World of DD

[mtm78]

 

The same was said when Hydro acoustic was brought in, the death of DDs was predicted. Yeah, that didn't happen did it? You know why they've got the worst survivability rates? Average statistics, they are crap and stupid, don't use them.

 

You're equating lower tier DDs with a Shimi. In lower tiers they've not got the modules, captain skills and more often the players are new and don't know the mechanics of the game, by the time you hit the Shimi they will have all the benefits of concealment, although you can't account for crap players which will get themselves killed by bum rushing the enemy team. Statistical interpretation using a single average across an entire class of ten tiers is a fool's errand as are the people that use them. 

 

Their stealth doesn't change they're still undetectable outside of 6km, you just can't sail around with impunity and spam torpedoes, occasionally a CA might activate Radar or if it's buffed HAS, Radar lasts for less than 30 seconds I believe, limited in use and has a recharge rate of 5 minutes. 

 

It won't affect survivability against co ordinated torpedo attacks,  it still won't spot torpedoes, you might be able to spot several DDs for less than 30 seconds, 20 seconds I believe. If as a DD you can't adapt to 20 seconds of exposure, that player is crapand needs to get better. vs 2 or 3 DDs launching torpedoes at a T8+ CA with a turning circle of 800m at perpendicular angles, that CA is still screwed, it's going to take at least 1 torpedo. 

 

So you had a lucky game with a CV spotting you, great now we can only hope that the other games will have a competent CV or DD interested in spotting, if a CV is even in the game at all. Considering Radar and if it's buffed Sonar doesn't give constant spotting ability, what was your point? That a CV can spot? Yes this is already known, the issue is finding one and one which will actually spot instead of being a damage whore.

 

Wait..

 

So you're saying that a coordinated attack from 3 DD's scoring one hit on a CA is 'successfull'? How much time the DD's have to prepare to get into position, and afterwards reload, and one out of 3 DD's scoring 1 hit is is 'already screwing the CA'?

 

Sorry, that sounds a bit biased. 

[BillydSquid]

 

Wait..

 

So you're saying that a coordinated attack from 3 DD's scoring one hit on a CA is 'successfull'? How much time the DD's have to prepare to get into position, and afterwards reload, and one out of 3 DD's scoring 1 hit is is 'already screwing the CA'?

 

Sorry, that sounds a bit biased. 

 

No I'm saying that in that situation a CA or BB is very luck to get away with one hit, even with one hit a torpedo will put a CA on half HP. In that situation a BB or CA is screwed regardless of Radar, Sonar whatever it has. Radar or Sonar might let a CA Spot the DDs and torps, but that's if he knows they're around to activate the radar or HAS. 

 

It's been stated that Radar will destroy DDs as a class, like people said when HAS came out, I've illustrated that all it stops is DDs running around with impunity, and even if they are detected. In a well coordinated attack a CA with Radar or HAS is still likely to be sunk regardless as CAs in T8+ don't turn on a dime and they really don't have the same armour to absorb torpedo damage like a BB.

[mtm78]

Yeah but in the same ffin time those DD''s set up that attack ( and having to reload afterwards ) a BB can fire 4 salvo's or more ( depending on the time it takes to position themselves ). 4 BB salvo's do a whole lot more damage then a single torpedo. A CA in gun range surviving 4 aimed salvo's from 3 BB's is either really skillful and has offered virgins to Lord Hamsterius before the battle. 

 

This also ties into the actual real statistics in the game, where DD's are the class which deal the least damage. 

 

Now, you got some points here and there, but you're confusing having some points of merit with being absolutely right about everything.

[Spellfire40]

 

No I'm saying that in that situation a CA or BB is very luck to get away with one hit, even with one hit a torpedo will put a CA on half HP. In that situation a BB or CA is screwed regardless of Radar, Sonar whatever it has. Radar or Sonar might let a CA Spot the DDs and torps, but that's if he knows they're around to activate the radar or HAS.

 

It's been stated that Radar will destroy DDs as a class, like people said when HAS came out, I've illustrated that all it stops is DDs running around with impunity, and even if they are detected. In a well coordinated attack a CA with Radar or HAS is still likely to be sunk regardless as CAs in T8+ don't turn on a dime and they really don't have the same armour to absorb torpedo damage like a BB.

 

What you dont see is all CA with radar = IJN CA detection range  around 9km =Radar range 11 KM= CA can pop Radar once he gets spoted and DDs cant react to that before it comes under fire and has to run for a copple of km under fire without smoke helping any.

[BillydSquid]

Yeah but in the same ffin time those DD''s set up that attack ( and having to reload afterwards ) a BB can fire 4 salvo's or more ( depending on the time it takes to position themselves ). 4 BB salvo's do a whole lot more damage then a single torpedo. A CA in gun range surviving 4 aimed salvo's from 3 BB's is either really skillful and has offered virgins to Lord Hamsterius before the battle. 

 

This also ties into the actual real statistics in the game, where DD's are the class which deal the least damage. 

 

Now, you got some points here and there, but you're confusing having some points of merit with being absolutely right about everything.

 

It also depends on the dispersion, a T9 BB has at least 250m shell dispersion. As a CA I really don't want to get close to a BB, the further I am away ie: outside of 15km where I can hit him in my Roon, move quicker, and fire faster is a greater advantage to me than being close to say an Iowa which will wreck my CA in a fight inside of 15km. 

 

So yes it depends on how many salvoes a BB can fire, but also what range he's firing from. The further then better from my point of view, 4 salvoes at longer range is going to hurt me a lot more than I'm able to inflict damage on him. 

 

The difference between that and  DD is I can't see the DD to react to incoming torpedoes, and my Roon doesn't turn as hard or as fast as lower tier CAs. Nor does it account for the fact that I can't react to the DD which is spotting me and opening me up to BB fire. How does Radar spread across T8+ CA lines hurt a DDs ability to torpedo a CA or BB when I can only spot a DD for 20 seconds only twice in a game only every 5 minutes? 

