Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'modules'.



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 36 results

  1. So i got myself the Haku back in the light of the next CB season on the horizon and fact that the brawl showed few in clan still harbor CVs... So cap wise I took AS/DCF/IEB-IE-SE/AA-SS/CE Modules are still WIP but for now I slapped on the DB module in slot 4 plan is to put on the FCM1 in slot 5 and AGM2 in slot 6, AGM1 slot 1 and AEM1 slot 2 and probably the AAM1 in slot 3 Now about the plane upgrades... Seems 2 me that TBs are a no brainer as they are faster and tougher (duh) and although you get slower regen you also get bigger squad and more planes on deck initially so it kinda counterbalances that... Now the question is are the T10 DBs and rocket planes worth the prolonged respawn? Also any thoughts about something that has to be changed?
  2. Really WG, this will break the game! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuqPquU_4KI 11) Let’s reset the line and make you grind it all over again, get real WG it took some of us ages to grind a line and you want us to do it again, and if we don’t we can’t get them. 22) 10 points to collect all three on that one line with a max of 3 points per season, that means you can’t get the top module until the 4th season. Well done look at all the premium account money you will reap in 4 seasons, if people stay. 33) Average or bad players may take longer to obtain them, and that will be made harder by all the good players having them and blowing them out of the water to early. 44) Lesser ships may benefit from them but that is only until the OP ships get them and become even more OP. When they do get them the lesser ships advantage has gone so it is back to square one. 55) All bonus and now penalty. 66) These on top of legendries. 77) If you want these there are alternative ways to introduce them. You could indicate on the tech tree which modules you wish to pursue with a check box and the game could use this to present you with Personal missions like the legendries had allowing a player to work through these in however long it takes him. If you want to space out the modules over time you could time gate implementation. Example: season 1 level 1, season 2 level 2, season 3 level 3 If you didn’t want to do it that way then a new module campaigns, one for each class to unlock the right to the module level which then costs you XP or silver for each ship. If you complete the Destroyer campaign you can purchase the modules on all Destroyers with said XP or silver. Legendary modules, if you have these you keep them until you obtain level 3 which will replace the legendary module. If you already have the legendary it could give you a reduction in the criteria to gain the level 3 by way of compensation to those that earned them. Why do Battleships get 15% on HP at level 1 when Cruisers and Destroyers only get 10%. Surely the Cruisers and Destroyers are in more need especially as they have lower HP to start with and gain less even on the same percentage. In my opinion you have this backwards, especially if you reduce Battleship dispersion by 20%, they will obliterate cruisers and destroyers on sight. If WG go down the reset route they will alienate so many players!
  3. Hi, I was wondering what Modules you use on your Lenin and how you spec'd your captain? Any suggestions are appreciated (I like to play aggressively) :) thx.
  4. Ahoy Captains, according to https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/updates/modernizations-x/ in order to get the legendary upgrades, you need to perform a series of missions. Has anyone got such a mission? And how :/ Already won TX game.
  5. RamboCras

    Modules for the Midway & Hakuryu

    Hi, What modules are you running on the midway & Hakurya? I would be very grateful if you can explain your choices :)
  6. Akula971

    How to make Jutland work?

    I just can't get this thing to work. I'm using an IFHE build, tried main guns and torpedo boost, not noticed much. I'm losing to Shima's in gunfights, Fletchers make mince meat of it. The only real success I've had is shooting down aircraft! It has a heal, but what is the point in a gunfight, that will see you reduced to a smoking wreck before you can activate it. Cap contesting is very dangerous, you don't have the speed to escape or get out of radar range. If you are having success and fun in it, please let me know your module choice, captain skills and tactics.
  7. Lennox73

