High tier gameplay: Random DDs with better AA than Yamato????

[KubiG37]

I'm approaching higher tier gameplay both with ships and CVs, and the further I go the less sense all these ships make, and the more annoying the game gets. Sometimes these tier X ships completely contradict the characteristics of the previous ships in the line and what I expect.

 

But the most (unpleasantly) surprising thing was probably the AA stats of some ships. Because they make no sense. Huge ships that have AA covering practically every tiny spot on the deck cannot properly defend themselves against my planes, and then sails around some random DD (that I don't know) and deplanes me in 10s. Repeatedly. Despite avoiding all the flak walls which are larger than most BBs can produce.(Now I know what Halland is)

 

Now I have no idea how old some ships are (in the game), I started like half a year ago. But how can a ship with 10 guns (including its 4 main turret guns used for normal fire) have 375 continuous, and 1890 flak damage, while a FREAKING YAMATO, with 190!!! AA guns of mostly much larger caliber has shorter range, and only 250. what the f***! Just one example.

 

I'm finding it much easier to target huge floating AA bases than tiny little DDs and small cruisers. A complete opposite of everything I encounter at tier IX and below. Can't wait to buy a tier VIII BB and eat those 86 knot torpedoes, get burnt by Smolensk, or one-shoted by russian BB across the map...

Is this just a result of powercreep? Or some AA changes I heard happened some monhts before?

[invicta2012]

The Halland is a design from the 1950s, using the best technology of the era from Bofors, a company whose anti-aircraft weapons were a global standard for 50 years.

This is a destroyer with weapons meant to be capable of despatching jet aircraft, it will do terrible things to WW2 era planes. It's the same with many Tier X DDs such as Daring - these are late war designs with DP guns using all the know-how derived from WW2. Battleship design - which pretty much stopped around 1942 -  involved a lot of small calibre AA guns and slow firing DP secondaries which have nowhere near the capabilities of a late war DD, often designed from the outset as an AA picket for a carrier group.

[Ocsimano18]

There were high AA DDs during the carrier rework test but they were omitted. Now the anti CV crowd wanted a high AA DD and WG delivered it to them. It's completely unbalanced as it gives an unfair advantage compared to other DDs. Also, the average CV players can't deal with it. I much more prefer the Marceau level of AA, which is engaging for both sides. Of course the anti CV crowd will surely spam this thread.

[DFens_666]

35 minutes ago, KubiG37 said:

Because they make no sense.

 

Balance doesnt need to make sense. BBs shouldnt be AA fortresses only because they have the most AA mounts. BBs should be the prime target for CVs, but sadly they are not, because catering to BBabies is something WG really likes to do.

If you add the possibility of having a Fighter, BBs still have the most capable AA defense in the game - except CVs ofc

[Verblonde]

15 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

It's completely unbalanced as it gives an unfair advantage compared to other DDs.

Not really - you usually give up rather a lot elsewhere to get the AA, and it's still not enough to prevent spotting, which is the real danger that CVs present.

 

Slightly over-simplifying, but you can either pick something with dreadful AA, but with torps that hit like a dump truck (Shima, say), or you can pick something that roundly molests sub-standard CV players (especially if they're lower tier), but gets torps that make entertaining squeaky toy noises when they hit something (Halland, and basically nothing else at T10).

 

Speaking as a DD driver, there are *very* few things in my port that a semi-competent CV driver can't shred, or spot into oblivion...

[Europizza]

The CV rework is simply a bloody mess, where soon planes won't be able to detect ships 100 m long from as close as 1.5 km away. Welcome to the blunder that's is WOWS 0.8.0 and beyond. 

[Verblonde]

56 minutes ago, KubiG37 said:

some random DD (that I don't know) and deplanes me in 10s.

(emphasis added)

 

First, to save @El2aZeR the effort: there is essentially nothing in the game that a competent CV driver can't strike. Right, having got that out of the way, I would suggest that this isn't a 'broken game' problem, but rather a lack of knowledge; there are very few DDs with actively good AA, and none where weird builds will make them surprisingly more lethal.

