higher tiers enemy CV has 5-8 squads (but that's another problem), so spotting still wouldn't be an issue.
  21. Fogas21

    Smoke Curtain for CV fighters?

    I was scrolling 9gag and stumbled upon this gif: http://9gag.com/gag/a2mVb5d Just an idea for discussion, be gentle :3 For example: the fighters could drop a smoke curtain but they will get reduced speed because of the increased mass of the planes. or the BBs can launch a plane that circles around her and during 1 or 2 rounds it drops smoke. (this would replace the fighter or spotter plane)
  22. Moin moin Community! Als ich in letzter Zeit immer wieder auf einige mehr oder weniger bekannte, aber durchaus interessante Schiffbauprojekte der ehemaligen Kriegsmarine gestoßen bin, weckte das natürlich mein Interesse daran, was man wohl mit diesm Schiffen in WoWs anfangen könnte und ob ein DD-Tree tatsächlich da maximal Machbare für die Deutschen in WoWs ist. Zudem denke ich, dass verschiedene Arten von Zerstörern bestimmt etwas Vielfalt in das Spiel bringen könnten, was ja grundsätzlich nicht falsch ist. Bei meiner Idee geht es um einen möglichen "Split" der DDs, wie ihn z.B. die Russen schon erfahren haben. Hierbei nehme ich die bestehende Linie als Ausgangspunkte, tausche jedoch etwas die Positionen der Schiffe (nicht aber Tiers etc.) und möchte zwei neue Unterbäume präsentieren. Die "Vielzweck-Zerstörer", die "Schweren Zerstörer" und die "Hochseezerstörer" (Spähkreuzer), die sich durch ihre Charakteristiken (hoffentlich) voneinander absetzen. Tree 1: "Leichte/Vielzweck-Zerstörer": Sie bestehen aus Zerstörern, die sich nicht durch extreme Geschütz- oder Torpedobewaffnung hervortun, sondern ein solider Mix aus allen Spielstilen sind, was flexibles Auswählen von Skills und Anpassen der Spielweise möglich macht. Schwachpunkte wären ihre "jack-of-all-trades" natur ohne allzu große Vorteile und eventuell geringe HP. Besserer Rauch sowie kein Hydro bis T8. Tree 2: "Schwere Zerstörer": Diese Linie enthält bereits vorhandene Schiffe wie die Gaede und Z23 und zielt darauf ab, Zerstörer mit gutem HP-Pool und sinnvoller Geschützbewaffnung (12,7cm undd 15cm) bereitstellt, deren Schwachpunkte in Maneuvrierfähigkeit und Tarnung liegen können. Hier habe ich die Z1945 als Tier 10 ergänzt, da die Z52 (mit eventuell einigen Anpassungen) besser in Tree 1 passt. Hydro gibts ab T6 mit schwachem Rauch. Tree 3: "Hochseezerstörer": Diese Schiffe stellen wie im Namen bereits angedeutet solche Schiffe dar, die für den Hochseeeinsatz gedacht sind und deswegen um einiges größer als normale Zerstörer sind. Sie besitzen ausnahmslos die 15cm Hauptbewaffnung, was ihren Charakter als "Möchtegern-Kreuzer" unterstreicht. Statt Rauch könnte hier (wie bei den RU DDs) ein Heal Abhilfe für Mangelnde Tarnung schaffen. Die SP1 könnte sogar (balanceabhängig) eine "richtige" Zitadelle bekommen. Premiums: Allerlei interessante Schiffe werde ich (so der Plan) in späteren Versionen des Trees noch einbringen. Hier einmal der Split visualisiert (hoffentlich ist die rote Schrift kein Problem :/) Ich gebe hier am Anfang des Posts mal eine Kurzübersicht über die Schiffe und werde dann weitere Details hier im Tread ergänzen. Dies wäre meine grobe Idee für einiges mehr an Zerstören für den deutschen Tree, die durchaus interessante Spielweisen mit sich bringen könnten. Natürlich muss bei den Entwürfen hier und da noch eventuell eine unhistoriche Änderung (Z.B. Flak, Motorleistung etc.) getan werden, die jedoch den Charakter der Schiffe nich groß verändert und auch ihr Aussehen recht unverändert lässt (im Gegensatz zu den dt. Low-Tier BBs...). Wer jedoch das Prinzip der "Paperships" generell scheut, sollte eventuell seine Finger von diesen Schiffen lassen, jedoch sind sie deutlich historischer als z.B. die T9 "Roon" (vllt weiß WG ja mehr als wir..). Ich hoffe, ich kann hiermit einige Interessierte ansprechen und auch einige eher unbekannte Projekte zeigen. Für Bildmaterial müssst ihr wohl vorerst das Internet zur Hilfe ziehen, jedoch werde ich eventuell einige der Z1942-Entwürfe sowie die Z1937 selbst illustrieren (da keine Bilder auffindbar). Wer jetzt noch liest, kann sich gerne dazu aufgefordert fühlen, seine Meinung/Kommentare und auch gerne Namensvorschläge für die Schiffe zu äußern und im Poll oben abzustimmen ;) Na dannn "Schiff Ahoi!" TheTomCheat
  23. Hi all, This is re-post of my original idea from 2015 - bit it is still relevant and actual! IMHO it is great that WG introduced the change in spring 2016 for top player of losing team not to lose the star (and I hope that my proposal several months earlier played a role there) but I still believe that my original proposal is better because it helps with biggest problem in "Ranked" - the "carry" of not so good players up the ranks due to belonging to winning team... For me, personally, this (the "carry" of not so good players up the ranks due to belonging to winning team) is the biggest problem with "Ranked" and something really should be done about it! Leo "Apollo11"
  24. P2Win


    Since I haven’t seen anyone suggested this...Why isn’t there an automatic karma system that reward the top person on the team some karma points? Perhaps a tiered system: #1[Gold] - 3 points #2[Silver] - 2 points #3[Bronze] - 1 point This will encourage people to do well. Rank has a system where top person doesn’t lose a star, why not implement a similar system like this in randoms?