    Researchable Modules

    Hi War gaming, this has probably been asked before but I cant see the answer. Why oh why aren't modules that have been researched from one ship for example the 420mm guns on the Freddie not then available for free on the Kurfurst? In tanks if you researched the engine, radio, guns on a lower tank but the same modules where used on a higher tier where then available to be used. Granted the amount of modules that are used on boats are slightly different, but there fore examples torps that are the same, guns that are the same. Just a small change i know but I do find its a tad annoying why I need to spend my xp on something that I have already researched. Anyway end of question Lennox73 (PS Go Sharks!!)
  8. Hi, now that we know the mods are final ive had a (final) look at them and must say im dissapointed. why? well the idea of giving ships modules that create 2 different playstyles for T10 is quite appealng since a more diverse meta on T10 would be welcome. the problem is what the modules ended up beeing: - large part of them is just pointless - the next best category is some "maybe" useable - and a few upgrades meaning the only ones that will be mounted by a significant number of players are the "upgrade" ones which doesnt diversify the meta at all. while the idea was good it lacked rigor! what would have needed to happen would be something that radically changed ship playstyle like (only a rough made up example to get the point across) : Turning a yamato from sinper to a midrange brawler : - cutting down range massively - increasing Turret rotation big time - maybe changing ruder and aceleration a bit such changes might have worked and diversified meta but, for now those mods seem to be largely nothing more than a waste of dev time.
  9. BrummBaerTiger

    Indianapolis modules

    Just came across the following patch 0.7.5 feature (bug) regarding the Indianapolis which: 1. Is technically a New Orleans with 2. Cleveland Hulls and 3. A Mk8 Gun Fire Module that will REDUCE the firing range by 10%^^ It also crashed the harbor ui, making it impossible to select another ship or click on any of the following buttons: Port, Exterior, Tech Tree, Profile, Clan or <- To Tech Tree. Had to quit the game.
  10. DenmarkRadar

    Ship Modules

    I have a small suggestion for the little box/area in the top left hand corner where you choose/upgrade guns, hull, torpedoes, range finder and engine: Maybe let the maximum number of barrels per turret be reflected in the icon for the gun-system. So single barreled guns would show a turret with only 1 barrel, double-barreled turrets would show an icon with two barrels. It would clearly show the difference between the 406's and 419's for the T9 and TX UK BBs, HMS Lion and HMS Conqueror.
  11. The equipment module we receive for finishing the first part of Oktober Revolution marathon is wrong, it's the old one... We get a Main Battery Mod. 1, a module that's no longer used in the game, we should receive a Main Armaments Mod. 1, which is the one the old one was switched for when they updated the equipment modules. Someone at WG done goofed this one, and put the wrong one in the mission... why is it even still in the game? Please fix it WG.
  12. Hi. I'm new in WoW and I have a question I can't figure out on my own. What's the meaning of the arrows under some (but not all) upgrades on a ship? Example: my Phoenix has upgrades that lead nowhere (apart from improving the ship of course), whil it has two hull upgrades that directly lead, with an arrow, to the Omaha Tier 5. What's the meaning? Does that mean that I HAVE to buy those two hull upgrades in order to research the next ship in the line? And what about ship experience? If the Omaha costs 17500 exp, and the two hull upgrades cost 1600 and 2500 respectively, does it mean that the true cost of the Omaha is 17500 + 1600 (mandatory) + 2500 (mandatory)? Or that 1600 and 2500 get cut off the original cost of the Omaha, so that they both count towards the next ship AND improve the Phoenix while at it? What am I missing? please help.
  13. Hi all, Any info about possible upcoming discount for Modules / Upgrades (Modifications)? I only found two recent ones: 13 February at 06:10 CET until 16 February at 06:10 CET http://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/special/special-valentine/ (30% discount on all Modules) 1 October at 07:00 CEST until 4 October at 07:00 CEST (UTC+2) http://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/special/resupplies-arrived/ (Upgrades (Modifications) Discounted 50% Credits Off) Leo "Apollo11"
  14. T0rad

    New Orleans turret upgrade

    Ahoy skippers, I was just wondering - in your opinion is it worth it to upgrade turrets on NO? the bonus seems bit marginal on paper, maybe even non existent due to increased traverse speed. Or is there any other hidden bonus to it?
  15. Nargoth73

    Colorado module choice

    First off, I am not sure if this topic should be in Ships - BB or here, but since this part is where I hang out the most I'll post it here. My Colorado and I have a bit of a love-hate relationship. I seem to do meh in it. Granted, i haven't played many games in her but compared to the New Mexico she's a bit of a letdown. My dillema: I have arty plotting room as the second module, and I am thinking of changing it for the AA-upgrade. My captain has ATF as the 4th skill and BFT as the 1st skill (amongst others) so AA-build will be quite viable. The only thing that stops me from doing this is the fact her range will drop to 15-ish km, which is not much. My question would be: would taking AA up to 79 be worth the drop in range? it would probably mean I will hit more shots (closer range = less dispersion) but I would also be more of a punching bag for those sniping BBs and cruisers. I would like to hear from people who are running an AA-build or the range build, and of course from other people who have tips and tricks.
  16. SchabeOink

