Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[El2aZeR]

Just now, Kartoffelmos said:

Much lower spotting distance?

 

Oh, right, forgot about that.

 

PA DDs will lose much of their utility with this. Being able to deny smokes is far more game deciding than raw anti capital ship potential.

Then again with the upcoming smoke firing changes maybe DW torps will become more valuable.

[peachpest]

With the PA DDs being such a mixed bag of different play styles from different nations removing there ability to torpedo enemy destroyers is going to be a massive weakness and liability to your team.

 

Think about when it comes to contesting a capture point the most common tactic disengage maybe use smoke and drop torps at there last heading or smoke screen and quite often a destroyer will get sunk in these engagements having only deep water puts PA DDs on the back foot from the start as you have to rely only on your guns and spotting for your team to sink enemy destroyers and like I said at the start being such a mixed bag of play styles further compounds this as each destroyer will have its own strengths and weaknesses already when it comes to fighting other destroyers but now you cant even use torpedo's which is a universal weapon for every destroyer in the game to counter each other with.

 

This is a bad move and just another gimmick being forced onto a new line to try and make it different for the sake of being different that will have only negative effects on playing these ships I really hope they go back to having the option between normal and deep water torpedo's..

[Tyrendian89]

 

1 hour ago, von_chom said:

On 8.9.2017 at 9:49 AM, Sub_Octavian said:

Hello! Here you go, sir (September 2017 data) 

 

for comparison, here's the old one (from roughly a year ago if memory serves late 2015, thx Pete!), conveniently also has a key to the colours:

 

most striking change is that AP damage to DDs has roughly doubled, all across the tiers. RN CLs are definitely a big factor here, but I suspect BBs also play a role...

[ColonelPete]

The old one is from December 2015 and was posted on the EU board January/February 2016.

[Darth_Glorious]

20 hours ago, Comodoro_Allande said:

 

Hmmmm, I'm somewhat hyped to see that special permanent camouflage... 

Spoiler

 

[peachpest]

1 hour ago, Darth_Glorious said:

  Hide contents

 

 

Well at least its not over the top, would look better if it had a base color to it and not just plain steel.

 

Question is, is it worth 5k Doubloons debatable though the bonuses alone may be worth it if you can live with the visuals. 

[mtm78]

4 hours ago, Tyrendian89 said:

 

 

for comparison, here's the old one (from roughly a year ago if memory serves late 2015, thx Pete!), conveniently also has a key to the colours:

 

most striking change is that AP damage to DDs has roughly doubled, all across the tiers. RN CLs are definitely a big factor here, but I suspect BBs also play a role...

 

We could ask @Sub_Octavian if they have these charts also indicating damage source, that would allow much more cross checking :)

[ColonelPete]

I did, but got only the one graph.

[piet11111]

14 hours ago, Darth_Glorious said:

  Hide contents

 

 

Ugh big pass for me.

[PseudoMi]

Will pass too.

Moreover, because the +20% credits is linked with the camo instead the ship, you cannot install, like on Missouri, the restless flames camo for adding +50% credits on top. Thus no chances for really big advantage, for not less than 5000 golds (!). At tier 8 !

[daki]

17 hours ago, Tyrendian89 said:

 

 

 

most striking change is that AP damage to DDs has roughly doubled, all across the tiers. RN CLs are definitely a big factor here, but I suspect BBs also play a role...

 

Looks like it. Especially when we see the increase of AP damage received in T1&2 cruisers.

For sure BBs play a role more prominently in higher tiers as RN cruisers are not that popular (compared to some other nations).

It should be noted that about a year and a half ago the common wisdom was that BBs should swap to HE when fighting DDs which is almost never seen now taking into account how AP is effective against DDs

[Darth_Glorious]

Quote

Greetings, captains!

We are pleased to announce that the first phase of Graf Zeppelin testing starts on September 14.

All test participants will receive two aircraft carriers. Each of them will have AP bombs, differing by their settings of drop ellipse, bomb fall time and other settings. Please, find further information below.

As you might have known, originally AP bombs used to have the following characteristics:

Dispersion ellipse of the bombs was 54 х 270 meters;
The ellipse narrowed when ALT-attack was used – -50% to dispersion;
Under defensive fire dispersion increased on 40%;
The speed of bomb falling was 345 m/s;
The bomb fall time was 6.0 sec.

