Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'survivability'.



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 8 results

  1. Hi guys In this topic i would like to talk about secondaries survivability overall and especially about these on the massechusetts. Those of you who has massa know about she's gimming - She has worse accuracy of main guns that hers competition but instead has improved accuracy on secondary guns and faster reloading health - all intended to made her a good brawler. Ofcouse to made it happen you have to have at least captain with 18 skill points and invest them in advanced firing training, manual fire control and inertia fuse for HE. Ofcourse take into consideration that experienced captain on this ship is.. quite not enough to be successful in average game. You also need to get close enough to the enemy to use them and it is not as easy as it may seems because of tier VIII matchmaking which in ~68% samples is put up to games with tier IX and X - where games are played on larger maps with streched ranges.. So to the point -> Recently in my games i have a large numbers od destroyed secondaries even - when like in this case - i am almost out of battle My secondaries are dying no matter what i will do and this is not a big amount of damage and not done by a large caliber HE As you see those are baltimore HE shells - not high caliber from battleships ofcourse i have whatever i can to increase survivability -> Still that is not even close to the survivability of secondaries on the Bismarck/Fredrich der Grosser. So i have a question mainly focused to the wargaming staff - How can i be successful brawler if after a brawl i lose half of my secondaries armament? or sometimes 2 or 3 turrets even before brawl starts. How can i be successful brawler if my secondaries are not suited for taking any damage? Why these secondaries are so fragile if that is the only gimmick this ship has? Best regards Fodder
  2. TomBombardil

    AA mount surviveability

    With the introduction of RN BBs you hear more and more that the AA mounts die to fast to HE spam. Also from non RN HE spam. But if that is a problem! USE THE (freaking) 100% AA mount surviveability UPGRADE!! Yes you heard it here first. THERE IS A UPGRADE!! Not even a skill. Not in the later slots. No in the 1st one. So, ANYONE can have it! No need to train comander or anything. A 100%, yes that's correct 100% survivability boost! My mounts stronger than your puny little he shells! You find the other upgrade more important? Than what are you whining for, If you don't equip it. You obviously don't need it that much. Dual purpose AA mounts are magical anyway. Can shoot secondaries and AA at the SAME Time!
  3. Having tried German, US, USSR and IJN cruiser lines I have come to a conclusion that IJN is the most enjoyable line to play, mostly because of the armored decks the t5-t7 have. On the other cruisers a BB shell will autopenetrate you anywhere apart from belt armor. USSR cruisers have soft decks but at least they have 50mm of citadel deck armor which helps to prevent citadels when angled but you still eat full penetrations. On german t5-6 CLs the citadel deck is 20mm meaning every BB shell that touches the citadel, autopenetrates. My proposal: Give all cruisers same tier BB-class armor amidships on the sides and deck (or at least deck only), t4-5 19mm, t6-7 25mm, t8+ 32mm while retaining weak (overmatchable) bow/stern. This way you will still get deleted if you derp broadside but become a much harder target when angled. Maybe it will turn cruisers into unstoppable flamethrowers of doom, maybe not but I think it's at least an idea worth some testing seeing the sorry state the low tier cruiser gameplay is in?
  4. Hi, I just got the Akizuki and I was equipping her with ship upgrades etc. and I started to wonder something about the first slot ship upgrade and guns' survivability. As the Akizuki's 100mm main guns are DP guns, they are shown in the statistics as both "Main Battery" and "AA Guns". In the first slot of the ship upgrades, among others, you have the Main Armaments Mod 1 and Auxiliary Armaments Mod 1. Main Armaments Mod 1 gives, among others, +50% to main battery survivability. Auxiliary Armamants Mod 1 gives, among others, +100% to AA guns survivability. There's no doubt that the first one affects the Akizuki's 100mm guns - as they are her main battery. But does the second one also affect the Akizuki's 100mm guns - as they are also AA guns?
  5. Kazomir

    Fire Mechanic Change.

    Hello, I wish to propose a change in the Fire mechanics that will, in my opinion, improve gameplay. First change to fires should come in a 50% damage nerf. Second change, to offset this, each stack of fires increaces your main and secondary armament's dispersion by 10%. Effect on this is twofold but serves one purpose. To reduce the BB ''KEMP BUSH'' meta that makes for current boring gameplay. The first change encourages them to push more as they wont be afraid of fire damage that much. The second change FORCES them to close the distance. Carrot AND Stick approach so to say. This is historically accurate as well, since smoke on your ship shrouds your FCS' optics arrays and such. Cruisers will lose some of their damage but will gain survivability. Further to this, cruisers reliant on fire damage would get further buffs in form of more health to compensate and let them stay longer in battle to let them earn more damage. All in all I think in the high tiers mistakes are punished too much as the lethality of weapons increases. This change should do something about that. Let me know if you like it!
  6. DominusEdwardius