    In-Game Fine Tuning the Atago

    Hi all, I would like to check with the community the setup of my/any Atago and what can be done in-game to fine tune it! I am aware of the ongoing "Buff Atago dpm and range" thread, but felt this wouldn't have a place there. My Atago is running the following: - Captain Skills (11/12):1 Expert Loader / Basics of Survivability2 Expert Marksman3 Vigilance4 Survivability Expert - Modules:Main Battery Mod.1Gun Fire Control System Mod.1Damage Control System Mod.1Steering Gears Mod.2Target Acquisition System Mod.1 - Camo: Type 10 Atago - No Premium Consumables Playstyle: Pretty much straightforward support CA, I circle behind the DD line and provide fire-support for whoever needs it. Anything above ~10 km gets HE, below ~10 km AP. I find that I am mostly happy with my selection of Mods and Skills, but wonder what other setups would be like. I for example don't miss Superintendent, as I seldom feel I need a 3rd Repair Charge, not to speak of additional Panic AA and Catapult Fighter. Given my setup, I would like to ask you guys about two alternative builds I think are possible: - Is maxing out AA worth on Atago? We're talking AA Guns Mod.2, Basic and Advanced Firing Training, and Manual AA for those who have time for that. - How about going full Stealth? Referring to Concealment System Mod.1 and Concealment Expert, because sneaking up for surprise torps and gun volleys sounds tempting. I don't think proper invisi-fire would be a thing on her now would it. Any help and general discussion about Atago playstyle & fine tuning welcome!
  17. Alpheus100

    Incorrect module value

    When hovering over the Type 4 mod 2 Fire Control System module for Kuma Cruiser the range after purchase was listed as 12.4 even though the current range was also listed as 12.4. This seemed to indicate that there is no reason to purchase this module. After purchasing the actual range increased to 13.6 (12.4 + 1.2, 10% increase) correctly.
  18. In this thread [LINK] someone asks a question about the maximum AA-rating you can reach on a ship. So my curiosity shows up. I current own the Iowa with the C-Hull. The "pure" AA-rating is 67. If I now add my commander with BFT (1-point-skill; +10% efficiency) the rating raises from 67 to 70. The AA Gun Modification 2 (+20% firing range) raises the rating from 67 to 79. (no commander) Both (BFT and AA-GM2) will give you 82. So it seems that the bonus is always calculated by the base value. Adding the the AA Gun Modification 3 (+20% effectiveness)* to the AA-GM2 raises the AA-value from 79 to 85. (no commander) Assign again the commander with BFT to the ship with AA-GM2 and AA-GM3 raises the AA-rating from 85 to 88. Giving the commander also the AFT (4-point-skill; +20% firig range) raises the value from 88 to 98. You can raise your AA-Defense raiting from 67 with two skills and two modules to 98. * I wonder if there is a difference between efficiency and effectiveness? Here I am only guessing: the Basis Firing Training gives you a bonus of ~4.5% the Advanced Firing Training gives you a bonus of ~15% the AA Gun Modification 2 gives you a bonus of ~18% the AA Gun Modification 3 gives you a bonus of ~9% I just tested it on my only american premium ship with an AA-rating: the Albany. The ship alone has a rating of 4. A commander with BFT and AFT should add 19.5%. So the rating should raise from 4 to 4.78 with a commander with these two skills. And the result ingame is a rating of 5. So it seem correct. Second test: Cleveland has base value of 40. With the AA-GM2 is raises to 48. Here is the first discrepancy, because 40+18% is only 47.2. Adding a commander with BFT and AFT raises the value to 60. But again calculating with the values above 40+4.5%+15%+18% is only 55 not 60. So, there are two questions left: Is there a difference between efficiency and effectiveness? Can some else verify or falsify those values?
  19. Bad_Mojo_incoming

    Modules sink?

