Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Rage_Unchained

Immortal fletcher.

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[OP-B]
Players
114 posts
9,946 battles

​http://pasteboard.co/PZwY8d5X2.png

 

My team is losing the game, and I run into enemy fletcher smoking up 5km from me. I drop 2 waves of torps at him as I saw his position, and proceed to drop smoke for friendly Iowa.

These are Yugumo 8km torps, each doing 21k damage (and some change). How in the hell do 3 torps (64k combined) do not kill, and only do 16k damage to a tier 9 DD?

 

Somehow, one of the torps seems to have damaged an AA mount too...GG WG?

Edited by Chicha_Drazza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Players
114 posts
9,946 battles

Hah that's fcking epic. A single torp from me should sink him. but because of cough*mechanics*cough 3 torps are not enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
533 posts
2,205 battles

Lol.

 

Let this post disappear slowly, the destroyer captains wont want everyone to know how broken their ships damage system is. We already had dd captains asking for higher damage soak vs battleship guns rofl.

Luckily they are all too busy whining about the tiny stealth fire nerf like its the end of the world to spot this.

 

But yeah damage soak mechanics are a bit broken on destroyers. Ive hit them with shells that pen and it does 0 damage on a 50hp destroyer. Not only are they super difficult to hit but the no citadel issue makes them hard to damage later on. (ps i dont want them to have citadels)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,686 posts
9,234 battles

Lol.

 

Let this post disappear slowly, the destroyer captains wont want everyone to know how broken their ships damage system is. We already had dd captains asking for higher damage soak vs battleship guns rofl.

 

Luckily they are all too busy whining about the tiny stealth fire nerf like its the end of the world to spot this.

 

But yeah damage soak mechanics are a bit broken on destroyers. Ive hit them with shells that pen and it does 0 damage on a 50hp destroyer. Not only are they super difficult to hit but the no citadel issue makes them hard to damage later on. (ps i dont want them to have citadels)

 

Literally everything you have mentionned is called common damage mechanics, it's not just a DD thing.

Once again you open your mouth only to show just how ignorant you are.

 

"DD difficult to damage because of no citadel"

Jesus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Players
114 posts
9,946 battles

 

Literally everything you have mentionned is called common damage mechanics, it's not just a DD thing.

Once again you open your mouth only to show just how ignorant you are.

 

"DD difficult to damage because of no citadel"

Jesus...

 

And you jumping on him with "ignorant" shows pure class.

The fact that that a ship like fletcher is hit not once, not twice, but thrice shouldn't leave it afloat. simple as that. Damage saturation? Oh, this bolt has already been damaged by the previous torp, so it won't unhinge and give way because of that. The bow of the vessel has been hit by a devastating torpedo blast, and it won't accept any damage applications until further notice. GG

 

Yes, dd's are too hard to damage. But that's not a problem. Problem is, that even when you manage to hit them, the game mechanics will say big "nope, fu" to any higher caliber gun, because that ship is too fragile, and game mechanics*cough-fking-cough*

 

Also, regarding his stealthfire remark: removal will only force people playing DD's to either choose between shooting from smoke or risk being hit by shooting from range (and probably develop some sort of situational awareness and skill by dodging and shooting at same time - FINALLY). Oh no, and if I get hit...Well, WG got you covered on that. The only ships severely affected by stealthfire removal are paper cruisers, like Chapayev and such, that relied on some sort of escape option. Altho, even since removal, I have been averaging well over 100k damage per game with Chapa whole day yesterday, and surviving quite a big chunk of games. 

 

Oh, and how come this damage saturation allows battleships to burn repeatedly on same spots, sometimes 10 times per match, and still receive damage - no, even sink most of the time because they don't have one "consumable" to put a [edited]blanket over a rope that caught fire from the "massive" dd shell explosion?

Edited by Chicha_Drazza
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
972 posts
10,905 battles

 

And you jumping on him with "ignorant" shows pure class.