 

At the risk of being unceremoniously thrown out of the Ancient and Worshipful Guild of DD Drivers, really the only DDs you need to know about in this regard are the following:

• Tier 10: Halland, and maybe Groz/Marceau.
• Tier 9: Friesland, and Ostergotland.
• Tier 8: Kidd, and Oland.

That's more or less your lot. There are a few others to approach with caution (i.e. attack directly, rather than cheerfully transiting across their AA bubble on one side of the ship) - essentially, anything American, including PA, and/or anything with DefAA. This all assumes that the DD driver has a basic level of competence and knows about things like sector reinforcement and suchlike.

 

Basically, learn the relevant ships, and you'll soon be back to making pretty much an entire class miserable in your CVs in no time.

[El2aZeR]

47 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

There were high AA DDs during the carrier rework test but they were omitted.

 

There weren't.

In fact for the most part of testing ships didn't even have DPS. Literally the only AA that existed was flak because WG was under the belief that you wouldn't be able to dodge all flak. Testers proved them wrong in a couple of minutes of testing going up.

And even after DPS was added, it remained pitifully weak. It wasn't until after release that DPS actually was raised to a SOMEWHAT threatening level.

Behold, no DPS:

 

 

 

 

 

47 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

I much more prefer the Marceau level of AA, which is engaging for both sides.

 

How exactly is Marceau levels of AA, being only marginally better than a Dallas, engaging for both sides? You mean it's engaging only for the CV, right?

 

1 hour ago, KubiG37 said:

FREAKING YAMATO

 

Yamato's entire battlegroup shot down 10 aircraft out of 386 during Ten-Go. If you want to go the realism route, then the effectiveness of AA and IJN AA especially in this game is exaggerated to the extreme.

This is why WoWs is an arcade game with few ties to realism.

[DFens_666]

15 minutes ago, Europizza said:

The CV rework is simply a bloody mess, where soon planes won't be able to detect ships 100 m long from as close as 1.5 km away. Welcome to the blunder that's is WOWS 0.8.0 and beyond. 

 

First rule of WoWs balancing team:

Never admit a mistake, and DONT REVERT THE NERF!

Better to just add some buffs elsewhere, and then secretly revert the first nerf with even more buffs

 

7 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

At the risk of being unceremoniously thrown out of the Ancient and Worshipful Guild of DD Drivers, really the only DDs you need to know about in this regard are the following:

• Tier 10: Halland, and maybe Groz/Marceau.
• Tier 9: Friesland, and Ostergotland.
• Tier 8: Kidd, and Oland.

 

You mean those are the cocky ones, which can be snacked even easier because they have AA on?

[Ocsimano18]

3 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

1.

There weren't.

In fact for the most part of testing ships didn't even have DPS. Literally the only AA that existed was flak.

And even after DPS was added, it remained pitifully weak. It wasn't until after release that DPS actually was raised to a SOMEWHAT threatening level.

Behold, no DPS

 

2.

How exactly is Marceau levels of AA, being only marginally better than a Dallas, engaging for both sides? You mean it's engaging only for the CV, right?

1. There were many iterations for the rework. We had high AA DDs once and people were complaining.

 

2. I'm having fun in Marceau. I rarely play Hakuryu anymore because of Halland. I rather play T6 CVs, if I want to experience CV gameplay.

[Verblonde]

1 minute ago, DFens_666 said:

You mean those are the cocky ones, which can be snacked even easier because they have AA on?

Basically, yes! Although, in all fairness, any silly bugger that runs around with their AA on all the time deserves every mighty issuing of wedgies that the CVs hand out...

 

My working hypothesis is that the 'balance' between CVs and AA is - or rather WG are attempting to - arranged deliberately so that competent CVs can blast anyone, *but* also such that the hapless target will be able to knock down a few planes in the process, such that they feel marginally less bad about things and - more tangibly - actually get some rewards even though they got scragged.

[HaachamaShipping]

13 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Yamato's entire battlegroup shot down 10 aircraft out of 386 during Ten-Go. If you want to go the realism route, then the effectiveness of AA and IJN AA especially in this game is exaggerated to the extreme.