    I don't understand this....Both in WoT and WoWP when you gain enough XP you can unlock new modules for your tank or plane and after you buy them, you can sell the previous (now unused, unnecessary or inferior) modules to get some credits back. Is this feature not available in Warships? I mean, purchasing new guns, ship hulls, torps, planes, targeting systems cost HUGE PILES of credits! Not to mention upgrades, signals, cammo, captain training...Which makes incredibly hard to farm money without premium account and premium ships. All in all, can't we sell the unused modules in Warships? Or have I missed something?
  20. I've noticed a couple of times it's not really clear exactly what you get with any given upgrade. Case in point, the stock vs. upgraded 102mm guns on the USS Clemson. Hovering over the modules, the stats are the exact same - same traverse, same ROF, same damage for both shell types. All you learn from the pop-up is that getting the MK14 guns will give you a rather vague +1 to the ship's overall "artillery" rating/score. Obviously, something about them is better, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who likes to know what I'm buying - when I get look at a module really would like to know what makes them better. I have of course figured out that the upgrade means that the Clemson's guns become double turrets(and have already unlocked and mounted the upgrade), but really, shouldn't obviously vital stats like range, accuracy, number of barrels etc. be included in the preview mouseover?
  21. Hi all. Have been reading a large number of articles, books and web sites lately about actual performance and capabilities of Destroyers during WW2 and was a bit inspired. I think the wikipedia page on the Battle of Samar sums some parts up quite nicely: First a bit about a number of "Destroyer Escorts" involved. Destroyer Escorts was smaller, slower (usually just about 20 knots), less armed etc ships normally used to escort freight convoys, that is, far weaker and less capable than a full Destroyer This was after coming under fire from Heavy Cruisers of the Japanese side. Then the legendary actions of Commander Ernest E. Evans in the USS Johnston, a Fletcher. There are many more stories like this, this one is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar An interesting article in full. Now, I know the game is what it is, and it's to late for any real changes of game mechanics at this point, but it might not be needed either. From what I've learned, Destroyers where indeed a very real threat to capital ships, and in reality they didn't have the "cloaking device" from the game. Rather, a small ship like a destroyer, with the amount of agility and speed they had was an extremely hard target to hit using the targeting technology of the time. They where also, despite lacking in armor, generally very durable and notoriously hard to finish off. Yes, they often suffered damage which decreased their performance, but outright sinking them wasn't all that easy. This, by the way, goes for many other ships as well: far more ships where put out of action, not being able to fight anymore and needing repairs than outright sunk. Now, what I would like to see is a more detailed system for managing damage. A real ship (or vehicle, or person) doesn't have hit points. Focusing on ships, when they take damage, a couple of things can happen. They can start leaking, and if the leak is greater than the pumping capacity or the pumps are disabled it will start sinking, how fast depending of course of the size and numbers of holes. Systems on the ship may be hit and damaged or destroyed, which seems to be the most common effect of getting hit. It may also, on rare occasions, be penetrated in a sensitive are, a magazine or boiler, which will cause catastrophic damage, generally sinking the ship quickly. The ship may also catch fire, and finally, crew may get killed. A torpedo hit is special, since it does work by sinking the ship, but generally, the hole created is so big that there is no time to react to this, and in the case of smaller ships it may well break the entire structure of the ship. Now, none of these kinds of damage are taking a toll on some ship-wide pool of hit points which, when expended, causes the ship to explode. I believe a mechanic more akin to reality would actually be an improvement for gameplay. AP: AP shells should have a couple of effects. On a penetration it will cause immense damage to the systems located where the shell ended up, the radius of damage correlating to the shell size, which may also cause fires. This will generally knock the system out for the rest of the game, also killing most of the crew manning said system. If a sensitive system like a magazine or boiler room is penetrated this should generally cause catastrophic damage, sinking the ship. This needs to be very difficult to achieve, since these areas are always extremely well protected and also not trivial to hit. An AP shell might also overpenetrate just as today. This should have a small chance of damaging any system in the shells path and also to kill some crew. Damage would not be as catastrophic, and be fixable by the crew. An underwater overpen will cause a small leak. HE: HE Shells exploding on deck will cause damage to nearby systems: the larger the shell, the radius again depending on shell size. It will also kill crew and have a chance to cause fires. Against very light armor, or plunging shells on the deck of light ships a HE shell may penetrate into the hull, causing even more damage then a penetrating AP shell, and risking causing leaks. Torpedos: A torpedo hit is always serious. Some ships, battleships foremost, have