The fact that that a ship like fletcher is hit not once, not twice, but thrice shouldn't leave it afloat. simple as that. Damage saturation? Oh, this bolt has already been damaged by the previous torp, so it won't unhinge and give way because of that. The bow of the vessel has been hit by a devastating torpedo blast, and it won't accept any damage applications until further notice. GG

 

Yes, dd's are too hard to damage. But that's not a problem. Problem is, that even when you manage to hit them, the game mechanics will say big "nope, fu" to any higher caliber gun, because that ship is too fragile, and game mechanics*cough-fking-cough*

 

Also, regarding his stealthfire remark: removal will only force people playing DD's to either choose between shooting from smoke or risk being hit by shooting from range (and probably develop some sort of situational awareness and skill by dodging and shooting at same time - FINALLY). Oh no, and if I get hit...Well, WG got you covered on that. The only ships severely affected by stealthfire removal are paper cruisers, like Chapayev and such, that relied on some sort of escape option. Altho, even since removal, I have been averaging well over 100k damage per game with Chapa whole day yesterday, and surviving quite a big chunk of games. 

 

Oh, and how come this damage saturation allows battleships to burn repeatedly on same spots, sometimes 10 times per match, and still receive damage - no, even sink most of the time because they don't have one "consumable" to put a [edited]blanket over a rope that caught fire from the "massive" dd shell explosion?

 

DDs get lucky due to damage saturation only very occasionally. BBs on the other hand benefit from the damage saturation mechanic in almost every game, most notably with regard to shots fired at the superstrucuture. Yes the fires might ignore the damage saturation mechanic but the shots fired to induce them most definitely do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
482 posts
7,639 battles

 

DDs get lucky due to damage saturation only very occasionally. BBs on the other hand benefit from the damage saturation mechanic in almost every game, most notably with regard to shots fired at the superstrucuture. Yes the fires might ignore the damage saturation mechanic but the shots fired to induce them most definitely do not.

 

Agreed, overall damage saturation is another stupid mechanic IMO. Why is it in game ? Seriously who know why ?

 

Once I hit a fletcher in smoke with 3 torps (I understood it was a DD only at end screen) causing an amazing amount of 2.300 damage in total. Was at beginning of the game and the fletcher after managed 4 kills and we lost by an inch the game. That was strange, unlucky, bad, stupid and also a mistrey to me. Damage saturation at beginning, 3 torps to a DD of course in different places....quite sure was a bug, has to be a bug....

Edited by Krikkio82
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Players
114 posts
9,946 battles

 

DDs get lucky due to damage saturation only very occasionally. BBs on the other hand benefit from the damage saturation mechanic in almost every game, most notably with regard to shots fired at the superstrucuture. Yes the fires might ignore the damage saturation mechanic but the shots fired to induce them most definitely do not.

 

Agree with you completely. But! :D The saturation mechanic is far more effective on DD's because:

a ship with 2-3k HP left keeps surviving 5-10 hit salvoes (counting max 12 guns per ship, unless you count some freaks with 15 guns), and they continue to dish out that painful little pecks of damage and potentially smoke up or drop torps at you.

 

Battleship, on the other hand, is MASSIVE. getting hit into saturated area is probable, but it takes effort to hit a single same spot/area repeatedly on ships that are some 200-300+ meters long. And then you can only blame yourself. 

Targeting, leading and actually hitting a DD (mind you, talking about proper DD player, not lobotomized squirrels that populate most random battles), is already an achievement itself. And then there is the reload issue - 30s reload gun hits and does 0 damage. 2.5-3s reload gun hits, does 0 damage, ba-boom, 4 seconds later, he tries again, oh, again 0? Ok, move the aim a bit, there we go. Oh, and it's a bonus fire :D

 

I'll be honest I prefer BB's to DD's and that will probably never change, but reality is - with the game as it is, and teams/players as they are - DD's should not be allowed to 1v1 BB's. Spotting/Detectability mechanics already favor DD's heavily, even with the radars, spotting planes, hydros and secondaries being the thorn in any DD's side.

 

Anyways, back to topic. Saturation sucks :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Players
114 posts
9,946 battles

 

Agreed, overall damage saturation is another stupid mechanic IMO. Why is it in game ? Seriously who know why ?

 

Once I hit a fletcher in smoke with 3 torps (I understood it was a DD only at end screen) causing an amazing amount of 2.300 damage in total. Was at beginning of the game and the fletcher after managed 4 kills and we lost by an inch the game. That was strange, unlucky, bad, stupid and also a mistrey to me. Damage saturation at beginning, 3 torps to a DD of course in different places....quite sure was a bug, has to be a bug....

 

It was very similar to what I described, the Fletcher lived and killed another guy. It's just broken. 

at least saturation should be supplemented by some sort of heavy incapacitation to offset the loss of damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Alpha Tester
17,384 posts
5,400 battles

Lol.

