tx brawls Brawls, 457mm/+ club

[________________Morrison]

So TX brawls is a thing. Popular picks I face alot are GK, Schlieffen. Kleber/Marcau.

 

I myself am enjoying Vermont (Suprised that its quite an equal playing field until you choke). With this Vermont build.

Spoiler

 

Tried full secondary build, but the accuracy buff is NIHIL since everyone closes the distance with you enough.

So now I'm just running secondary range to crank up that reload speed and have some ability to cap reset between reloads.

Torp reduction for some extra survivability since DDs, cruisers and Schlieffens will torp rush you and out run you even if you turn away.

But I don't see many Preussens or Ohio's.

 

Ohio I kind of get cause its a grind ship, but.

 

Is GK more consistent? But Preussen has a higher ROF?

Or is it just everyone has a GK and not everyone wants to grind for a Preussen?

 

But why so do you not see so many 457mm+ ships.

Thunderer, Incomparable,Vermont, Yamato Shikishima. I get the T,V,Y,S and Incomparable. These things are vulnarable. But Incomparable I do see some times.

 

[Ehern]

As long as you dont make steering mistakes with GK and the enemy can torp you, you win

[Panocek]

457 guns are relevant against cruisers with 30mm plating. If you don't see a lot of these, old good 406 but in larger quantities is preferable. And then GK because German, and as we all know, German overengineering must be glorious, Discovery channel and Wittmann told me so 

[Figment]

1 hour ago, IndomitableVindication said:

But Incomparable I do see some times.

Stop comparing the Incomparable to other TX ships.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

52 minutes ago, Panocek said:

German overengineering must be glorious

Can confirm. It is glorious. Source: I'm a german engineer.

 

Seriously, is "overengineering" even a thing? I guess it is at most for people who think a hammer is too complicated to use and a rock a sufficient aequivalent.

[Figment]

1 minute ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Can confirm. It is glorious. Source: I'm a german engineer.

 

Seriously, is "overengineering" even a thing? I guess it is at most for people who think a hammer is too complicated to use and a rock a sufficient aequivalent.

Lead pencil vs overpriced space ink pen (the not so accurate, but classical overengineering example of the space race era).

 

 

There is however such a thing as German overengineering, or as Stalin put it: quantity has a quality of its own. Something that works better in terms of efficiency but is very expensive and time consuming to make so you get fewer at the same cost and time investment, and works wonderously until it does break and is then very hard to repair, might just lose out to something that is inefficient, typically loses one on one, but is cheap to make or replace, or doesn't break easily and when it does, is easy to repair. That's basically Tiger/Tiger II vs T-34 (Soviet) and M4 Sherman design doctrines.

 

We know who won that challenge. It wasn't German quality engineering, but US and Soviet cheap mass production.

[________________Morrison]

22 minutes ago, Figment said:

Stop comparing the Incomparable to other TX ships.

 

Is it spechul? 9.9 10.1?

 

edit OH I get it 

[Figment]

1 hour ago, IndomitableVindication said:

edit OH I get it 

[Yedwy]

2 hours ago, Figment said:

Lead pencil vs overpriced space ink pen (the not so accurate, but classical overengineering example of the space race era).

 

 

There is however such a thing as German overengineering, or as Stalin put it: quantity has a quality of its own. Something that works better in terms of efficiency but is very expensive and time consuming to make so you get fewer at the same cost and time investment, and works wonderously until it does break and is then very hard to repair, might just lose out to something that is inefficient, typically loses one on one, but is cheap to make or replace, or doesn't break easily and when it does, is easy to repair. That's basically Tiger/Tiger II vs T-34 (Soviet) and M4 Sherman design doctrines.

 

We know who won that challenge. It wasn't German quality engineering, but US and Soviet cheap mass production.