This is why WoWs is an arcade game with few ties to realism.

*laughs in Shikishima*

 

Pretty sure, for all it's worth, one of the most resilient targets against most anything not an AP bomb. For all AA is worth, that is...

[El2aZeR]

28 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

1. There were many iterations for the rework. We had high AA DDs once and people were complaining.

 

I was part of TST since round 1. There NEVER were "high AA" DDs. In fact there weren't even any "high AA" ships. AA as a concept practically did not exist during testing up until after the first release hotfix.

TST1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKweFj0-sJk

No DPS, only flak.

 

TST2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAdHEk_tatk

No DPS, only flak

 

TST3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1hIe4-VqzY

Had DPS but too low even on the "strongest" AA ships

 

PTS1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C53Xb8qKoIw

No change.

 

PTS2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TWJECLQ4rk

No change.

 

PTS3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykHckTNrfEc

No. Change.

 

Release 0.8.0: https://youtu.be/B4yg50ccMe4

No. Friggin'. Change.

 

So tell me, in WHICH of these iterations was there supposed to be "strong AA"?

 

28 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

2. I'm having fun in Marceau. I rarely play Hakuryu anymore because of Halland. I rather play T6 CVs, if I want to experience CV gameplay.

 

And? How exactly does that contradict the fact that Marceau has utterly pathetic AA for its tier, being roughly equivalent to T6 cruisers?

[Deckeru_Maiku]

8 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

So tell me, in WHICH of these iterations was there supposed to be "strong AA"?

 

But he already answered that to the best of his knowledge...

You just *cough* have to check the forum for...

 

20 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

1. There were many iterations for the rework. We had high AA DDs once and people were complaining.

 

...CV players complaining about high AA DDs during reeework testing... should be easy, as CV players usually don't complain about anything, right? ^v^

[Beastofwar]

2 hours ago, KubiG37 said:

I'm approaching higher tier gameplay both with ships and CVs, and the further I go the less sense all these ships make, and the more annoying the game gets. Sometimes these tier X ships completely contradict the characteristics of the previous ships in the line and what I expect.

 

But the most (unpleasantly) surprising thing was probably the AA stats of some ships. Because they make no sense. Huge ships that have AA covering practically every tiny spot on the deck cannot properly defend themselves against my planes, and then sails around some random DD (that I don't know) and deplanes me in 10s. Repeatedly. Despite avoiding all the flak walls which are larger than most BBs can produce.(Now I know what Halland is)

 

Now I have no idea how old some ships are (in the game), I started like half a year ago. But how can a ship with 10 guns (including its 4 main turret guns used for normal fire) have 375 continuous, and 1890 flak damage, while a FREAKING YAMATO, with 190!!! AA guns of mostly much larger caliber has shorter range, and only 250. what the f***! Just one example.

 

I'm finding it much easier to target huge floating AA bases than tiny little DDs and small cruisers. A complete opposite of everything I encounter at tier IX and below. Can't wait to buy a tier VIII BB and eat those 86 knot torpedoes, get burnt by Smolensk, or one-shoted by russian BB across the map...

Is this just a result of powercreep? Or some AA changes I heard happened some monhts before?

 

It is a game and game mechanics often makes no sense.

 

Players complained about DD vulnerebilty to CV and WG gave them something to be content with releasing a new line of DD of which the higher tier ones got powerful AA.  That is all there is to it.

 

Let those ""oooh im so good i am invulnerable" players yap all they want, AA mechanics work on everyone else then them. And as such some DD indeed have gotten a little rediculous  powerful AA.

 

Just fly around them. These are not the DD that you want to lose masses of planes agaisnt. Let the team handle them, they can do that in non-cv matches too. In late match it is probable that DD lost a lot of its AA modules. Then you can kill it if your team did not do that before.

 

 

[VIadoCro]

4 hours ago, KubiG37 said:

the flak walls which are larger than most BBs can produce

The Japanese had to put 100s of AA-guns on their ships because the standard 25mm-guns they used were near useless.