 

Let this post disappear slowly, the destroyer captains wont want everyone to know how broken their ships damage system is. We already had dd captains asking for higher damage soak vs battleship guns rofl.

 

Luckily they are all too busy whining about the tiny stealth fire nerf like its the end of the world to spot this.

 

But yeah damage soak mechanics are a bit broken on destroyers. Ive hit them with shells that pen and it does 0 damage on a 50hp destroyer. Not only are they super difficult to hit but the no citadel issue makes them hard to damage later on. (ps i dont want them to have citadels)

 

Ow look, it's mister 'Belfast is balanced yo, and it has nothing to do with it being my most played ship' :rolleyes: 

Damage saturation doesn't work only with torps it works with shells as well :child:And it doesn't only work on DD's either :child:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,346 posts
14,963 battles

 

And you jumping on him with "ignorant" shows pure class.

 

Chicha_Drazza 14 posts. You are quite new to the forum I guess..  so Welcome to the Forum. 

Dominico is one of our resident TROLLS that very rarely brings anything to the conversation. Sometimes we get a little annoyed and bite

 

On topic Damage saturation Effects all Classes of ship. Infact it benefits BBs the most as it can often give them a chance to rapair.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
748 posts
11,447 battles

DD's should not be allowed to 1v1 BB's

 

Git gud, its your counter, he should be able to kill you, but with all the BBabies criying now torps are nerfed (because everybody knows it was easy to spot them at 2km+) and no invisifire because being shooted without the ability to fire back was unfair, but outranging your opponent is fine.

 

About damage saturation DDs almost only enjoy it against torps (A DD weapon) BBs enjoy it against everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAD-A]
[BAD-A]
Beta Tester
972 posts
10,905 battles

 

Agree with you completely. But! :D The saturation mechanic is far more effective on DD's because:

a ship with 2-3k HP left keeps surviving 5-10 hit salvoes (counting max 12 guns per ship, unless you count some freaks with 15 guns), and they continue to dish out that painful little pecks of damage and potentially smoke up or drop torps at you.

 

Battleship, on the other hand, is MASSIVE. getting hit into saturated area is probable, but it takes effort to hit a single same spot/area repeatedly on ships that are some 200-300+ meters long. And then you can only blame yourself. 

Targeting, leading and actually hitting a DD (mind you, talking about proper DD player, not lobotomized squirrels that populate most random battles), is already an achievement itself. And then there is the reload issue - 30s reload gun hits and does 0 damage. 2.5-3s reload gun hits, does 0 damage, ba-boom, 4 seconds later, he tries again, oh, again 0? Ok, move the aim a bit, there we go. Oh, and it's a bonus fire :D

 

I'll be honest I prefer BB's to DD's and that will probably never change, but reality is - with the game as it is, and teams/players as they are - DD's should not be allowed to 1v1 BB's. Spotting/Detectability mechanics already favor DD's heavily, even with the radars, spotting planes, hydros and secondaries being the thorn in any DD's side.

 

Anyways, back to topic. Saturation sucks :D

 

Your BB example is not the actual real world example I had in mind. Try killing a BB in a CA/CL when it is, as usual, coming at you bow on. The forward parts of the superstructure will take full damage from the first couple of salvoes but then damage will drop off to pitiful levels quite quickly. It is incredibly difficult to reliably lob shells over the front superstructure to hit the parts at the rear that are still unsaturated.

 

If this were not the case it would be a whole lot easier to kill BBs in cruisers and so, thinking about it, even with the occasional "fluke" result as in the OP it is probable that damage saturation is quite a necessary mechanic for a fun game.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Alpha Tester
17,384 posts
5,400 battles

DD's should not be allowed to 1v1 BB's.

 

Lel.. so class implemented to counter BB's shouldn't 1v1 BB.

 

8033027a57e5eb392667f9da87951db6_cool-st

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,346 posts
14,963 battles

View PostKrikkio82, on 31 March 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

 

Agreed, overall damage saturation is another stupid mechanic IMO. Why is it in game ? Seriously who know why ?

Once I hit a fletcher in smoke with 3 torps (I understood it was a DD only at end screen) causing an amazing amount of 2.300 damage in total. Was at beginning of the game and the fletcher after managed 4 kills and we lost by an inch the game. That was strange, unlucky, bad, stupid and also a mistrey to me. Damage saturation at beginning, 3 torps to a DD of course in different places....quite sure was a bug, has to be a bug....