TBH Tigers werent even that well engineered or made for that matter, certanly not compared to some other german stuff from that era that actually was, Drachenfel has some views on Bismarck/Tirpitz in similar lines and I find his logic sound esp since the latter was more then proved by US wiping the seas at will with the Sodacs and Norcals

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

2 hours ago, Figment said:

There is however such a thing as German overengineering, or as Stalin put it: quantity has a quality of its own. Something that works better in terms of efficiency but is very expensive and time consuming to make so you get fewer at the same cost and time investment, and works wonderously until it does break and is then very hard to repair, might just lose out to something that is inefficient, typically loses one on one, but is cheap to make or replace, or doesn't break easily and when it does, is easy to repair. That's basically Tiger/Tiger II vs T-34 (Soviet) and M4 Sherman design doctrines.

 

We know who won that challenge. It wasn't German quality engineering, but US and Soviet cheap mass production.

of course this specific comparison is flawed on multiple levels.

 

1) The Tigers are heavy tanks, not intended for use in large formations. Unlike the Medium tanks you just mentioned.

 

2) The more apt comparison would be the Panther tank, which in less than 3 years they managed to crank out in nearly Panzer IV Numbers.

 

3) Going with the T-34 and Sherman design doctrines (M4 maintance ease aside) would've been even worse because Germany wouldn't have had the ressources, nor the manpower, to build and man all of those...

[Panocek]

1 minute ago, GrossadmiralThrawn said:

of course this specific comparison is flawed on multiple levels.

 

1) The Tigers are heavy tanks, not intended for use in large formations. Unlike the Medium tanks you just mentioned.

 

2) The more apt comparison would be the Panther tank, which in less than 3 years they managed to crank out in nearly Panzer IV Numbers.

 

3) Going with the T-34 and Sherman design doctrines (M4 maintance ease aside) would've been even worse because Germany wouldn't have had the ressources, nor the manpower, to build and man all of those...

Panthers that also had famous teething problems, and then issues of fragile transmission/final drive, easily broken by not experienced driver persisted till very end if memory serves me right.

 

Also "medium tank" weighing as much as dedicated heavy tanks of other combatants - Pershing and IS-2. Panther also performed not well outside of tank combat, as 75mm HE shell was bit lacking, especially compared to 90mm or especially 122mm options under the same tonnage.

 

Personally I'm of the opinion pursuit of superheavy designs was, thankfully, detrimental for Germans compared to churning out proven Panzers IV and Stugs. Also push for such superheavies prompted arms race to counter these threats. US was bit hesitant in widespread deployment of 76mm Shermans, but 76/90 option quickly appeared on the table for Tank Destroyer formations. Russians followed anti tank effectiveness of "bunker busting" KV-2 by inserting 122 and then 152 guns into various tank chassis', even after they came up with potent D-10T 100mm gun.

[Figment]

19 minutes ago, GrossadmiralThrawn said:

of course this specific comparison is flawed on multiple levels.

 

1) The Tigers are heavy tanks, not intended for use in large formations. Unlike the Medium tanks you just mentioned.

We're going off-topic here, but the type of class is irrelevant when the point is the battlefield applicability of the engineering level involved. I mean this in that a Tiger that's damaged was often instantly out of the war and had to be left behind in the face of the inferior, but numerically superior, approaching T-34s. This due to simply being too complex or hard to fix under battlefield conditions, whereas a T-34 might have died faster, if just damaged it would continue on and suffered less from problems like mud due to weight differences. Hence the heavy tank was overengineered to what is needed on that particular battlefield. It was a better design in perfect conditions and as long as those conditions existed, it would do well, but situationally much too complex and would fail because of that complexity.

Quote

2) The more apt comparison would be the Panther tank, which in less than 3 years they managed to crank out in nearly Panzer IV Numbers.

And why was the Panther considered a better design for battlefield functionality? Panther was a lot easier to repair and remove from the battlefield and a much better balance in design, it (luckily for us) just got out there too late really. Where the Gerries were still busy overengineering the Maus.

Quote

3) Going with the T-34 and Sherman design doctrines (M4 maintance ease aside) would've been even worse because Germany wouldn't have had the ressources, nor the manpower, to build and man all of those...