Now we present you two updated versions of bombers with AP bombs:

The first version:

Dispersion ellipse of the bombs has been narrowed to 54 х 210 meters;
When ALT-attack is used or under defensive fire ellipse changes stay the same;
The speed of bomb falling has been increased to 375 m/s;
The bomb fall time has been reduced to 3.8 sec.
Aircraft take-off time has been cut twice;
The tier of fighters has been reduced to 7 without changes in their battle performance.

In general, the first version is designed for players with a high skill in playing on aircraft carriers. Such performance 
characteristics of bombers will provide good accuracy, however, one must be alert – it is necessary to choose target lead accurately and to anticipate maneuver of the enemy ship.

Reducing squadron take-off time will provide a pleasant bonus of a few seconds for the air group in a mass takeoff. This will give a slight advantage at the beginning of the battle and will allow your fighters to be one of the first over the strategic points of the battlefield;

We have reduced bomb fall time and narrowed dispersion ellipse of the bombs. A delay of 3.8 seconds still gives the target ship a chance to lay an evasive maneuver down, but it will allow bombers hit maneuvering targets more efficiently and hit camping targets or targets that do not change their course;

Increasing the speed of bomb falling will increase the value of armor penetration and give more opportunities for consistent damage to armored ships;

Reducing the tier of fighters without changes in their battle performance will give a pleasant bonus when using the "Dogfighting Expert" skill.

The second version:

Drop ellipse has been changed, now it is a circle of 120 х 120 meters;

The circle narrows when ALT-attack is used – -20% to dispersion;
Under defensive fire dispersion increases on 100% when using auto-attack, and on 50% when using ALT-attack;
The speed of bomb falling has been increased to 375 m/s;
The bomb fall time has been reduced to 1.0 sec.

In this version, the fighters have no changes comparing to the original version.

The second version is designed for all players and does not require special skills in playing on aircraft carriers, although the performance of this version may be lower, it will allow the beginners to achieve more stable results. Bombs fall with a delay close to the standard, but the drop area will prevent from consistently hitting the target with all bombs, while the probability of hitting cruisers and other narrow targets has been significantly reduced.

The task for testers will be given a bit later. Please keep in mind that we will test other options as well, but for now, we would like you to concentrate on the two suggested loadouts.

Thanks for reading, and see you soon!

https://www.facebook.com/wowsgraf/posts/131352370832404

 

[lankylad11_lankylad]

the main problem with the graf zeppelin is that it doesn't have any option to mount torpedo bombers but the fighter change is helpful

[Verdius]

41 minutes ago, Horin728 said:

More info from the GZ Facebook group: 

 

Greetings, captains!

We are pleased to announce that the first phase of Graf Zeppelin testing starts on September 14.

All test participants will receive two aircraft carriers. Each of them will have AP bombs, differing by their settings of drop ellipse, bomb fall time and other settings. Please, find further information below.

 

So they still hold onto the DB only...
AP bombs are just way too limiting in the targets that you can attack and even among BBs they are only effective against German BBs.

Plus DB gameplay is always going to be way less interesting that TB gameplay because lining up an attack from the side with an arming time and traveling distance as opposed to directly above allows for way more interesting situations and tactical options.

 

Honestly I still hope that they include a 2-1-2 or 2-2-1 or something loadout with HE bombs. I can guarantee that if that was among the options the TB loadout would by far be the most played because DBs are just not fun to use no matter how accurate or damaging they may be.

[Horin728]

6 hours ago, Verdius said:

 

So they still hold onto the DB only...
AP bombs are just way too limiting in the targets that you can attack and even among BBs they are only effective against German BBs.

Plus DB gameplay is always going to be way less interesting that TB gameplay because lining up an attack from the side with an arming time and traveling distance as opposed to directly above allows for way more interesting situations and tactical options.

 

Honestly I still hope that they include a 2-1-2 or 2-2-1 or something loadout with HE bombs. I can guarantee that if that was among the options the TB loadout would by far be the most played because DBs are just not fun to use no matter how accurate or damaging they may be.