 

Agreed, overall damage saturation is another stupid mechanic IMO. Why is it in game ? Seriously who know why ?

 

 

Once I hit a fletcher in smoke with 3 torps (I understood it was a DD only at end screen) causing an amazing amount of 2.300 damage in total. Was at beginning of the game and the fletcher after managed 4 kills and we lost by an inch the game. That was strange, unlucky, bad, stupid and also a mistrey to me. Damage saturation at beginning, 3 torps to a DD of course in different places....quite sure was a bug, has to be a bug....

 

Damage saturation is there because its kind of real.. Suggestion Go outside to your car with a knife. Stab one of you tyres. Wait 2 mins and stab it again. Douse it make any difference? No the tyre was Flat any more holes in the tyre will not make it any flatter. Ok this is vary basic but its  a similar thing in ship hit locations.

If that area has been destroyed further hist will do vary little damage

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Alpha Tester
17,384 posts
5,400 battles

It should still bleed over to adjacent sections, being immortal because of mechanics is kinda wonky. Yesterday in Akizuki I was on 250hp and hit at least 40 times before dying ( finally someone shot AP at me ). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,346 posts
14,963 battles

 

I'll be honest I prefer BB's to DD's and that will probably never change, but reality is - with the game as it is, and teams/players as they are - DD's should not be allowed to 1v1 BB's. Spotting/Detectability mechanics already favor DD's heavily, even with the radars, spotting planes, hydros and secondaries being the thorn in any DD's side.

 

Anyways, back to topic. Saturation sucks :D

How douse spotting mechanic benefit a DD?

 

Shoot Torps at a BB the BB has about 20-30 Seconds to react to the torps and Turn. DD shoots guns it takes minuets to Kill a BB even with lots of fires. Any half descent BB player can hit a DD from 10KM quit often and said DD even if hit with AP will lose half his health. Wo betide a DD that gets to close to a BBs secondaries

 

Destroyers should not be able to go 1V1 against a BB..... Realy do you know the History of the Destroyer..

 

Full name TOPREDO BOAT DESTROYER.

Torpedo boats came first. There job to attack Battleships. Royal Navy had a great IDEA. They started making there Topredo boats a little bigger they could still do the job of a Torpedo boat. Attack battleships.BUT that bigger size allowed them to take bigger guns so they could double up there role and DEFEND BBs form Torpedo Boats. Hence the Name TOPPEDO BOAT DESTROYER. Know that name is rather long so after a short time.. You guessed it it was shortened to  DESROYER

 

Also Please don't bring reality in to this. this is an Arcade game. we have different classes to make the game fun. some ships have to be buffed for this reason.

Reality. BB would think it had done amazingly well if it shot down 10 planes  if it got attacked by A CV. in this game 20-30 or even for AA kills happans often.

 

Also look at the grand fleet at the battle of Jutland

37 battleships and battle cruisers.

78 Destroyers 

Go to WW2 this disparity tended to be even bigger.

Batttle of Matapan (MEDITERRANEAN)

 

RN 

3BB 17DD

Italian navy

1BB 17DD

Think of it this way

1 DD in game represents a swarm of DDs.

Edited by T0byJug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Players
114 posts
9,946 battles

How douse spotting mechanic benefit a DD?

 

Shoot Torps at a BB the BB has about 20-30 Seconds to react to the torps and Turn. DD shoots guns it takes minuets to Kill a BB even with lots of fires. Any half descent BB player can hit a DD from 10KM quit often and said DD even if hit with AP will lose half his health. Wo betide a DD that gets to close to a BBs secondaries

 

Destroyers should not be able to go 1V1 against a BB..... Realy do you know the History of the Destroyer..

 

Full name TOPREDO BOAT DESTROYER.

Torpedo boats came first. There job to attack Battleships. Royal Navy had a great IDEA. They started making there Topredo boats a little bigger they could still do the job of a Torpedo boat. Attack battleships.BUT that bigger size allowed them to take bigger guns so they could double up there role and DEFEND BBs form Torpedo Boats. Hence the Name TOPPEDO BOAT DESTROYER. Know that name is rather long so after a short time.. You guessed it it was shortened to  DESROYER

 

Also Please don't bring reality in to this. this is an Arcade game. we have different classes to make the game fun. some ships have to be buffed for this reason.