torpedo bulges which may save them from catastrophic damage, only causing the ship to need to slow down for the remainder of the battle. In all other cases, if the torpedo isn't a dud, it will cause a very serious leak, which will generally be impossible to fix, or break the structure of the ship, instantly sinking it. Now, this needs to be balanced of course, things to consider are introducing "duds", which was a quite common problem, limiting torpedo supplies, making torpedo bombers dropping much more difficult where the planes need a fairly long straight approach where they are very vulnerable to AA fire and fighters, introducing a risk that a TB under enough fire might botch their drop, causing the torpedo to destruct on water impact, missing widely etc. Torpedo hits needs to be fairly uncommon but extremely dangerous. Bombs from DB's work exactly like HE shells, damage, fire potential and radius based on bomb size. Leaks are tracked on a numerical scale where 0 is no leaks and 100 is sinking rapidly. Pumps at full capacity can stop leaks up to 20-40 on the scale depending on ship, and reduces leaks over that by the same amount: A ship with 25 pump efficiency and 40 leakage has an effective leakage of 15. Water taken on is also tracked, and once it reaches 100 the ship will sink. Water in the ship will slow it down and make it harder to turn. At over 50 water, crew actions will become slower and at 70 crew will start to die. Fires work in a similar way, the amount of fires are tracked from 0-100, where 100 is a raging inferno. A ship has a fire fighting efficiency of 5-20, which is the amount of fires put out in one minute. Fires over 30 slows crew down, over 50 starts to kill crew. Each minute, there is a percentage risk, of modules being damaged or destroyed based on the amount of fires still burning. Modules that are damaged are individually repaired. A ship has a number of repair points which are automatically distributed between all damages. The player can prioritize areas of repair: Weapons, Propulsion and Steering, Sensors etc, haven't thought out all possibilities. While working, the repair efficiency decreases from exhaustion, which is regained if the repair crews gets to rest without fixing anything. Crew number is tracked. Individual crew functions are not however. Instead, every action the ship takes are slowed down by a lack of crew proportionally, including fixing leaks, fighting fires and repairing systems, but also responding to commands (increase or decrease speed, rudder shift), top speed, reloading guns, training guns, AA efficiency, spotting range, the works. Stopping the ship in a hidden location, not doing anything else would let more crew focus on repairs, speeding them up, as long as the ship does nothing. If to many systems are damaged or to many crew are killed the ship is out of action, effectively dead. It will still float in game and can be shot by shells or torpedoes, this has no further impact on the game though, other than that the ship might be used as a shield. If there are to many leaks or fires in relation to the fixing capabilities of the remaining crew the captain will automatically issue an abandon ship, also effectively taking the ship out of action. Now, this is all rough ideas, actual numbers etc would need a lot of tweaking. I think a damage model like this would allow for a much more interesting game though, removing the rather silly concept of hitpoints and instead tracking actual damage to the ships capabilities. It would also fix things like fires from HE shells sinking Battleships: yes, setting fires would cause the Battleship to perform worse, but wouldn't sink it, and it would be unlikely that it caused so many casualties as to putting it out of action in a hurry. It would also allow modelling of things like I talked about earlier, how some ships can be very resilient and hard to sink without any magical cloaks or invulnerabilities. I think it would make the game much more dynamic and interesting. I think generally, the hitpoints paradigm in games is a pretty bad way of managing damage. Same thing goes for tanks for example, maybe even more obviously so: A MBT that is hit is either penetrated, which generally causes damage severe enough to take it out of action or destroy it spectacularly, or it is not penetrated, which will cause very little problems at all, maybe knocking a gyro out of balance disabling the main sight temporarily, knocking out some mirrors, lamps etc. A 25 mm autocannon can shoot at the front of a modern MBT from 1500 meters for as long as it pleases, it won't kill the tank. About the Destroyers in particular, apart from the revamped damage system, they would need to be able to rely even more on maneuverability and smoke to avoid getting hit. I feel that this is what was intended for the US destroyer line, since they can't rely on concealment while firing their guns or using torps, but the game fails to model it correctly, which makes the entire line sub par. Hitting a destroyer needs to be really really hard, and they need to not be knocked out by a few hits, but be able to go on fighting, albeit with reduced capabilities until able to repair. This would be compensated by increasing the detection ranges considerably, removing the feel of a magic aura, making them both more exciting and enjoyable to play, and likely less irritating and frustrating (while at least as dangerous) when facing them. Sorry for the mega-long post, had to much time on my hands I guess. And yea, I know, it's probably to late for major changes like this, one could always hope though, like I said, I think it could potentially settle quite a few problems in the game.
  22. Spezct