 

Radar or HAS lets a CA react to a DD which is spotting it, within lets say 10km, maybe less depending how Radar is balanced, for 20 seconds. It's only going to work if I can coordinate with other CAs to take out a DD, How does that remove the ability to play effectively? I'm still restricted by range, cool down, usage time, and no. of uses. It's nowhere near as effective as having a CV sit a fighter over a DD, but it does let me play the game instead of forced into a suicide run using HAS to try and fight a DD or run away if there is no CV or he just doesn't feel like spotting. It doesn't require 3 DDs to destroy 1 ship, but as you are wont to keep bringing up, it should require teamwork, or do DD's get away with it, but every other ship class has to work together? I'm still in trouble fighting a CA if a DD pops up in support, even spotted by Radar or HAS as I have to turn into the torpedoes and expose my broadside to the enemy CA. How does Radar and HAS on ships hurt DDs in such a way they they are unplayable to the point where it would be like a CV sitting a fighter over them?

 

Again, average statistics are a really poor measure of effectiveness if you are going to use a single survivability rate and use it to support a point. If DDs are so average in damage, why is the Shimi the most used ship in the game? By a 4:1 ratio in several T10 cases. Clearly DDs are so average everyone is falling over themselves to use them, everyone loves to play a ship with the weakest damage. I've said that average statistics are a really stupid and bad way of analysing effectiveness, are you really using a statistical average of damage across T1-10 and then claiming that the average damage is least so it's clearly a non issue? Please say you're not.

 

Because based on the below, as of 12/3/16 the average damage of higher tier DDs may be lower, with the exception of the Shimi, which is completely out of all proportion with 52k compared to all other DDs. While the average survivability is consistent across at T8+ ships while the kill death ratio for DDs is slightly better than CAs while the ship destroyed ratio is in line at each tier. Yet, funnily enough 98.77% of battles have at least 1 shimi in them the only one which even comes close is the Zao, with 86% So please tell me, if DDs have the lowest survivability, why does the Shimi have the most games on any ship? Or why is it's average damage consistent with T10 CAs? Why is DD survivability and K/D ratio in line with most T8+ ships in actual fact?

 

Because this isn't a discussion of T1-7 as Radar won't be in there and T1-6 are largely balanced, so please explain to me based on the statistical data below how DDs are the poor choice in this game at higher tiers, how they would be ruined as others have said by Radar or HAS buffs when everything below points to the contrary, they are largely in line with most ships in their tier, they are one of the most heavily used classes at this level so how exactly is what I've said regarding high tier DDs vs CAs equipped with Sonar and Radar not accurate in that is would damage DDs as a class when they're not as weak as people are clearly arguing. And the only DD which attracts my dislike is the Shimi which is the only stand out from the rest of the T8+ DDs, I don't think it's a coincidence that it's also the most heavily played ship either. 

 

nation	class	tier	name	players	total battles	average of rates
						battles	win	draw	lose	exp	damage caused	warship destroyed	aircraft destoryed	base capture	base defense	survived	kill / death
JP	BB	8	Amagi	2829	211125	74.63	52.33	0.06	47.61	1250	59029	0.94	2.12	0.00	0.00	49.67	1.87
JP	BB	9	Izumo	942	72164	76.61	49.49	0.06	50.44	1427	54956	0.74	1.93	0.00	0.00	40.36	1.24
JP	BB	10	Yamato	644	48750	75.70	53.42	0.03	46.55	1699	83187	0.93	2.51	0.00	0.00	48.07	1.79
JP	CA	8	Mogami	2940	206389	70.20	51.26	0.06	48.68	1144	36310	0.74	1.30	0.00	0.00	33.05	1.11
JP	CA	8	Atago	2677	206202	77.03	50.98	0.06	48.97	1242	33807	0.65	1.15	0.00	0.00	35.13	1.00
JP	CA	9	Ibuki	755	52942	70.12	51.70	0.06	48.24	1337	44991	0.75	1.82	0.00	0.00	44.07	1.34
JP	CA	10	Zao	386	33205	86.02	53.75	0.06	46.20	1818	71441	1.02	1.75	0.00	0.00	50.70	2.07
JP	CV	8	Shokaku	513	40837	79.60	52.62	0.05	47.34	1299	55987	0.93	17.44	0.00	0.00	73.51	3.51
JP	CV	9	Taiho	188	14318	76.16	50.11	0.05	49.84	1510	74641	1.12	20.24	0.00	0.00	70.37	3.78
JP	CV	10	Hakuryu	53	4181	78.89	49.30	0.07	50.64	1757	89411	1.29	21.75	0.00	0.00	66.54	3.86
JP	DD	8	Fubuki	4101	323881	78.98	49.32	0.06	50.62	1229	28543	0.66	0.27	0.00	0.00	35.19	1.02
JP	DD	9	Kagero	1767	146356	82.83	50.29	0.06	49.65	1441	39554	0.75	0.15	0.00	0.00	44.03	1.34
JP	DD	10	Shimakaze	985	97286	98.77	50.16	0.06	49.78	1646	52933	0.91	0.19	0.00	0.00	45.66	1.67
KM	BB	8	Tirpitz	3019	225911	74.83	51.93	0.07	48.00	1437	52675	0.84	1.79	0.00	0.00	47.56	1.60
KM	CA	8	Admiral Hipper	2149	161050	74.94	49.65	0.06	50.29	1156	32467	0.59	1.39	0.00	0.00	34.76	0.90
KM	CA	9	Roon	660	50580	76.64	50.83	0.08	49.09	1431	45677	0.75	1.42	0.00	0.00	45.31	1.37
KM	CA	10	Hindenburg	247	21371	86.52	50.55	0.05	49.39	1650	59271	0.88	2.32	0.00	0.00	45.80	1.62
PA	DD	8	Lo Yang	432	31519	72.96	50.62	0.05	49.33	1295	22781	0.65	0.31	0.00	0.00	29.75	0.93
SN	CA	8	Mikhail Kutuzov	1002	73002	72.86	51.25	0.07	48.68	1346	34259	0.67	3.23	0.00	0.00	35.79	1.04
SN	DD	8	Tashkent	390	27420	70.31	51.33	0.03	48.64	1254	25767	0.69	0.37	0.00	0.00	27.61	0.95
SN	DD	9	Udaloi	224	15953	71.22	52.49	0.07	47.44	1502	38174	0.85	0.54	0.00	0.00	37.09	1.35
SN	DD	10	Khabarovsk	110	8681	78.92	52.86	0.05	47.09	1691	51300	0.94	0.66	0.00	0.00	43.65	1.67
US	BB	8	North Carolina	3830	281632	73.53	48.98	0.06	50.96	1174	48751	0.75	2.92	0.00	0.00	47.82	1.44
US	BB	9	Iowa	1316	98567	74.90	49.44	0.06	50.49	1375	56270	0.76	2.78	0.00	0.00	44.09	1.36
US	BB	10	Montana	328	23498	71.64	50.72	0.05	49.24	1705	68545	0.87	2.87	0.00	0.00	48.21	1.68
US	CA	8	New Orleans	1724	116054	67.32	49.15	0.05	50.79	1122	29708	0.55	1.97	0.00	0.00	34.76	0.84
US	CA	9	Baltimore	507	34915	68.87	48.57	0.08	51.36	1370	33881	0.59	2.84	0.00	0.00	39.86	0.98
US	CA	10	Des Moines	240	19001	79.17	50.80	0.04	49.16	1779	57384	0.90	3.64	0.00	0.00	41.51	1.54
US	CV	8	Lexington	727	54492	74.95	48.72	0.07	51.21	1173	48524	0.78	19.50	0.00	0.00	68.57	2.48
US	CV	9	Essex	227	17976	79.19	51.65	0.06	48.28	1466	84328	1.31	20.34	0.00	0.00	69.19	4.25
US	CV	10	Midway	69	6405	92.83	51.16	0.01	48.83	1761	107669	1.54	24.05	0.00	0.00	71.45	5.39
US	DD	8	Benson	1646	124075	75.38	52.55	0.06	47.39	1294	28335	0.82	0.30	0.00	0.00	34.15	1.25
US	DD	9	Fletcher	756	60161	79.58	52.36	0.06	47.58	1472	36605	0.90	0.49	0.00	0.00	36.07	1.41
US	DD	10	Gearing	249	21260	85.38	51.57	0.02	48.41	1828	46216	0.93	0.50	0.00	0.00	39.93	1.55