Reality. BB would think it had done amazingly well if it shot down 10 planes  if it got attacked by A CV. in this game 20-30 or even for AA kills happans often.

 

Also look at the grand fleet at the battle of Jutland

37 battleships and battle cruisers.

78 Destroyers 

Go to WW2 this disparity tended to be even bigger.

Batttle of Matapan (MEDITERRANEAN)

 

RN 

3BB 17DD

Italian navy

1BB 17DD

Think of it this way

1 DD in game represents a swarm of DDs.

This is topic about saturation. Not a single line about it. 

But just for the sake of your "comparison". 1 BB, 17DD. Guess why is one BB there, and what it can actually do with a single shot/salvo to those DD's in RL, and what it does in game.

Take a study, or find one on the internet and tell me how many DD's and how many BB's have died in battles in WWII?

Here:

 

Country Carriers & Seaplane Tenders Battleships & Battlecruisers Cruisers Destroyers Escorts,Frigates Submarines Other Warship Auxiliary Total Notes
Australia     3 4 2   3 3 15  
Canada       6 11   9 5 31  
France   2 8 36   33 14 2 94  
Free France       2 3 1 4   9  
Germany   4 7 37   785     840 Includes scuttled ships
Greece     3 4   4 10 5 26 Kilkis & Lemnos considered cruisers by displacement
Italy   2 11 84   84     180
Empire of Japan 19 8 37 134   130     328 3 Further battleships foundered
Netherlands     2 9 0 14 6 26 57  
Norway     2 3 4 4 8 2 23 2 Coastal defence ship of Eidsvold class considered as cruisers by Displacement
Soviet Union   1 2 30 4 102 1   1,014 Battleship Marat sunk & scrapped
United Kingdom 10 5 31 138 47 75 187 572 1,035  
United States 14 3 10 83 11 52 85 188 444  
Poland     1 3 1 2 1 3 11
 

 

It should still bleed over to adjacent sections, being immortal because of mechanics is kinda wonky. Yesterday in Akizuki I was on 250hp and hit at least 40 times before dying ( finally someone shot AP at me ). 

That's actually a very good observation and idea. GJ

 

 

Damage saturation is there because its kind of real.. Suggestion Go outside to your car with a knife. Stab one of you tyres. Wait 2 mins and stab it again. Douse it make any difference? No the tyre was Flat any more holes in the tyre will not make it any flatter. Ok this is vary basic but its  a similar thing in ship hit locations.

If that area has been destroyed further hist will do vary little damage

 

Why would I stab my tyres man, they cost money. Plus, that example is completely wrong. If my tire was punctured (once again, why would I do it to my own car lol :D ), the car would still be able to move. It would be extremely detrimental to the car, the wheel on which tyre is, and very unsafe. Stabbing the tire several times would only increase the cost of repairing it, or would render repair almost impossible. I know what you mean, but, let me try my example then: 

You are a NATO/USAF pilot. You bomb a country and there is a hospital or a bridge your first missile already damaged massively. You realize that the hospital can still have people inside, or that bridge actually hasn't collapsed, even if you have broken the train tracks on it. So, you go for another heroic run at it from 25-30 kilometers (or more), and you drop another democracy missile on the hospital, this time the missile goes through the hole in the roof of the hospital, and manages to hit the lower floors full of doctors and patients. Or, as you hone in your missile onto that bridge, you see a train on the approach, and you get the bonus few kills. Sorry for the real life - true as well - example, but you get the idea. It would take a massive [edited]chunk of luck/chance to hit the same identical spot on a DD or anything with 2,3, 5, 20 different torpedoes, shells or whatever you choose to throw at that poor target.

 

 

Lel.. so class implemented to counter BB's shouldn't 1v1 BB.

 

The class, as it were, was protective, screening, support role. Not Terminator machine that is meant to yolo into 5.5km range, drop 15 torps and bazooka anyone and anything. How nice of you to reference to aliens. 

DD should be able to kill easily a BB. If BB is an average or poor player, if he's out of place/position/cover. If DD is a player well aware of surroundings, positions of enemy ships that can detect him. Now all you see is DD's at start of match going to map edge, sneaking, sneaking, and then getting detected by random plane and bazoinked by everyone in enemy team, and in the end doing nothing for the team. 

