A-poi-calypse Now II: the death of torpedo boats

[Dragnorak]

Strewth I'm running out of ships to play. I love my Shira and now it will just be a melt, meh...

 

Still at least I still have my Fujin, I won't bother with any of the other IJN dd's as their all s h i t e :) although I'm slowly learning how to play Fubuki my pet of hate in ranked..

[Capra76]

1 hour ago, Fat_Maniac said:

Only because I think having read the historical posts, people exploited stealth and unlimited torpedoes, to basically spam fire. No real skill involved, get in range, stay hidden and spam spam spam, in the general direction you think the enemy is going.

 

I know that you've recanted a lot of this in later posts but there are a few points I'd like to make.

 

No-skill "long range torpedo spam" was always a bit of a myth, the BBabies cried about DD launching torpedoes from 20 km away, the reality was that no half-competent DD player would ever launch from any further than he had to and anything over 10 km was always pretty much a waste.

 

The fundamental problem the game had back then, which continues to this day, is the massive power imbalance between BB and CA compared to the balance between CA/DD and DD/BB, whilst CA would be regularly obliterated by BB the other classes had to do so something fairly stupid to experience the same thing themselves.

 

The upshot of the above was that CA were massively under-represented at the higher tiers, which led to regular 5 Shima per side games and "torpedo soup", which to be fair to WG wasn't much fun for anyone and WG decided to act (but note, if BB/DD wasn't fun why weren't more people playing CA?).

 

The mistake WG made was that to fix "torpedo soup" they simply nerfed DD generally and IJN DD very heavily, but this was simply treating the symptom rather than the cause.  The problem wasn't that IJN DD were too powerful (they weren't), the problem was that DD and BB were the only viable classes,  instead of re balancing CA so that more people wanted to play them they took the easy way out and nerfed DD, which left the already over-popular BB class even more powerful than it had been before.

 

This is why despite all the nerfs you still see so many DD at higher tiers, people simply don't want to play a ship that turns to dust the moment a BB looks at it so it's still the same binary option, BB or DD.

[Fat_Maniac]

Just now, Capra76 said:

 

I know that you've recanted a lot of this in later posts but there are a few points I'd like to make.

 

No-skill "long range torpedo spam" was always a bit of a myth, the BBabies cried about DD launching torpedoes from 20 km away, the reality was that no half-competent DD player would ever launch from any further than he had to and anything over 10 km was always pretty much a waste.

 

The fundamental problem the game had back then, which continues to this day, is the massive power imbalance between BB and CA compared to the balance between CA/DD and DD/BB, whilst CA would be regularly obliterated by BB the other classes had to do so something fairly stupid to experience the same thing themselves.

 

The upshot of the above was that CA were massively under-represented at the higher tiers, which led to regular 5 Shima per side games and "torpedo soup", which to be fair to WG wasn't much fun for anyone and WG decided to act (but note, if BB/DD wasn't fun why weren't more people playing CA?).

 

The mistake WG made was that to fix "torpedo soup" they simply nerfed DD generally and IJN DD very heavily, but this was simply treating the symptom rather than the cause.  The problem wasn't that IJN DD were too powerful (they weren't), the problem was that DD and BB were the only viable classes,  instead of re balancing CA so that more people wanted to play them they took the easy way out and nerfed DD, which left the already over-popular BB class even more powerful than it had been before.

 

This is why despite all the nerfs you still see so many DD at higher tiers, people simply don't want to play a ship that turns to dust the moment a BB looks at it so it's still the same binary option, BB or DD.

 

You know that's exactly the conclusion I was formulating myself in my head.

 

The game is unbalanced in terms of class representation and WG's refusal to change MM queue times to give balanced games means WG have to nerf / buff ships to try to balance the game. People switch play style and ships because of the changes and then the whole cycle repeats itself, except BB's will always be the easiest class to play.   

[BillydSquid]

2 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

That's incredibly naive though.
German BBs don't push either, and are just an incredibly hard thing to kill if played right.
AP bombs nerf a branch of ships that have been overperforming since day 1.

 

Not really, T10 CVs aren't exactly lacking in firepower and can wipe the floor with any lone T10 BB, even AA specc'd BBs will take heavy damage and sunk after being singled out by a T10 CV, internal IJN vs USN balance considerations aside AP bombs won't fix the underlying problems of CVs as a class and the numbers. 

 

AP bombs are tinkering round the edges, they don't significantly increase damage, and given how much damage a well played T10 CV can put out already it begs the question of why only 3% of T10 games have CV in them. If it was simply an issue of damage potential, then CVs would be far more common (apart from the dire state of T8 CVs getting thrown into T10 games and betting shredded) but they're not. 

