T6 destroyers without depth charges.

[qdfl]

Hi,

Its very hard to kill a sub with reload time 9.5 sec fire rate, because she has not depth charges.

 

Is T6 Leone only destroyer without depth charges? 

 

Regards,

 

[ColonelPete]

14 minutes ago, qdfl said:

Is T6 Leone only destroyer without depth charges?

No

[Verblonde]

17 minutes ago, qdfl said:

Is T6 Leone only destroyer without depth charges?

Okhotnik (which is Famous + Historical) doesn't get depth charges either, but WG assure us that omitting any ASW capability isn't a nerf of a premium, so that's okay...

[undutchable80]

No Destroyer, but Dutch Cruisers dont have ASW either...

[SkipperCH]

Both ships don't feature ASW armament and won't receive it. 

[qdfl]

Thx for all.

[ghostbuster_]

1 hour ago, SkipperCH said:

won't receive it. 

who did say that? and where? 

[SkipperCH]

In a QnA. Since both existed and historically did not feature ASW armament they won't receive it. 

[ARE_YOU_HUMAN]

Counterplay means griefing to WG.

[ghostbuster_]

6 minutes ago, SkipperCH said:

In a QnA. Since both existed and historically did not feature ASW armament they won't receive it. 

not a very valid argumentation, is it? Historically many ships we have in the game didnt even exist. some didnt even have complete blueprints. So, at some point they should get their ASW. Dont forget, WG promised back than that there are going to be no subs in wows. 

[Verblonde]

6 minutes ago, SkipperCH said:

historically did not feature ASW armament

We are aware that Okhotnik (as she is in the game) is entirely fictitious? The real Okhotnik was a very different thing...

[SkipperCH]

All I can do is relay given intel. 

[Shirakami_Kon]

15 minutes ago, SkipperCH said:

In a QnA. Since both existed and historically did not feature ASW armament they won't receive it. 

I wonder where the Dutch cruisers found their historical planes they dont even have space on deck for...

[lovelacebeer]

Whilst the reason WG gives is insufferably foolish and at least in my opinion insulting, it is important not to shoot the messenger especially when they are not a WG employee.

[hellhound666]

13 minutes ago, SkipperCH said:

historically did not feature ASW armament

this is a solid argument in a game that takes historical accuracy as seriously

for example, look at soviet carriers and bb's - each more accurate than the other - pure accuracy in its cleanest form

in fact, when you take the oxford dictionary then under "historical accuracy" wows soviet cv tree is brought up as an example of its best implementation ...

[22cm]

Just now, hellhound666 said:

in fact, when you take the oxford dictionary then under "historical accuracy" wows soviet cv tree is brought up as an example of its best implementation ...

[Hirohito]

30 minutes ago, SkipperCH said:

In a QnA. Since both existed and historically did not feature ASW armament they won't receive it. 

Oh, so Småland and Halland will now get to use their anti-ship missiles then?

Since WG is suddenly trying to be realistic here based on what weapon systems ships did and did not have?

[ARE_YOU_HUMAN]

It has to be fun experience to monitor WoWs forums.

[Nibenay78]

38 minutes ago, SkipperCH said:

In a QnA. Since both existed and historically did not feature ASW armament they won't receive it. 

Can we also remove fighter planes?

and stop hydro radar from going through land?

[SkipperCH]

Sometimes it's rather funny seeing how people react to a simple choice. You can quote me all you want, but I neither made the decision nor do I care about the decision.

[Nibenay78]

18 minutes ago, SkipperCH said:

Sometimes it's rather funny seeing how people react to a simple choice. You can quote me all you want, but I neither made the decision nor do I care about the decision.

Well some of us don't read the insane QnAs and find the answer quite "interesting". I suppose there is a reason no one in charge ever checks the forums.

[SkipperCH]

This for one instance isn't true. Just because there aren't thousands of replies from WG staff this doesn't mean they aren't reading the forums. One thing holding them back is the fact that they simply can't talk about what they want. Around 90% of intel WG staff holds is under NDA and can't be shared. And to put further insult to injury - Every post a WG staff member makes is treated as fact and promise. Just because "The Chieftain" said in an interview 7 years ago that there won't be subs in the game since they don't fit many people took this as a promise by WG even though it was never published as such. Same with Yamato's 460mm guns always being the biggest in the game. 

 

This is one of the reasons I can understand staff deliberately choosing not to comment on certain topics in order to prevent misinterpretation of arguments or the above mentioned. 

[SkipperCH]

And to further make it clear:

[SkipperCH]

Removed 1 post for insults.

[SolanumTuberosumRex]

2 hours ago, SkipperCH said:

In a QnA. Since both existed and historically did not feature ASW armament they won't receive it. 

😂😂👍  I love it when the 'historical realism' argument is used when it suits them.  Like subs that can shoot virtually unlimited torps every 30 seconds.