 

These are only the first loadouts to be tested out, I think there might be one with TBs too, but we shall see, the paulinas were already able to citadel even USN BBs and the (now even more) improved penetration should make them more reliable at that. While all of this is true I still think that CVs should be able to pick a bomb type in battle, depending on the circumstance (while the bombers are landed obviously). I think that WG just wants to have hard data on all the options before they make the final decision and this provides quite an unique (and awesome) opportunity to test out their more wild ideas in controlled enviroment with greater sample size than the supertest provides...

[Nechrom]

I'm not optimistic about either of these options, but the first one is definitely the best. 

Sure you still have that awful delay which I honestly don't think should be there in any way, but at least it's shorter.

The positive parts of that option is better fighters which is sorely needed and the fact that the drop pattern is more accurate and that DFAA is irrelevant against it other than for shooting down the planes. Also auto-attack can be used without any disadvantages which heavily reduces the negative effects of the bomb delay. The take off time reduction is also a nice small bonus.

 

I'm among the ones who will be testing it, so we'll see.

[Horin728]

7 hours ago, Nechrom said:

I'm not optimistic about either of these options, but the first one is definitely the best. 

Sure you still have that awful delay which I honestly don't think should be there in any way, but at least it's shorter.

The positive parts of that option is better fighters which is sorely needed and the fact that the drop pattern is more accurate and that DFAA is irrelevant against it other than for shooting down the planes. Also auto-attack can be used without any disadvantages which heavily reduces the negative effects of the bomb delay. The take off time reduction is also a nice small bonus.

 

I'm among the ones who will be testing it, so we'll see.

 

I think what they meant by the deff AA part is that the parameters of the bigger eclipse don't change, that means the bigger eclipse stays as big as it is right now (when under def AA)

[Nechrom]

1 hour ago, Horin728 said:

I think what they meant by the deff AA part is that the parameters of the bigger eclipse don't change, that mean the bigger eclipse stays as big as it is right now (when under def AA)

 

If that's true then they couldn't have worded it any worse.

[tank276]

14 hours ago, lankylad11_lankylad said:

the main problem with the graf zeppelin is that it doesn't have any option to mount torpedo bombers but the fighter change is helpful

The WG guys in the facebook page suggested that after testing there might be 2 or even 3 deck options, but its still too early to tell.

I would not mind even if the ship stayed as it is, with considerable buffs to the fighters.

The dot damage with 3 good drop bomber squadrons (HE) and air superiority could work.

[Spellfire40]

On 6.9.2017 at 5:16 PM, El2aZeR said:

Dude, they're cruisers, not BBs.

AND IFHE hurts BBs.

Ofc it's gonna get nerfed. 

 

On a more serious note, WG has obviously acknowledged IFHE as a problem. Like the smoke changes they're probably going to trial different things in the next few patches and see what works.

IFHE hurts anyone and frankly speaking there is exactly 1 ship that absolutly requires it and that is Aki anyone else can live without it......plus they hardly can do the US split line with IFHE . Care to face a Brooklyn with it?

 

Point is IFHE nerf now when they just have created high HE pen BBs with no drawback smells a bit fishy especaly when it comes in tandem with smoke nerfs. Yea smoke nerfs hit BBs more but for a BB to utilise smoke it has to be near a DD and that means not near the mapboarder. Any nerfs to RN CL and DDs even if slightly is totally unneeded. And "if you get within 6 km to a Rn Cl your a screwed in a DD" is no argument because if i dont open fire he will still get one shoted and im not spoted........

 

WG needs to adress other things 1st. Like reserving brainddead citadel placements that can allmost never be hit at close to mid range. BBs dont NEED surviability. The point that they survive doing stupid things that would kill any other class instantly IS one of the big problems.

[Spellfire40]

11 hours ago, Horin728 said:

 

These are only the first loadouts to be tested out, I think there might be one with TBs too, but we shall see, the paulinas were already able to citadel even USN BBs and the (now even more) improved penetration should make them more reliable at that. While all of this is true I still think that CVs should be able to pick a bomb type in battle, depending on the circumstance (while the bombers are landed obviously). I think that WG just wants to have hard data on all the options before they make the final decision and this provides quite an unique (and awesome) opportunity to test out their more wild ideas in controlled enviroment with greater sample size than the supertest provides...