 

 

 

 

[BillydSquid]

 

What you dont see is all CA with radar = IJN CA detection range  around 9km =Radar range 11 KM= CA can pop Radar once he gets spoted and DDs cant react to that before it comes under fire and has to run for a copple of km under fire without smoke helping any.

 

Ha, and you think a CA with a detection range of 12km don't have the same problem with invisible DDs keeping them spotted and not able to do anything about it? Somehow dirty great T8+ CAs are able to manage, are you saying a DD can't? What happens when a CA is spotted by a DD? They don't have smoke, they're a bigger target, have citadels and have a huge turning radius, a rudder shift of 6/9 seconds, trying to dodge shells once your spotted is a pain. 

 

You're exposed for 20 seconds by radar, then we're stuck with a 5min cool down. And by the look of it only the USN and Russians get the 11km radar. If the IJN and KM get it, it'll be a nerfed version like HAS is nerfed for other lines compared to the KM version. 

 

This is not parking a fighter over a DD's head for indefinite spotting, not even close, it allows a 20 second window for a CA to spot a DD, it does nothing to stop CAs being obliterated by BBs as they'll be spotted by the DD, much as they are now, if they're not careful as DDs are still undetectable outside of 6km. All it does is it stops DDs invisible firing from smoke and lets CAs actually counter them if they can get their act together with a team, a poorly timed radar pulse isn't going to worry a DD unless he spends all his time hugging the detection zone. 

 

We've all been in the situation, well maybe not you I don't know how many CAs you've got in T8+, where there's torpedoes coming in from more more than one side and there's nothing you can do as a CA even with HAS' 5km range to spt the DD launching them, any support you can give your BBs is none existent as you can't drive off the DDs launching torpedoes given you can't spot the damn things. So the so called support class of CAs doesn't actually do it's juob that well when it comes to countering DDs. 

[Spellfire40]

 

Ha, and you think a CA with a detection range of 12km don't have the same problem with invisible DDs keeping them spotted and not able to do anything about it? Somehow dirty great T8+ CAs are able to manage, are you saying a DD can't? What happens when a CA is spotted by a DD? They don't have smoke, they're a bigger target, have citadels and have a huge turning radius, a rudder shift of 6/9 seconds, trying to dodge shells once your spotted is a pain.

 

You're exposed for 20 seconds by radar, then we're stuck with a 5min cool down. And by the look of it only the USN and Russians get the 11km radar. If the IJN and KM get it, it'll be a nerfed version like HAS is nerfed for other lines compared to the KM version.

 

This is not parking a fighter over a DD's head for indefinite spotting, not even close, it allows a 20 second window for a CA to spot a DD, it does nothing to stop CAs being obliterated by BBs as they'll be spotted by the DD, much as they are now, if they're not careful as DDs are still undetectable outside of 6km. All it does is it stops DDs invisible firing from smoke and lets CAs actually counter them if they can get their act together with a team, a poorly timed radar pulse isn't going to worry a DD unless he spends all his time hugging the detection zone.

 

We've all been in the situation, well maybe not you I don't know how many CAs you've got in T8+, where there's torpedoes coming in from more more than one side and there's nothing you can do as a CA even with HAS' 5km range to spt the DD launching them, any support you can give your BBs is none existent as you can't drive off the DDs launching torpedoes given you can't spot the damn things. So the so called support class of CAs doesn't actually do it's juob that well when it comes to countering DDs.