 

I don't see AP bombs changing the meta, because they don't do anything to fix the deeper problems in the underlying mechanics of CVs as a class. The only thing it might do is shift BBS to select manual AA in case they encounter a T10 CV, which simply make the lives of T8 CVs even worse when they're up tiered regularly as T10 BBs will be virtually untouchable to any CV other than a T10 CV 

[Quetak]

14 minutes ago, BillydSquid said:

 

 3% of T10 games have CV in them.

again this....from all T10 ships played are 3% CVs = 3 out of 100 ships are CVs -> 100 ships = 4 full 12v12 games -> circa 3/8 games have CV.

Just rough numbers to show how wrong is this 3% statement repeated over over.  

[TeaCupYuri]

8 minutes ago, Quetak said:

again this....from all T10 ships played are 3% CVs = 3 out of 100 ships are CVs -> 100 ships = 4 full 12v12 games -> circa 3/8 games have CV.

Just rough numbers to show how wrong is this 3% statement repeated over over.  

 If you bothered to read. 3% of T10 Games have consists of CVs present in the match. Not 3% of T10 ships played. Holy crap this selective reading.

[Quetak]

7 minutes ago, TeaCupYuri said:

 If you bothered to read. 3% of T10 Games have consists of CVs present in the match. Not 3% of T10 ships played. Holy crap this selective reading.

I checked stats last week for last two weeks and....3% from all T10 ships played were CVs. So from my understanding it means what I wrote.

Its of course with presumption that all T10 games are made only from T10 ships which is not real. 

 

so CVs only in 3 games out of 100 games is wrong.

[BillydSquid]

21 minutes ago, Quetak said:

I checked stats last week for last two weeks and....3% from all T10 ships played were CVs. So from my understanding it means what I wrote.

Its of course with presumption that all T10 games are made only from T10 ships which is not real. 

 

so CVs only in 3 games out of 100 games is wrong.

 

Your math is wrong, learn how to use averages, check maple again with up to date figures, the numbers will bear out consistently, T10 CVs only appear in 3% of T10 battles. 

 

Class distribution by battles - EU server: 20.05 - 27.05
Class/Tier	Tier 3	Tier 4	Tier 5	Tier 6	Tier 7	Tier 8	Tier 9	Tier 10
BB	66565	107891	184011	223430	284833	334053	100479	93215
CA/CL	68739	88348	180317	199979	163164	138944	58246	59994
DD	24215	45194	86945	64184	89631	68447	52580	60643
CV	0	29898	47031	34027	36152	18343	10699	5576
Total	159519	271331	498304	521620	573780	559787	222004	219428

 

	Class distribution by battles - EU server: 20.05 - 27.05
Class/Tier	Tier 3	Tier 4	Tier 5	Tier 6	Tier 7	Tier 8	Tier 9	Tier 10
BB	41,7 %	39,8 %	36,9 %	42,8 %	49,6 %	59,7 %	45,3 %	42,5 %
CA/CL	43,1 %	32,6 %	36,2 %	38,3 %	28,4 %	24,8 %	26,2 %	27,3 %
DD	15,2 %	16,7 %	17,4 %	12,3 %	15,6 %	12,2 %	23,7 %	27,6 %
CV	0,0 %	11,0 %	9,4 %	6,5 %	6,3 %	3,3 %	4,8 %	2,5 %
Total	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %

[Capra76]

Just now, BillydSquid said:

 

Your math is wrong, learn how to use averages, check maple again with up to date figures, the numbers will bear out consistently, T10 CVs only appear in 3% of battles. 

 

	Class distribution by battles - EU server: 20.05 - 27.05
Class/Tier	Tier 3	Tier 4	Tier 5	Tier 6	Tier 7	Tier 8	Tier 9	Tier 10
BB	41,7 %	39,8 %	36,9 %	42,8 %	49,6 %	59,7 %	45,3 %	42,5 %
CA/CL	43,1 %	32,6 %	36,2 %	38,3 %	28,4 %	24,8 %	26,2 %	27,3 %
DD	15,2 %	16,7 %	17,4 %	12,3 %	15,6 %	12,2 %	23,7 %	27,6 %
CV	0,0 %	11,0 %	9,4 %	6,5 %	6,3 %	3,3 %	4,8 %	2,5 %
Total	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %

 

So do only 42.5% of T10 games have BB in them?

[Quetak]

35 minutes ago, BillydSquid said:

 

Your math is wrong, learn how to use averages, check maple again with up to date figures, the numbers will bear out consistently, T10 CVs only appear in 3% of T10 battles. 