The problem is the time to drop with fragile planes even IF your able to actually get a hit. there were no need to make skilled AP drops when they allready had a working modle in form of Enterprise. There is no good point exect braindead HE config that autokills a DD as much as any 3 Torp Squad  would have before. Add to that Fighters that have trobble outfighting a Floatfighter......

[Spellfire40]

On 9.9.2017 at 8:52 PM, Kartoffelmos said:

 

Much lower spotting distance? Didn't DW torps originally have high damage, high flood chance and low concealment?

 

Doesn't really change all that much though, at least in theory: you can still gun down enemy destroyers and a high flooding chance in addition to good torpedo concealment will make you effective against cruisers and battleships.

The base Torp is an US torp. Any US player on high Tir DDs have trobble making their Torps hit if it actually gets to a flank of a BB? The problem is you still cant hurt a BB that is on a away course. This Torps are just anti CA torps nothing more nothing less. And we really need more things that kills off crusiers that actally allready risking geting one shoted from BBs for doing their Job and going after DDs do we?

 

You want anti BB Torps? Easy give BBs only a Torp aquisition penalty and make Floatfighters do NOT spot Torps. Spoter planes in Turn SOULD spot Torps so you making a choise between air defence or better target aquisition ................you CAN use precision changes instead of messing with anybody and causing nerfs to unintended target that do not need nerfs....

[mtm78]

54 minutes ago, Spellfire40 said:

The base Torp is an US torp. Any US player on high Tir DDs have trobble making their Torps hit if it actually gets to a flank of a BB? The problem is you still cant hurt a BB that is on a away course. This Torps are just anti CA torps nothing more nothing less. And we really need more things that kills off crusiers that actally allready risking geting one shoted from BBs for doing their Job and going after DDs do we?

 

You want anti BB Torps? Easy give BBs only a Torp aquisition penalty and make Floatfighters do NOT spot Torps. Spoter planes in Turn SOULD spot Torps so you making a choise between air defence or better target aquisition ................you CAN use precision changes instead of messing with anybody and causing nerfs to unintended target that do not need nerfs....

 

 

Better torps to deal with battleship population is fine. But we don't need better torps against cruisers  

 

That 'idea' should have been killed at childbirth. 

[Spellfire40]

13 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

 

Better torps to deal with battleship population is fine. But we don't need better torps against cruisers  

 

That 'idea' should have been killed at childbirth. 

The point is they do not really  hit better and you dont create more chances to hit BBs more often vs non pushing BBs. The problem with DD vs BB is most of the time your shoting at the bow or the rear since going for flank shots requires you to avoid going for caps and then geting srewed by some random course chage anyhow.....your trading more damage for allready good stealthy Torps vs the inability to hit DDs.

[mtm78]

You should be rewarded for flanking, but you just don't rush to launch fished right away you first focus on cap's and getting a pressure advantage on enemy team and then you try and get those rewarding flank shots. What I mean is, flanking shots can land most damage but are hard to get off ( aka launch.. ). If you make DD capable of continously sending waves of long range torps to bow on battleships AND be effective at that, what happens if you DO get to a BB's broadside? Considering they work bow on, getting those same torps in a broadside situation would certainly not be balanced. 

 

IJN torps are fine anti BB weapons IF NOT for their crappy concealment. But WG is afraid that better concealment influences all classes not just BB's. I died to many IJN torp in my DD's, even with worse concealment in the areas you fight it's just not always possible to avoid them all. Getting better concealment on them alone would make this more frequent and WG does not want this. Shima ofc is already the DD with the most torpedo DD kills. 

 

So why not keep 12km range ( or make it 15km, it still makes me throw up a bit inside that Japan, the nation which actually made working torpedoes during the war, have worse torpedoes as USN which had major issues during their development program   ), but make them more stealthy and make them ONLY hit capital ships ( BB / CV ). Historical, heck no, draft based is more 'immersive' but it's also imho just plain stupid and not even worth considering. And I will be happy when even THAT comes out as true in the end.