 

CA cant do their job because of survivability vs BB. If not for that any IJN stealth boat others than Shima struggle to keep their distance vs a pushing CA because dodging shells get their speed below most CAs. Radar isnt so much of a problem on US and RU because their detection range is greater and nobody knows how radar would look at a IJN/RM. Saying well i have a problem so you should have it too when yourself are not balaced around your perceived problem surely isnt the way to go. Geting spted in an IJN DD instantly fokus most of the Battlefield on you even 20 sek can means the same as 2 Cits of a BB on your CA. DDs have to deal with oposing DDs, scout fighters even without some cloacked radar CAs. And yes a CA caught in a 2 side Torpedo atack is in trobble. but the only class that can do that consistenly isnt a DD but a CV. agist CV CA can defend themself to a degree agist citadels from multiple BB? Not a chance. BBs or CA with both target aquisition and Vigilance dont need to fear Torpedos as much. I play a New Orleans in Guardian Build myself. Well with my Nagato I do ok with just the skill but then i only have to face Kage/Fubukis at most.

[mtm78]

I see my post quoted, and I see a wall of text with 'questions' which seem to imply that quote said a lot of things I can't recall saying. Since I did not, and will not, I see no point in a rebuttal. 

[BillydSquid]

I see my post quoted, and I see a wall of text with 'questions' which seem to imply that quote said a lot of things I can't recall saying. Since I did not, and will not, I see no point in a rebuttal. 

 

That's probably a good thing as your point didn't have much of a leg to stand on. And I don't see your rebuttal being that coherent either.

 

I don't know everything hence I'm not always right, but if you're going to use an average damage statistic as is so often used around here while ignoring all other statistics which give a clear indication that the statistic you've stated means very little I'm going to ask questions based on all of the data available. As you said, DDs have the lowest average damage; well so what? Because as you see from the above their average damage is within 5k of all associated tier CAs so they don't, yet their survivability is in line with CAs, the K/d, the win ratio. Yet the usage is far and above the highest out of the classes. 

 

Were you just making random statements? How exactly does a BB's rate of fire relate to the rate of torpedo fire and damage. Clearly a CA can fire faster than both classes, so it should do even more DPM than a BB.... oh wait, it doesn't. If you're trying to draw a direct correlation between the two, correlation does not equal causation. Which is something people have repeatedly done when it comes to cherry picking statistics on this forum. 

[BillydSquid]

 

CA cant do their job because of survivability vs BB. If not for that any IJN stealth boat others than Shima struggle to keep their distance vs a pushing CA because dodging shells get their speed below most CAs. Radar isnt so much of a problem on US and RU because their detection range is greater and nobody knows how radar would look at a IJN/RM. Saying well i have a problem so you should have it too when yourself are not balaced around your perceived problem surely isnt the way to go. Geting spted in an IJN DD instantly fokus most of the Battlefield on you even 20 sek can means the same as 2 Cits of a BB on your CA. DDs have to deal with oposing DDs, scout fighters even without some cloacked radar CAs. And yes a CA caught in a 2 side Torpedo atack is in trobble. but the only class that can do that consistenly isnt a DD but a CV. agist CV CA can defend themself to a degree agist citadels from multiple BB? Not a chance. BBs or CA with both target aquisition and Vigilance dont need to fear Torpedos as much. I play a New Orleans in Guardian Build myself. Well with my Nagato I do ok with just the skill but then i only have to face Kage/Fubukis at most.

 

Yes and no, after around 350 games in T8 and 9 survivability is a problem for CAs, but a simple nerfing damage received from a BB is not the answer. I can spot a BB a mile away and adjust my game play accordingly, or at least try. I'm going to be spotted in a KM/USN/RU at a minimum of 10km if not more and there is no chance to counter the DD that is spotting me, so my options are limited to seek cover or try to distance myself from the DD and put a BB between myself and the incoming BB shells. 

 

What's your solution? Give CAs BB levels of armour and HP? Because other than that they're always going to have survivability problems given their not supposed to be able to take on a BB alone. Maybe citadel size is something that can be looked at, but even without a citadel hit a BB is going to hit hard, and torpedoes will wreck a CA. 

 

Saying I have a problem, and can manage to cope, is rather different to you should have the same problem, especially given that you're nt going to have the same problem. Do you get how Radar will work? It highlights everything for 20 seconds, just like you were detected normally. Somehow DDs currently manage to survive this terrible situation so far, so how exactly has anything changed? CAs are given a on demand spot for 20 seconds, at which point Radar gets a huge 5 minute cool down, a CA still has no idea where the DD is, and I don't particularly want to waste 3 uses with a 5 minute cool down each unless I know there is a DD in range, and my team has got their craptogether to shoot it, which random teams won't more often than not. 

 

20 seconds of detection does not mean 2 critical hits on my CA at all, that's completely daft, funnily enough if I'm detected I try to angle, weave or turn away to put distance between myself and a BB; it doesn't always work. But if I took 20k damage every time I was detected in a CA the entire class would be useless, the odds in a CA v BB might not be in the CAs favour, but claiming that detection for a DD means an equivalent 20k damage is a ridiculously gross exaggeration. More often it's the DD which has rushed the cap and got within 8km of the CAs with no BB or CA support, those are the ones that get focused on, if you have a BB 5km behind you, I really don't want to get that close in a CA the size of a Roon because I'm going to be obliterated by BB shells as the DD in question will have me spotted from 10km away. 

 

You've managed to dream up a scenario where a DD being detected is instant death due to radar. All that's changed is you can't lone wolf the game with impunity and sit 6/7km away from a CA with no risk of being spotted, shockingly DDs may actually have to worry about being supported by CAs and BBs, much like CAs which suffer significantly when BBs sit at the back of the map and snipe. I don't consider this a bad thing given the number of invisible DDs which get behind the enemy team unsupported and try to snipe BBs while their own team is scrabbling around trying to spot the enemy DD launching torpedoes at them. 