BB is a ship supposed to deliver destruction and protect allies with firepower and take hits for them. Cruisers less so the tank part, and have role to deny dd's, subs and planes of hurting BB's and CV's. DD's similar to CA/CL, but with a bit more agility and less firepower. Supporting role. But people in WG games are mostly not interested in teamplay, rather want to be the Rambos, and more often than not, turn into potatoes, instead of heroes. 

 

 

Your BB example is not the actual real world example I had in mind. Try killing a BB in a CA/CL when it is, as usual, coming at you bow on. The forward parts of the superstructure will take full damage from the first couple of salvoes but then damage will drop off to pitiful levels quite quickly. It is incredibly difficult to reliably lob shells over the front superstructure to hit the parts at the rear that are still unsaturated.

 

If this were not the case it would be a whole lot easier to kill BBs in cruisers and so, thinking about it, even with the occasional "fluke" result as in the OP it is probable that damage saturation is quite a necessary mechanic for a fun game.

 

That's true, as well. But why would you want to be infront of a BB in a CA/CL anyway :D You're asking to be steamrolled. :D

 

 

Git gud, its your counter, he should be able to kill you, but with all the BBabies criying now torps are nerfed (because everybody knows it was easy to spot them at 2km+) and no invisifire because being shooted without the ability to fire back was unfair, but outranging your opponent is fine.

 

"Git gud", "BBabies crying". yea...arguments. Range, it's a crazy thing, why would someone ever develop guns and shells with higher velocities or shapes to increase their range. God forbid, that shameful move by WG to remove option of blazing 150mm guns without being seen at 11-12km. I mean, now people actually have to use their brain AND fingers.
Edited by Chicha_Drazza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Alpha Tester
17,384 posts
5,400 battles

The class, as it were, was protective, screening, support role. Not Terminator machine that is meant to yolo into 5.5km range, drop 15 torps and bazooka anyone and anything. How nice of you to reference to aliens. 

 

DD should be able to kill easily a BB. If BB is an average or poor player, if he's out of place/position/cover. If DD is a player well aware of surroundings, positions of enemy ships that can detect him. Now all you see is DD's at start of match going to map edge, sneaking, sneaking, and then getting detected by random plane and bazoinked by everyone in enemy team, and in the end doing nothing for the team. 

 

BB is a ship supposed to deliver destruction and protect allies with firepower and take hits for them. Cruisers less so the tank part, and have role to deny dd's, subs and planes of hurting BB's and CV's. DD's similar to CA/CL, but with a bit more agility and less firepower. Supporting role. But people in WG games are mostly not interested in teamplay, rather want to be the Rambos, and more often than not, turn into potatoes, instead of heroes. 

 

No. 

 

DD's were counter to BB's, BB's to CA/CL, CA/CL to DD, and CV to BB + utility ( spotting, hunting people who thought this wasn't a team game ). That being said, they were never meant to yolo charge into 5.5 km off a BB, that is why actual torpedo DD's could fire them from outside of detection. 

 

Funny you see DD's being played so badly every game. I concur, DD Steve is sometimes terrible. But I see way more BB Kurt's who can't find their W key and tank but rather employ the spotter plane tektic to snipe and lose games. 

 

The gameplay you describe is kind of what we had during CBT for instance. BB found one or two CA's to escort him, and a DD or two to screen. Then they tried playing as a single unit, playing to support each other. When the game went into OBT and beyond sadly more and more people started playing who didn't have any sense of how to play their respective classes and instead came crying on the forums about everything which hurt their BB. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
4,346 posts
14,963 battles

This is topic about saturation. Not a single line about it. 

But just for the sake of your "comparison". 1 BB, 17DD. Guess why is one BB there, and what it can actually do with a single shot/salvo to those DD's in RL, and what it does in game.

Take a study, or find one on the internet and tell me how many DD's and how many BB's have died in battles in WWII?

Here:

 

 

You Table........

 

Well refine that search some more  we can stop playing this game at all above tier 4. 

 

Remove all ships from the table that were Not Sunk in a surface action. Remove ships sunk by planes (land and sea based) and Subs. do this and we all may as well go home.,

Look are RN DD's 138 lost in WW2 I dont know exact numbers but losses of DD due to action against other surface ships probably douse not even make 20. (and thats me being very Generous I think)

Quick Think I got 3.

Glowworm

Hotspur

Hardy

 

UPDATE::

according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II. of 138 DD lost in WW2 

Quick look says 12 sunk buy Ships 1 buy shore battarys (4 of those DDs were sunk by E boats)

UPDATE::

 

AS for BBs Unless I am mistaken Hood is the only BB/BC sunk in WW2 that Torpedoes did not at least have some part in the sinking.