    Estimating Destroyer Survivability

    I was a little bored over the weekend so I decided to investigate the relationship between a ship displacements and the health pool assigned by Wargamming for destroyers. Firstly, I found both the Washington standard displacement and the full load displacement for the tech tree ships of both the IJN, USN and VMF. These can be found in the table below with the relevant reference along with the stock and upgraded HP of the ships ingame. It should be noted that these displacements are in Tonnes (metric tons). Note I have used PM to stand for post modification after a ship was heavily modified. Next, I plotted the stock hull health pools against the Washington standard displacement and fitted a polynomial trend line as shown below. There is definitely some form of relationship here especially with the ships at the lower displacements however it seems to somewhat fall apart at the higher tiers and the R2 value is not fantastic as a result. Next I tried the full load displacement and fitted another polynomial trend line; This looks like a significantly better fit and the R2 value confirms this. There is obviously some variation caused by balancing various ships by boosting or nerfing the ships health pool (Farragut and Shimakaze are good examples here). For the upgraded hulls health pools, I tried looking to see if there was any relationship between hit point increase and tier, or any relationship between the equivalent tonnage from 2nd equation with tier. However there doesn’t seem to be any such trends. As such it is probably either completely randomly assigned for balance reasons or different function of displacement. Let’s try the Standard displacement again; This appears to fit slightly better this time, although not perfect. Trying the full load displacement; Not as good as the first full load displacement curve but a little bit better than the standard displacement estimate. As such I propose the following equations for estimating the hitpoints of destroyers based on the full load displacement. For the Stock hulls: Hitpoints = 0.0000009046*Displacement3 - 0.0048450753*Displacement 2 + 11.4248870714*Displacement For the upgraded hull: Hitpoints = 0.0000006615*Displacement 3 - 0.0039089502*Displacement 2 + 11.4009322965*Displacement Where the displacement is the full load displacement in metric tons. To look at the how much deviation could occur I calculated the estimated hit points for the original ships and got the following: Initial hitpoint estimates Upgraded Hull HP For the stock hull health pool, the average difference was 302HP, the standard deviation was 414HP and the maximum difference was 1000HP*. For the upgraded hull the average difference was 502HP, the standard deviation was 736HP and maximum difference was 2400HP (Farragut). As such it is fair to say that for the stock hulls the value given by the equation may be manipulated between ±400HP for balance reasons while the upgraded hulls will likely be manipulated anywhere between ±750HP. It must be remembered that this is only an estimated value and is subject to change when more destroyers are released but it gives us another way of estimating the survivability of future destroyers for all new or existing nations. *Shimakaze appears to use the upgraded hull value while the gearing appears to use the stock hull value and I have excluded the other values as such. Below I have estimated the values of some additional ships IJN Destroyers Kriegsmarine Destroyers Royal Navy Destroyers Hope you found this useful References: [1] WHITLEY, M.J, Destroyers of world war two an international encyclopaedia. London: Cassell, 2002. [2] STILLE, M, Imperial Japanese Navy Destroyers 1919-45 (1). Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2013. [3] Budge, K.G., Fubuki Class, Japanese Destroyers [online], The Pacific War Online Encyclopaedia, 2007. Available from: http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/F/u/Fubuki_class.htm [4] Chief, Naval Technical Mission to Japan., Characteristics of Japanese Naval Vessels, article 3, S-01-3 [online], U.S. Naval Technical Mission to Japan, 1945. Available from: http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200G-0085-0145%20Report%20S-01-3.pdf [5] Various Wikipedia Articles.
  7. So, as propably a lot of you know, 0.5.9. is brining us changes in the skill tree. I applaud WG in giving everyone SA (Situational Awareness) for free, but. Everyone who uses SA (as only tier 1 skill) will get BoS (Basics of Survivability) without having a choice. This is quite annoying to say the least. Personally I use SA for ALL my captains (except for CV's) and it would really not be my choice to take this skill at all. I'm a Battleship driver but I still would take Basic Firing Training over BoS. In the matter of fact, there is not 1 ship I would use BoS on at all. Now, some of you would say: "why don't you just not use gold to get your perks refitted" The quick answer is: it would cost a hell of a lot of money to do so (for a broke student). As I said, I have all my captains running SA right now, that adds up to 17 ships that use SA at the moment, out of which I want none of them to have BoS, taking an average of 150 gold per captain to rework the skills, I will need 2550 gold, which translates to +- 10 Euros, to fix my skillsets. MONEY I DON'T HAVE/ DONT WANT TO SPEND. I know that a lot of things can happen during PT and I hope maybe a WG employee reads this thread so they can fix this little issue or just bring it to the developper's attention. Because it would really bewilder me if I were the only one who has this problem. I hope none of the readers are offended by this, but when I read the post on the Wargaming site I really wanted my opinion voiced. PS. sorry for an accidental double post, since I didnt see any thread with this specific title, I wrote this. EDIT: OK, I just oversaw one little thing, I could actually put a skill point into a tier 1 skill, since I will technically get it back when they remove SA.BUT PLEASE SOMEONE FROM WARGAMING, TELL THIS TO THE COMMUNITY. So you dont get threads like this from forgetfull captains
  8. I'm curious how slow does your rudder time has to be for rudder module to be better than the the module that reduces the time of your burning / leaking . You get set on fire every game but you don't always see cv to have to turn into torps so i was wondering how slow does your rudder has to be for the module for ruder shift time to be optimal since they are so expensive to buy.
×