 

Again with the cloaked CAs, you've clearly not got that high in the CA tree, because the only CA which can do that is the Zao, and it has a max concealment range of 9.7km. German it's 10/11km similar to the USN and the RU is something like 14km. The max for a Shimi is 5.5km unless you are sitting in 6km you are largely going to be out of reach of effective fire. Have you tried hitting a DD with a speed boost, weaving and doing enough damage inside a 20 second window to kill it? It's not that easy, unless your team get's it's act together, that doesn't change with radar use.

 

First, why would I willingly engage multiple BBs in a CA? I can spot them a mile away, why would I pick a fight I can't win? I can block with terrain run to a BB for cover or distance myself. I have no option vs a DD  if I have no CV or DD spotting there is very little I can do other than retreat as I can't spot the DD while he can keep me highlighted and hit me with torpedoes. And no one uses target acquisition, well not if you want to stay alive for any length of time in a CA. If all you're facing is Fabukis then you're not going to have much of a problem, once Shimis start turning up you're faced with a choice being hit with a wall of torpedoes out of no where or being easily spotted and blown out the water quicker because you can spot torpedoes earlier. Neither are great choices. 

 

 

[mtm78]

 

That's probably a good thing as your point didn't have much of a leg to stand on. And I don't see your rebuttal being that coherent either.

 

I don't know everything hence I'm not always right, but if you're going to use an average damage statistic as is so often used around here while ignoring all other statistics which give a clear indication that the statistic you've stated means very little I'm going to ask questions based on all of the data available. As you said, DDs have the lowest average damage; well so what? Because as you see from the above their average damage is within 5k of all associated tier CAs so they don't, yet their survivability is in line with CAs, the K/d, the win ratio. Yet the usage is far and above the highest out of the classes. 

 

Were you just making random statements? How exactly does a BB's rate of fire relate to the rate of torpedo fire and damage. Clearly a CA can fire faster than both classes, so it should do even more DPM than a BB.... oh wait, it doesn't. If you're trying to draw a direct correlation between the two, correlation does not equal causation. Which is something people have repeatedly done when it comes to cherry picking statistics on this forum. 

 

Ok... 

 

 

It also depends on the dispersion, a T9 BB has at least 250m shell dispersion. As a CA I really don't want to get close to a BB, the further I am away ie: outside of 15km where I can hit him in my Roon, move quicker, and fire faster is a greater advantage to me than being close to say an Iowa which will wreck my CA in a fight inside of 15km. 

 

So yes it depends on how many salvoes a BB can fire, but also what range he's firing from. The further then better from my point of view, 4 salvoes at longer range is going to hurt me a lot more than I'm able to inflict damage on him. 

 

The difference between that and  DD is I can't see the DD to react to incoming torpedoes, and my Roon doesn't turn as hard or as fast as lower tier CAs. Nor does it account for the fact that I can't react to the DD which is spotting me and opening me up to BB fire. How does Radar spread across T8+ CA lines hurt a DDs ability to torpedo a CA or BB when I can only spot a DD for 20 seconds only twice in a game only every 5 minutes?

 

Who said radar would fix things instantly? I been saying it's more a lack of teamwork in random games which is causing all this whining about limiting the amount of DD's. And btw, your example here is pretty out of line since it's in no way tied to the amount of DD's per game, infact the more DD's there are the more chances you should have at least one off your allied DD's isn't an [censored] and doesn't play as a damage whore but actually screens, so you in your CA won' t have to. Not that that would happen all the time, i mean, as I said before -> it's the lack of teamplay given in by the fact that screening isn't rewarded. Now, radar will be helpful but it depends 100% on the situational awareness of the one using it, and as much on the 'bad'  DD having less of it.  

 

Radar or HAS lets a CA react to a DD which is spotting it, within lets say 10km, maybe less depending how Radar is balanced, for 20 seconds. It's only going to work if I can coordinate with other CAs to take out a DD, How does that remove the ability to play effectively? I'm still restricted by range, cool down, usage time, and no. of uses. It's nowhere near as effective as having a CV sit a fighter over a DD, but it does let me play the game instead of forced into a suicide run using HAS to try and fight a DD or run away if there is no CV or he just doesn't feel like spotting. It doesn't require 3 DDs to destroy 1 ship, but as you are wont to keep bringing up, it should require teamwork, or do DD's get away with it, but every other ship class has to work together? I'm still in trouble fighting a CA if a DD pops up in support, even spotted by Radar or HAS as I have to turn into the torpedoes and expose my broadside to the enemy CA. How does Radar and HAS on ships hurt DDs in such a way they they are unplayable to the point where it would be like a CV sitting a fighter over them?

 

Why are you mistaking my words on purpose, when I saw teamwork is lacking it doesn't apply to one class only, the word itself already implies it is about all classes working together? Where did I say radar and HAS on ships hurt DD's to the point they are unplayable? 

 

Again, average statistics are a really poor measure of effectiveness if you are going to use a single survivability rate and use it to support a point. If DDs are so average in damage, why is the Shimi the most used ship in the game? By a 4:1 ratio in several T10 cases. Clearly DDs are so average everyone is falling over themselves to use them, everyone loves to play a ship with the weakest damage. I've said that average statistics are a really stupid and bad way of analysing effectiveness, are you really using a statistical average of damage across T1-10 and then claiming that the average damage is least so it's clearly a non issue? Please say you're not.

 

They are most used because a> not enough CV's b> not enough DD's playing 'for the team' c> severe lack of teamwork in randoms. All of those combined make Shimakaze a very easy to play ship. Easy to play, but hard to get very good results with. Because the more DD's there are, the less damage you will do. Shima captains don't like 8 DD's per team, they would rather want lots and lots of BB's.

 

Because based on the below, as of 12/3/16 the average damage of higher tier DDs may be lower, with the exception of the Shimi, which is completely out of all proportion with 52k compared to all other DDs. While the average survivability is consistent across at T8+ ships while the kill death ratio for DDs is slightly better than CAs while the ship destroyed ratio is in line at each tier. Yet, funnily enough 98.77% of battles have at least 1 shimi in them the only one which even comes close is the Zao, with 86% So please tell me, if DDs have the lowest survivability, why does the Shimi have the most games on any ship? Or why is it's average damage consistent with T10 CAs? Why is DD survivability and K/D ratio in line with most T8+ ships in actual fact?