The French-licensed guns were prone to jamming, overheating and had very poor train rates which made it difficult shooting at planes which did any kind of maneuvers. The muzzle-flash also blinded the own gunners and sabotaged them in any lighting other than clear daylight.

 

The most influencing differences between Yama and Halland are tho:

- Halland (and Ostergotland) had radar-guided and power-trained guns which were capable of shooting planes under any conditions (fog, smoke, rain, night) and keep them targeted despite maneuvering

- Halland had proximity-fuses which detonated even if missed the planes and damaged it with shrapnels. The Axis didn´t have this tech, so if the shell missed - it did no damage.

 

You can´t go by amount of guns, otherwise Fuso and Shikishima would have to switch places too ;)

 

(also the range of the AA was irl even more in favor of the mentioned DD)

[Europizza]

9 hours ago, Ocsimano18 said:

1. There were many iterations for the rework. We had high AA DDs once and people were complaining.

 

2. I'm having fun in Marceau. I rarely play Hakuryu anymore because of Halland. I rather play T6 CVs, if I want to experience CV gameplay.

You dont play T10 carriers anymore because of 1 ship that might or might not be in the game? 

 

So you rather play tier 6 'to experience CV gameplay'. You sir seem to be a showcase example, like me for that matter, that rework carriers arent fun if they cant harass everything without opposition.

[Beastofwar]

40 minutes ago, Europizza said:

You dont play T10 carriers anymore because of 1 ship that might or might not be in the game? 

 

 

Some time after EU DD were released playing T10 CV got alot more challenging as the Halland is well established at T10. Every match seems to have at least one.

 

The non-CV game's players got what they wanted : they now have to deal with those DD themselves. That is the consequence. I am not going near these things unless they still live ( and then team's players  didn't really want that DD to have that kind of AA ) untill late game and then hope my team actually shot them a few times and busted AA modules/main guns.

 

I guess there is a reason why "oooooh look im so good i'm invulnerable !" players seem to be much more active in T8.

 

The player base seems not to oversee what comes from drasticly increasing AA of a ship type that if not quickly dealt with will be able to torpedo half their fleet and perma-spot the rest.

[El2aZeR]

3 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

I guess there is a reason why "oooooh look im so good i'm invulnerable !" players seem to be much more active in T8.

 

A rather interesting assertion given that you just stated T10 CVs struggle against Halland and T8 can meet them as well, so therefore according to you T8 CVs should get absolutely destroyed by Hallands, no?

Yet that isn't the case. As usual.

 

Halland is one of the worst DD picks against an actually skilled CV player.

[Itwastuesday]

Did you know 40% of Yamato main battery ammo was AA rounds that 1) broke the rifles so they were seldom used and 2) were considered harmless by american pilots?

 

It's a shame the flak thing didn't develop into a good game mechanic, because it's the one part of CV/AA interaction that shows any promise of gameplay.

[Beastofwar]

19 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

Did you know 40% of Yamato main battery ammo was AA rounds that 1) broke the rifles so they were seldom used and 2) were considered harmless by american pilots?

 

It's a shame the flak thing didn't develop into a good game mechanic, because it's the one part of CV/AA interaction that shows any promise of gameplay.

 

No doubt propaganda by the U.S. as ofcourse a tremendous explosion of a 460 mm shell packed with shrapnel in the middle of a plane formation would cause slaughter. They probably got them loaded too.....as it was a one way trip and they knew what was coming.

 

That it proved  ineffective ( no doubt becuase the mian guns could not elevate to usefull angles to be giant AA guns ) those US pilots did not know in advance. If they knew the rather onortodox shells existed at all. ( i believe i read 406 mm guns had them too ) Also how many of those could have been shot ? It is not that regular AA was overly effective with thousands of rounds on average to kill a plane. They just have a lot more ROF and certainly coming from a whole fleet of ships.