    "Garage" in Port

    Hello, One day I was wondering where all stock modules are going when you sell a ship that have more that two upgrades bought.... Do someone now is there coming same kind "garage" where you can see all bought modules and could sell these. I thinks that everyone really need some extra silver! T, Spezct
  23. _Amko_

    Modules?

    Anyone knows when we are been able to sell modules..cuz like you everybody knows we have to pay for modules...and old one just stay till ship is in dock
  24. Takru

    [Research] ... not fun

    Howdy, could not find a thread regarding this, so I apologize if this has been written already. For me the Tech Trees themselves are ok, but the way the game progresses within them is fairly odd. Take a look at the Kongo for example. You start out with a rather underwhelming ship which has a vastly lower main gun range than it's predecessor, the Myogi. However, the Kongo has more guns and other attributes which sort of make up for the "upgrade" from Myogi to Kongo. However, when one moves from the Kongo to Fuso, things are different. A fully upgraded Kongo is so much better than a stock Fuso that one could wonder why to bother changing the ship, other than to grind the way down the line towards the next ship. Much lower range, much less AA, slower... The step from one ship to the next should feel like an improvement, but it really is not in so many cases. How can this be improved? I do not have an immediate idea. The whole module research stuff would have to be changed, apparently. it would be great if the modules would offer a choice instead of being almost mandatory. Destroyers sometimes have that kind of choice when they can choose between faster or longer range torpedos. The could also receive higher calibre guns, faster traverse speed, higher range or higher fire speed. Similar choices could be added to other ships as well.
  25. Elendor

    Tier 9 - Iowa, and modules

    I've just unlocked the Iowa, after some very agreeable grinding on the North Carolina. Damn these last BBs after the Colorado are just so amazingly awesome, so much fun to play. Obviously, I've got a lot of upgrades to research, quite a bit of experience needed to retrain my crew as well, the ship isn't quite at her best yet. But I'll be working on that, I might throw in a few flags to speed this up a bit. But with this new ship, also comes a new upgrade slot. And there, I must say that I'm still conflicted. Some options are useless, like faster reload for secondaries. Meh. The ones I like: - One option is a trade-off, with a 12% increase in reload speed, but a 17% decrease in turrets speed! - Gun accuracy. But it doesn't say how much more accurate your guns will be. - AA defense strength, +20% Here is where I'm at for the moment: - I do not like the trade-off. I know it's a popular one though. It's probably great for sniping, sends more shells, and your guns aren't turning much. But I'm not a sniper, I'm brawling a lot, I like to get close, to push, which means having to turn, to deal with threats left and right etc... A bit like a super heavy cruiser. The guns don't turn very fast by default, but I can deal with that. However making them 17% slower, ouch. Shooting more often is nice, but not being able to shoot and do the massive damage that these guns can dish out from close range, because the guns can't get on target.... - I'm tempted by the extra gun accuracy. It must be quite nice, and there is no downside. Increases your damage while you get close, which is nice. Although not too useful once you're close, like within 8-12km as I tend to be. But it must be very nice to reduce the RNG when shooting at cruisers that try to keep you at 14-16km. The extra accuracy should allow you to land more shots, and therefore to be more reliable in dealing with these crucial targets. It's really too bad that we do not know how much of an increase the module is. It could just be 5%, which isn't much. 10% is decent. The default max dispersion is 272m, almost exactly the same as on the North Carolina, and it's not great but I can do good with that. 10% only brings it to 245m... Don't know. Anything above 10% would be worth it, anything below, meh. - The 20% AA def. In some cases, it would be useless. You may not face an enemy CV. The enemy CV may not attack you, the Iowa's AA is already pretty strong. But if there are planes, and they are coming for you, damn this module would make your AA devastating. I already have the +10% AA def, and the +20% AA range.. the North Carolina was already pretty good in terms of AA, but with this type of upgrade, this puts it at a total of +30% AA def, for a 7km range, which would make planes drop at an insane rate. It's only useful when there are enemy CVs, but when that's the case the ship becomes a 14km wide no-go zone for airplanes. In the end I might try both the gun accuracy, and the AA def, and test them out, see if I notice the difference and how useful they feel. So what do you guys think? What would you pick? If you have, or have had an Iowa, which one did you choose and why? Did you feel like the module you chose was worth it, did you notice the difference?
×