 

You're seemingly arguing the problem is with Shimakaze, not with DD's in general, is this correct? Since almost all your points relate to Shimakaze specifically, except survivability which is an inherent trait of DD's stemming from both their class attribute of stealth but also the things I mentioned above ( lack of DD's screening/pushing enemy DD's, lack of carriers ).

 

Because this isn't a discussion of T1-7 as Radar won't be in there and T1-6 are largely balanced, so please explain to me based on the statistical data below how DDs are the poor choice in this game at higher tiers, how they would be ruined as others have said by Radar or HAS buffs when everything below points to the contrary, they are largely in line with most ships in their tier, they are one of the most heavily used classes at this level so how exactly is what I've said regarding high tier DDs vs CAs equipped with Sonar and Radar not accurate in that is would damage DDs as a class when they're not as weak as people are clearly arguing. And the only DD which attracts my dislike is the Shimi which is the only stand out from the rest of the T8+ DDs, I don't think it's a coincidence that it's also the most heavily played ship either. 

 

Why are you asking me to answer to things said by others? One thing I will say is: the class is weak when looking at average damage ( leaving your beloved Shimakaze out of the equation ). And here you finally say the issue isn't "DD's" but for you at least, just "Shimakaze". We will see how this is changed by Radar, I don't think it will do a terrible lot but I hope to be wrong. Shima can stay the whole match out of the radar range at the expense of hit ratio. Btw, the damage listed below indicates Shimakaze on average lands ~3 torpedo hits an entire game. That's rather crappy don't you think?

 

nation	class	tier	name	players	total battles	average of rates
						battles	win	draw	lose	exp	damage caused	warship destroyed	aircraft destoryed	base capture	base defense	survived	kill / death
JP	BB	8	Amagi	2829	211125	74.63	52.33	0.06	47.61	1250	59029	0.94	2.12	0.00	0.00	49.67	1.87
JP	BB	9	Izumo	942	72164	76.61	49.49	0.06	50.44	1427	54956	0.74	1.93	0.00	0.00	40.36	1.24
JP	BB	10	Yamato	644	48750	75.70	53.42	0.03	46.55	1699	83187	0.93	2.51	0.00	0.00	48.07	1.79
JP	CA	8	Mogami	2940	206389	70.20	51.26	0.06	48.68	1144	36310	0.74	1.30	0.00	0.00	33.05	1.11
JP	CA	8	Atago	2677	206202	77.03	50.98	0.06	48.97	1242	33807	0.65	1.15	0.00	0.00	35.13	1.00
JP	CA	9	Ibuki	755	52942	70.12	51.70	0.06	48.24	1337	44991	0.75	1.82	0.00	0.00	44.07	1.34
JP	CA	10	Zao	386	33205	86.02	53.75	0.06	46.20	1818	71441	1.02	1.75	0.00	0.00	50.70	2.07
JP	CV	8	Shokaku	513	40837	79.60	52.62	0.05	47.34	1299	55987	0.93	17.44	0.00	0.00	73.51	3.51
JP	CV	9	Taiho	188	14318	76.16	50.11	0.05	49.84	1510	74641	1.12	20.24	0.00	0.00	70.37	3.78
JP	CV	10	Hakuryu	53	4181	78.89	49.30	0.07	50.64	1757	89411	1.29	21.75	0.00	0.00	66.54	3.86
JP	DD	8	Fubuki	4101	323881	78.98	49.32	0.06	50.62	1229	28543	0.66	0.27	0.00	0.00	35.19	1.02
JP	DD	9	Kagero	1767	146356	82.83	50.29	0.06	49.65	1441	39554	0.75	0.15	0.00	0.00	44.03	1.34
JP	DD	10	Shimakaze	985	97286	98.77	50.16	0.06	49.78	1646	52933	0.91	0.19	0.00	0.00	45.66	1.67
KM	BB	8	Tirpitz	3019	225911	74.83	51.93	0.07	48.00	1437	52675	0.84	1.79	0.00	0.00	47.56	1.60
KM	CA	8	Admiral Hipper	2149	161050	74.94	49.65	0.06	50.29	1156	32467	0.59	1.39	0.00	0.00	34.76	0.90
KM	CA	9	Roon	660	50580	76.64	50.83	0.08	49.09	1431	45677	0.75	1.42	0.00	0.00	45.31	1.37
KM	CA	10	Hindenburg	247	21371	86.52	50.55	0.05	49.39	1650	59271	0.88	2.32	0.00	0.00	45.80	1.62
PA	DD	8	Lo Yang	432	31519	72.96	50.62	0.05	49.33	1295	22781	0.65	0.31	0.00	0.00	29.75	0.93
SN	CA	8	Mikhail Kutuzov	1002	73002	72.86	51.25	0.07	48.68	1346	34259	0.67	3.23	0.00	0.00	35.79	1.04
SN	DD	8	Tashkent	390	27420	70.31	51.33	0.03	48.64	1254	25767	0.69	0.37	0.00	0.00	27.61	0.95
SN	DD	9	Udaloi	224	15953	71.22	52.49	0.07	47.44	1502	38174	0.85	0.54	0.00	0.00	37.09	1.35
SN	DD	10	Khabarovsk	110	8681	78.92	52.86	0.05	47.09	1691	51300	0.94	0.66	0.00	0.00	43.65	1.67
US	BB	8	North Carolina	3830	281632	73.53	48.98	0.06	50.96	1174	48751	0.75	2.92	0.00	0.00	47.82	1.44
US	BB	9	Iowa	1316	98567	74.90	49.44	0.06	50.49	1375	56270	0.76	2.78	0.00	0.00	44.09	1.36
US	BB	10	Montana	328	23498	71.64	50.72	0.05	49.24	1705	68545	0.87	2.87	0.00	0.00	48.21	1.68
US	CA	8	New Orleans	1724	116054	67.32	49.15	0.05	50.79	1122	29708	0.55	1.97	0.00	0.00	34.76	0.84
US	CA	9	Baltimore	507	34915	68.87	48.57	0.08	51.36	1370	33881	0.59	2.84	0.00	0.00	39.86	0.98
US	CA	10	Des Moines	240	19001	79.17	50.80	0.04	49.16	1779	57384	0.90	3.64	0.00	0.00	41.51	1.54
US	CV	8	Lexington	727	54492	74.95	48.72	0.07	51.21	1173	48524	0.78	19.50	0.00	0.00	68.57	2.48
US	CV	9	Essex	227	17976	79.19	51.65	0.06	48.28	1466	84328	1.31	20.34	0.00	0.00	69.19	4.25
US	CV	10	Midway	69	6405	92.83	51.16	0.01	48.83	1761	107669	1.54	24.05	0.00	0.00	71.45	5.39
US	DD	8	Benson	1646	124075	75.38	52.55	0.06	47.39	1294	28335	0.82	0.30	0.00	0.00	34.15	1.25
US	DD	9	Fletcher	756	60161	79.58	52.36	0.06	47.58	1472	36605	0.90	0.49	0.00	0.00	36.07	1.41
US	DD	10	Gearing	249	21260	85.38	51.57	0.02	48.41	1828	46216	0.93	0.50	0.00	0.00	39.93	1.55