They wouldn't need to go as simple as the T-34, just not so hard to do maintainance on as the Tigers. The mere fact that you would be able to restore a track yourself as a crew rather than require a dedicated support vehicle/equipment would have made a huge difference and the design far better for the kind of battlefield conditions that were seen there. The Panther fixed some of those issues, but later types were given too little armour as they ran out of steel and again the tolerances that resulted in many breakdowns were too small and hard to fix in part due to too much sophistication in its design iirc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

But yes, brawls. :P

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

5 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Panthers that also had famous teething problems, and then issues of fragile transmission/final drive, easily broken by not experienced driver persisted till very end if memory serves me right.

 

Also "medium tank" weighing as much as dedicated heavy tanks of other combatants - Pershing and IS-2. Panther also performed not well outside of tank combat, as 75mm HE shell was bit lacking, especially compared to 90mm or especially 122mm options under the same tonnage.

 

Personally I'm of the opinion pursuit of superheavy designs was, thankfully, detrimental for Germans compared to churning out proven Panzers IV and Stugs. Also push for such superheavies prompted arms race to counter these threats. US was bit hesitant in widespread deployment of 76mm Shermans, but 76/90 option quickly appeared on the table for Tank Destroyer formations. Russians followed anti tank effectiveness of "bunker busting" KV-2 by inserting 122 and then 152 guns into various tank chassis', even after they came up with potent D-10T 100mm gun.

The pershing which was intended to be a medium tank, got classified as heavy to bolster morale and then reclassified as medium after the war, you mean?

 

THe 75mm was adequate enough for the job, and the brits praised Cuckoo for being able to lob shells accurately into windows.

 

5 minutes ago, Figment said:

And why was the Panther considered a better design for battlefield functionality? Panther was a lot easier to repair and remove from the battlefield and a much better balance in design, it (luckily for us) just got out there too late really. Where the Gerries were still busy overengineering the Maus.

The Maus which was in any case just a side project which never really got that much stuff, aside of battleship steel etc.? And also was never intended to be produced in huge quantities?

[Figment]

Just now, GrossadmiralThrawn said:

The Maus which was in any case just a side project which never really got that much stuff, aside of battleship steel etc.?

German command was obsessed with superweapons to miraculously turn the tide of the war (V1, V2, Maus, jet engine Messerschmidt, bomber flying wing dropping bombs on NYC, nukes). The Maus was one of those unrealistic projects that was completely impractical to ever field on the battlefield due to its weight. Completely overengineered to take a massive beating without considering that it'd be too heavy for the roads and fields it would go out on to face its enemies.

Though early Frenchy tank designs like the FCM F1 are of course even more fun in that sense.

[GrossadmiralThrawn]

13 minutes ago, Figment said:

German command was obsessed with superweapons to miraculously turn the tide of the war (V1, V2, Maus, jet engine Messerschmidt, bomber flying wing dropping bombs on NYC, nukes). The Maus was one of those unrealistic projects that was completely impractical to ever field on the battlefield due to its weight. Completely overengineered to take a massive beating without considering that it'd be too heavy for the roads and fields it would go out on to face its enemies.

 

Just that the Jet engine messerschmitt had rather practical reasons: The jet engines could run on more widely available fuel, or was it just in general worse fuel?... the flying wing dropping bombs was one of a multitude of potential designs for a project... I could go on... this is as shallow as a puddle.

 

What's next? The H-classes which were never meant to be built after H-41 or so? H-45?

[HMS_Kilinowski]

I love a minute discussion of WW2 tanks as much as every man, but wasn't this topic about Brawls?

 

Personally, I'm off Brawls. They just bore the feces out of me. It's a game mode designed around ships with turtle back secondaries and torps. Maybe the mode could still be interesting if there was no ship that met more than two of these properties. But with the german BC line, the variety went out the window. T10-Brawls are there to promote the Mecklenburg and who doesn't have that, takes the Schlieffen. There is not point in taking any cruiser. You can make it into torping distance, only to get torped yourself. Even in Kleber, you need to meet a complete "plain bad"-player, to survive until your torps hit the hull. And on top of that, you get skill-based MM, so you are forced to burn lots of signals for 1250 baseXP flat.