 

Since in our game a lot more of those rounds will be shot ( every attack by a CV in fact ) some of those rounds will actually explode near enough ( giant FLAK cloud ) to a squadron to devastate it. That would be interesting indeed, and still fair odds that it does not happen. I am all for it

 

 

[Hugh_Ruka]

12 hours ago, KubiG37 said:

I'm approaching higher tier gameplay both with ships and CVs, and the further I go the less sense all these ships make, and the more annoying the game gets. Sometimes these tier X ships completely contradict the characteristics of the previous ships in the line and what I expect.

 

But the most (unpleasantly) surprising thing was probably the AA stats of some ships. Because they make no sense. Huge ships that have AA covering practically every tiny spot on the deck cannot properly defend themselves against my planes, and then sails around some random DD (that I don't know) and deplanes me in 10s. Repeatedly. Despite avoiding all the flak walls which are larger than most BBs can produce.(Now I know what Halland is)

 

Now I have no idea how old some ships are (in the game), I started like half a year ago. But how can a ship with 10 guns (including its 4 main turret guns used for normal fire) have 375 continuous, and 1890 flak damage, while a FREAKING YAMATO, with 190!!! AA guns of mostly much larger caliber has shorter range, and only 250. what the f***! Just one example.

 

I'm finding it much easier to target huge floating AA bases than tiny little DDs and small cruisers. A complete opposite of everything I encounter at tier IX and below. Can't wait to buy a tier VIII BB and eat those 86 knot torpedoes, get burnt by Smolensk, or one-shoted by russian BB across the map...

Is this just a result of powercreep? Or some AA changes I heard happened some monhts before?

Do not try to find ANY reason to the AA stats ... there is none. WG simply rolled the dice and assigned them to ships at random ....

[El2aZeR]

31 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

No doubt propaganda by the U.S. as ofcourse a tremendous explosion of a 460 mm shell packed with shrapnel in the middle of a plane formation would cause slaughter. They probably got them loaded too.....as it was a one way trip and they knew what was coming.

 

Type 3 shells comprised roughly 40% of the ammunition load of the Yamato class.

Although they were fired on several occasions, no (flying) plane is known to have been shot down by a Type 3 shell fired from a capital ship - as is expected given the poor characteristics of IJN AA gunnery and the poor design of the shell itself.

A Type 3 shell exploding in the middle of an aircraft formation would actually cause little to no damage whatsoever as the shell was designed to expend its payload in a small cone forward.

Overpressure from firing the main battery during an air attack would also kill any AA crew manning their guns.

Type 3 shells were primarily used for shore bombardment instead.

 

At least do your research before making such wild claims.

 

Given how current flak mechanics work a Type 3 shell flak effect would require a main battery to fire at 30 to 60 rounds per minute. The CV rework is already immersion breaking to a ludicrous point, no need to add further fantasy elements to it. It serves absolutely no gameplay purpose either.

[Panocek]

23 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

No doubt propaganda by the U.S. as ofcourse a tremendous explosion of a 460 mm shell packed with shrapnel in the middle of a plane formation would cause slaughter. They probably got them loaded too.....as it was a one way trip and they knew what was coming.

Something that required functional gun fire control... part IJN was considerably lacking.

 

And then the same type of "AA incendiary shrapnel" round was present in most IJN calibers starting from 127mm onward. 

[Beastofwar]

11 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Something that required functional gun fire control... part IJN was considerably lacking.

 

And then the same type of "AA incendiary shrapnel" round was present in most IJN calibers starting from 127mm onward. 

 

Yes but a 460 mm shell packed with explosive and shrapnel's giant flak sphere explosion  is a shotguns buckshot equivalent of little accuracy but insane effect if you happen to be in it's path.

 

If one of the few fired shells would have landend in a plane formation, you would not have read "pilots considered that as an fireworks display" 

 

And in this game not the few historical rounds will be shot, but hundereds of thousands ( every attack on a 406-460 mm IJN ship for over the duration WOWS will last until it is stopped ) producing without doubt amusing fearful insta-squadron devastating explosions. The fact that happeing must be low ( modelled after historical facts ) still makes it an acceptable game mechanic to increase actractiveness of 406 and 460 mm IJN ships but keep CV playbable.