 

 

 

 

 

Happy now?

[mariouus]

The thing is, Every way you look at it, DDs are sort of overpowered. I am talking about general terms, not about playability.

 

Lets take effectiveness. On most cases in mid-tiers  Damage ratio (hp vs damage done) on BB's is on average somewhere around 1-1.2 (standard hitpoint pool) on Cruisers it is rather similar 1 to 1.4. On destroyers it is around 3. Example on New York my damage ratio is 0,9 and in Minekaze it is 3,5. On Minekaze it is effortless, I don't even know what the concealment range on it is.

 

Now usability. DD can do things cruisers can't. Because in Wows they are hollow. So in short range DD's are way stronger against BB's than cruisers. Cruisers will get their citadel penetrated and die rather quickly. DD's don't have that problem. They are smaller and harder to hit.So often they can absorb more hits than cruisers or even other BB's. And they do have insane DPM.

 

The thing is is DD most of the good thing are combined. Good concealment, good manoeuvrability, insane DPM, no citadel. no RNG on torpedos, lead indicator. Sure torpedos are slow.

 

The question is, how effective should a DD be? Current balance point are the torpedos. They are slow, so at longer range BB's can easily avoid them, cruisers can do it easily in shorter ranges, At the same time, in short ranges the fact that DD don't have a citadel means that they have great damage potential. At 4-5 km, DD has way more DPM than BB. But at the same time DD's have very little hitpoints.

[Mayv]

 

 

Lets take effectiveness. On most cases in mid-tiers  Damage ratio (hp vs damage done) on BB's is on average somewhere around 1-1.2 (standard hitpoint pool) on Cruisers it is rather similar 1 to 1.4. On destroyers it is around 3. Example on New York my damage ratio is 0,9 and in Minekaze it is 3,5. On Minekaze it is effortless, I don't even know what the concealment range on it is.

 

 

Isnt that more due to the low amount of hp that DDs have rather than them dealing a lot of damage.

 

 

Now usability. DD can do things cruisers can't. Because in Wows they are hollow. So in short range DD's are way stronger against BB's than cruisers. Cruisers will get their citadel penetrated and die rather quickly. DD's don't have that problem. They are smaller and harder to hit.So often they can absorb more hits than cruisers or even other BB's. And they do have insane DPM.

 

 

DDs are designed to be good against BBs in this game and CAs arent. DDs cant deal with CAs with the same effectiveness as BBs.

 

Insane DPM? No, and that is theoretical, they have quite low actual DPM. What DDs are you saying have insane DPM?

 

[EsaTuunanen]

Lets take effectiveness. On most cases in mid-tiers  Damage ratio (hp vs damage done) on BB's is on average somewhere around 1-1.2 (standard hitpoint pool) on Cruisers it is rather similar 1 to 1.4. On destroyers it is around 3. Example on New York my damage ratio is 0,9 and in Minekaze it is 3,5. On Minekaze it is effortless, I don't even know what the concealment range on it is.

BBs don't have to do that much damage in relation to own hp pool to increase victory chances:

They're also meant to tank damage to help team mates in flimsier ships to survive and do more damage.

 

Every ship in this survived against enemy's main push exactly because especially that Wyoming was there to tank damage while cruisers with their high DPM helped to shred enemies into pieces one by one.

 

At 4-5 km, DD has way more DPM than BB.

Good BB player will easily evade torps launched from that distance if you're not behind cover.

For sure hits against BB aware of you you need to get below 3km range.

Something DD can't afford to do many times before sinking unless enemy plays badly.

[Exocet6951]

 

Now usability. DD can do things cruisers can't. Because in Wows they are hollow. So in short range DD's are way stronger against BB's than cruisers. Cruisers will get their citadel penetrated and die rather quickly. DD's don't have that problem. They are smaller and harder to hit.So often they can absorb more hits than cruisers or even other BB's. And they do have insane DPM.

 

 

CAs get citpenned, but a single HE salvo at close range to a DD will mess it up really badly, if not detonating it outright.

[mariouus]

 

Isnt that more due to the low amount of hp that DDs have rather than them dealing a lot of damage.

 

In hitpoint based game - NO. If something in hitpoint based game is dealing a lot more hitpoints of damage then it has, it is basically an indication of being overpowered. Compare it to WOT, if T49 would, in the hands of a bad player, make 3700.hp of average damage it would be absurdly overpowered. The problem in WoWs is that it is not essentially overpowered, but unbalanced. High average damage comes from some very high damage game and from lot of average games.