 

Just what's even the point? In the time it takes to get to the final reward, I can farm twice the credits it takes to buy the respective amount of coal via the auction.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

2 hours ago, Figment said:

Lead pencil vs overpriced space ink pen (the not so accurate, but classical overengineering example of the space race era).

Yeah, classic example, but unfortunately nobody bothers to check the facts, because the opposite is true:

After the Apollo 1 fire, they didn't want graphite dust or wood shavings floating around, especially not in zero-g and purchased pens which had all the advantages from someone who privately funded the research on pressurized, thixotropic (gets less viscous when you agitate it - just like Ketchup) ink.

And guess what? The russians bought these pens, too.

[Figment]

1 minute ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Yeah, classic example, but unfortunately nobody bothers to check the facts

Yeah, hence the not so accurate comment, it's more that it speaks to people's minds as an example. :)

 

The design of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle would be another example of overcomplicating things for little good reason. The Pentagon Wars movie is a bit of an exageration perhaps, but the whole design process was a joke.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

2 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

skill-based MM

"skill based MM" to WG has nothing to do with your win rate. It means they take your win/lose ration of the brawl into account.

 

 

[HMS_Kilinowski]

10 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

"skill based MM" to WG has nothing to do with your win rate. It means they take your win/lose ration of the brawl into account.

 

 

 

And winning more than you lose, a.k.a. winrate in brawls is independent of skill? Enlighten me, professor.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

1 minute ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

 

And winning more than you lose, a.k.a. winrate in brawls is independent of skill? Enlighten me, professor.

This means you can very well meet much better (or much worse) players in brawls, whereas using your available stats would lead to evenly skilled opponents right away.

Basically, they start measuring your skill the second you start your first brawl which leads to a much more unreliable database.

 

Yes, this results in a difference.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

1 minute ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

Yes, this results in a difference.

That's the answer to a question nobody asked.

 

The question was: Is matchmaking in brawls independent of skill?

For the first couple of battles it certainly is, but already after a handful of battles you will encounter players on a similar level as yourself. How closely they are to your own level is besides the point. Wins are taken into account. Wins result from skill. Therefor it's skill-based matchmaking.

 

[Hades_warrior]

Playing without Plotting Room mode? But, why?

THat is the best mode you can get from Equipment tab.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

26 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

The question was: Is matchmaking in brawls independent of skill?

For the first couple of battles it certainly is, but already after a handful of battles you will encounter players on a similar level as yourself.

The measuring basis is much too small and the filtering isn't public knowledge. Also it doesn't prevent you from meeting much better or much worse opponents, it's not what one would expect.

Honestly, I would assume to have about a 50% win rate (unless you stand in the shallow end of the gauss curve, on either side), with every fight a challenge to your skills. Also, the choice of ships is... uninspiring, as there are ship combinations where there is little hope of success. The ship matchmaking trumps all the difference in skill.

 

So, instead of a challenge, you get someone to blap or get blapped. Yes, I'm exaggerating, there were some nice fights, but every other match is like that.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

20 minutes ago, Karkong_the_Impaler said:

The measuring basis is much too small and the filtering isn't public knowledge. Also it doesn't prevent you from meeting much better or much worse opponents, it's not what one would expect.

Honestly, I would assume to have about a 50% win rate (unless you stand in the shallow end of the gauss curve, on either side), with every fight a challenge to your skills. Also, the choice of ships is... uninspiring, as there are ship combinations where there is little hope of success. The ship matchmaking trumps all the difference in skill.

 

So, instead of a challenge, you get someone to blap or get blapped. Yes, I'm exaggerating, there were some nice fights, but every other match is like that.

 

I have no idea, what you're trying to say. The MM is skill-based was the only point I made and there is really not much to discuss about it.