It would take more time than i am prepared to spend But if you tally up all those  surface ships lost on your table from every nation  i would guess 10 or 15% died to Gun or torpedoes from other surface ships. The rest were all killed by planes of subs

If they made this game more realistic this game would be World of battleships and Carriers. Battleships would stand no chance and it would become game of Carriers and then we would have no game at all..

 

Go look here  losses WW2 quick look could only find USN andRN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II

They both read very very similar. Very few ship were sunk by ships 

 

Edited by T0byJug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-SBF-]
Alpha Tester
665 posts
8,053 battles

That damage saturation thing is one dumb and broken concept on everything, not just DDs.

 

The logic behind a second torpedo hitting an already damaged part of a ship's hull and doing less damage eludes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
533 posts
2,205 battles

Well refine that search some more  we can stop playing this game at all above tier 4. 

 

Blah blah blah

 

 

Dude read the topic header, what are you even waffling on about... ffs

 

Back on topic, there should be some system where a shell does a minimum amount of damage if it gets a pen hit. Say a shell which does 5000 damage does 500 or 50 on a pen hit even on saturated systems. Wargames should be able to refine the numbers better, but in all this would stop ridiculous situations we have now with destroyers taking shell hits and torp hits for 0.

 

Its a pretty broken mechanic and insane when a destroyer has 50hp and he gets hit by a shell the size of a bus and it does nothing. Atleast some small damage listing would stop these stupid situations like the OP has. Ive been in the receiving end of this with a tiny amount of hp, being hit and then been able to escape to stealth and torp the enemy team to death. It feels a bit dirty and broken when the opposing player got a good long range hit and isnt rewarded for it. 

 

ps to the ignorant exocet the reason i mentioned the lack of citadel is because it doesnt get saturated, hence why this situation is much rarer with other ship types which take citadel hits meaning the saturation is rarely a big issue on them. 

Edited by Dominico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Players
114 posts
9,946 battles

That damage saturation thing is one dumb and broken concept on everything, not just DDs.

 

The logic behind a second torpedo hitting an already damaged part of a ship's hull and doing less damage eludes me.

 

Not just less - but ZERO. What baffles me the most is that 3 torpedoes hit him, and I can guarantee they were spread out so it was near impossible for ALL 3 to hit the same point or even area. 2, ok. 3? NO.

 

 

Dude read the topic header, what are you even waffling on about... ffs

 

Back on topic, there should be some system where a shell does a minimum amount of damage if it gets a pen hit. Say a shell which does 5000 damage does 500 or 50 on a pen hit even on saturated systems. Wargames should be able to refine the numbers better, but in all this would stop ridiculous situations we have now with destroyers taking shell hits and torp hits for 0.

 

Its a pretty broken mechanic and insane when a destroyer has 50hp and he gets hit by a shell the size of a bus and it does nothing. Atleast some small damage listing would stop these stupid situations like the OP has. Ive been in the receiving end of this with a tiny amount of hp, being hit and then been able to escape to stealth and torp the enemy team to death. It feels a bit dirty and broken when the opposing player got a good long range hit and isnt rewarded for it. 

 

ps to the ignorant exocet the reason i mentioned the lack of citadel is because it doesnt get saturated, hence why this situation is much rarer with other ship types which take citadel hits meaning the saturation is rarely a big issue on them. 

 

he saw it was mentioned DDs>BB's and just went off.

As for the saturation, exactly. DD, if played properly can dictate how long he lives. At least he dies last - if he so chooses. CL/CA+BB do not have that luxury, as it's HP that they trade for victory/effectiveness. And I am really sorry if this will agitate someone, but I have never had a <2000hp BB broadside against me at 5-10km that I could not finish with one salvo, no matter the saturation. And I really think size matters :D

 

We can't honestly expect to discuss this topic if we continue comparing BB/CA/DD. What I will say is - BB and CA on 1k hp are dead meat. The moment they use their armament, everyone will see them, and they are done for, no matter how well you dodge. DD has the choice. If you say otherwise you're either troll or delusional, or just refusing to think about what was said. 

 

Anyway, how was the mechanic - if turret is destroyed, and the next shell lands on the turret, it ignores the turret and goes straight to the next surface, right? So why does saturation not apply here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×