 

Like I said, the question is: How effective should a DD be? Should it have a low HP's, or maybe it would be better to have more HP's, but less something else?Or maybe something else entirely?

If the BB buts 6.shells into your bow, should it overpenetrate from bow to stern, or maybe it should damage something, it sure as hell does something to a cruiser? If a DD is an hollow tube, why should Cruiser be any different? There are Cruisers in game that actually were Destroyer Leaders, so why should those Cruisers have Citadels?The bug some patches ago, that made cruiser Citadels invulnerable at short range to BB guns, showed that if  Cruisers don't have citadels, they also can achieve 3X damage ratio. 

 

At the same time, If battleships or cruisers are playing badly, they should take lot of damage from DD's torpedos. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mtm78]

 

Isnt that more due to the low amount of hp that DDs have rather than them dealing a lot of damage.

 

 

DDs are designed to be good against BBs in this game and CAs arent. DDs cant deal with CAs with the same effectiveness as BBs.

 

Insane DPM? No, and that is theoretical, they have quite low actual DPM. What DDs are you saying have insane DPM?

 

 

You're talking to someone who played 68% off his battles in BB's 

[ColonelPete]

In hitpoint based game - NO. If something in hitpoint based game is dealing a lot more hitpoints of damage then it has, it is basically an indication of being overpowered.

 

There is no logic in that. Basicly you are saying that a Yamato with one hitpoint would be overpowered, but a Yamato with 97.000 hitpoints is not.

[mariouus]

 

You're talking to someone who played 68% off his battles in BB's 

 

Being a well rounded human being, it has very little to do what I am playing. I play BB's because historically I like them. It as very little to do with performance. In Wot I play a lot of British tanks, even the Stage II what obviosly is OP, I have never had any interest in tin-cans, even if they would but Arleigh Burke-class in WoWs I would probably still not really play it.Some  probably would, and request an hefty buff for it.

 

The thing is more-or-less that in game, things should be balanced. Because if they are not, they will start to dominate. Not necesarily gameplay wise, but MM wise. Like back in the day in Wot, there sometimes were 10 SPG's per side.They were not really OP, rather they were OP in only some situations (unbalanced), but because of that, people played them a lot.Same thing with the KV-1S and now with the I-O's.

 

 

 

 

[Litjtard]

The torpedo spam is the problem. They are too damn easy to use for the JNJ DD, with no drawbacks. make them spotted as if they fire their guns. That should change things.

[Mayv]

 

You're talking to someone who played 68% off his battles in BB's 

 

I had that feeling.

 

 

In hitpoint based game - NO. If something in hitpoint based game is dealing a lot more hitpoints of damage then it has, it is basically an indication of being overpowered. Compare it to WOT, if T49 would, in the hands of a bad player, make 3700.hp of average damage it would be absurdly overpowered. The problem in WoWs is that it is not essentially overpowered, but unbalanced. High average damage comes from some very high damage game and from lot of average games.

 

 

In WoT the HP difference between LT and HT is a few hundred, In WoWS the HP difference between DD and BB is a few ten thousand. Which is quite a big difference.

 

If the BB buts 6.shells into your bow, should it overpenetrate from bow to stern, or maybe it should damage something

 

It does do something, a lot of damage to the DD.

[mtm78]

 

Being a well rounded human being, it has very little to do what I am playing. I play BB's because historically I like them. It as very little to do with performance. In Wot I play a lot of British tanks, even the Stage II what obviosly is OP, I have never had any interest in tin-cans, even if they would but Arleigh Burke-class in WoWs I would probably still not really play it.Some  probably would, and request an hefty buff for it.

 

The thing is more-or-less that in game, things should be balanced. Because if they are not, they will start to dominate. Not necesarily gameplay wise, but MM wise. Like back in the day in Wot, there sometimes were 10 SPG's per side.They were not really OP, rather they were OP in only some situations (unbalanced), but because of that, people played them a lot.Same thing with the KV-1S and now with the I-O's.

 

Why do you think you can even begin talking about balance when you're only looking at it from one direction. Play some DD games, show us how 'broken' they are, amaze us with your incredibly high DD win rate, damage, kills and so on, and we might change our mind

[mariouus]

 

Why do you think you can even begin talking about balance when you're only looking at it from one direction. Play some DD games, show us how 'broken' they are, amaze us with your incredibly high DD win rate, damage, kills and so on, and we might change our mind

 

Well I am not looking at it from any direction. If BB's or CA's would have damage ratio of 3-4, I would also say they are unbalanced. But they don't, they have rather standard damage ratio for HP-based game.The DD's just sticks out. If you add the fact that after tier 5 (in tiers 6-8) performance of the DD's drop sharply, lower tier DD do more damage than higher tier.So they are definition of unbalance.

 

 

 

 

[ghostbuster_]

 you can discuss the power of dds somewhere else. the problem is not dds being OP or UP.  here we have an other problem which is the population of dds per battle. they can be very OP or UP doesnt matter. 

[mtm78]

 

Well I am not looking at it from any direction. If BB's or CA's would have damage ratio of 3-4, I would also say they are unbalanced. But they don't, they have rather standard damage ratio for HP-based game.The DD's just sticks out. If you add the fact that after tier 5 (in tiers 6-8) performance of the DD's drop sharply, lower tier DD do more damage than higher tier.So they are definition of unbalance.

 

It's BS to correlate avg damage done with actual hp of ship / classes, and shows a clear bias for BoringBoats from a player which played just short of 70% of his battles in such BB. Sorry if no one takes you serious.

 

 you can discuss the power of dds somewhere else. the problem is not dds being OP or UP.  here we have an other problem which is the population of dds per battle. they can be very OP or UP doesnt matter. 

 

I had some battles yesterday playing tier VIII IX and X and almost all of them were ok, almost thought the issue was gone until I finally got a 6 tier X dd one one side and 3 on the other game. DD mirroring is clearly broken.