 

Class distribution by battles - EU server: 20.05 - 27.05
Class/Tier	Tier 3	Tier 4	Tier 5	Tier 6	Tier 7	Tier 8	Tier 9	Tier 10
BB	66565	107891	184011	223430	284833	334053	100479	93215
CA/CL	68739	88348	180317	199979	163164	138944	58246	59994
DD	24215	45194	86945	64184	89631	68447	52580	60643
CV	0	29898	47031	34027	36152	18343	10699	5576
Total	159519	271331	498304	521620	573780	559787	222004	219428

 

	Class distribution by battles - EU server: 20.05 - 27.05
Class/Tier	Tier 3	Tier 4	Tier 5	Tier 6	Tier 7	Tier 8	Tier 9	Tier 10
BB	41,7 %	39,8 %	36,9 %	42,8 %	49,6 %	59,7 %	45,3 %	42,5 %
CA/CL	43,1 %	32,6 %	36,2 %	38,3 %	28,4 %	24,8 %	26,2 %	27,3 %
DD	15,2 %	16,7 %	17,4 %	12,3 %	15,6 %	12,2 %	23,7 %	27,6 %
CV	0,0 %	11,0 %	9,4 %	6,5 %	6,3 %	3,3 %	4,8 %	2,5 %
Total	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %

what to say... just lol. Keep in mind that one ship isnt one match. One match is 24 ships!!!

 

edit: lets make it simple. Team has 12 ships. 1 ships is then 8,33%. So when CV population from your numbers reach 8,33% it means that mathematicaly every game on that tier will have CV (if games are made from only one tier = MM +/-0). Im too lazy to math with MM +/-2 sry.

I only wat to say that CVs in 3 games out of 100 is bulshit (aka only 3% games have CV).   

[BillydSquid]

21 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

So do only 42.5% of T10 games have BB in them?

 

No, I probably wasn't clear, it's not a straight 1 to 1 equivalent, you can't achieve that as the MM doesn't strictly control which tiers are present in each match, as such the lines blur with the +2/-2 MM. 

 

For instance, from T8 - T10 BBs account for around 55% of all battles played in T8-10, now obviously that doesn't mean that  45% don't have a BB in them, we know that's not true.

 

The only thing you can do is draw conclusions from the class distribution across the number of battles for a given tier for a period of time to get an idea of how heavily they are favored and compare the averages to adjust for spikes in activity 

 

So for CVs we know that of all the T10 battles which took place T10 CVs account for only 3% of them. So player usage of T10 CVs as a percentage is significantly lower than any other class on average. 

[Zemeritt]

First off @dasCKD , your threads are always a joy to read, keep it up! (+ the amazing artworks )

 

I agree that IJN DDs are in serious trouble. While I was there in the open beta with the Shima-soups and agree that a nerf was needed, the current state is nothing but a shame.

 

Quote

No-skill "long range torpedo spam" was always a bit of a myth, the BBabies cried about DD launching torpedoes from 20 km away, the reality was that no half-competent DD player would ever launch from any further than he had to and anything over 10 km was always pretty much a waste

 

Not if you know where the enemy has to go through. On some maps, Shimas would drop their torps into a small passage and still get hits, even if they dropped them over 15km away and spotted noone before dropping them. Although thats properly more a case of bad map design.

 

I'm still grinding the IJN line, I'm pausing it fairly often because the amount of work you have to put into them in order to get good results is much more then any other DD line. Heck, I even have the Z52 already without using any Free-Exp, because playing the line was more fun then the IJN DDs.

Maybe the IJN needs a lower reload rate on their torps? Not like the KM ones, they have lower damage to balance the fast reload, but a ship line focused on torpedos should be able to use them a little more often.

[Quetak]

58 minutes ago, BillydSquid said:

 

Your math is wrong, learn how to use averages, check maple again with up to date figures, the numbers will bear out consistently, T10 CVs only appear in 3% of T10 battles. 

 

Class distribution by battles - EU server: 20.05 - 27.05
Class/Tier	Tier 3	Tier 4	Tier 5	Tier 6	Tier 7	Tier 8	Tier 9	Tier 10
BB	66565	107891	184011	223430	284833	334053	100479	93215
CA/CL	68739	88348	180317	199979	163164	138944	58246	59994
DD	24215	45194	86945	64184	89631	68447	52580	60643
CV	0	29898	47031	34027	36152	18343	10699	5576
Total	159519	271331	498304	521620	573780	559787	222004	219428

 

	Class distribution by battles - EU server: 20.05 - 27.05
Class/Tier	Tier 3	Tier 4	Tier 5	Tier 6	Tier 7	Tier 8	Tier 9	Tier 10
BB	41,7 %	39,8 %	36,9 %	42,8 %	49,6 %	59,7 %	45,3 %	42,5 %
CA/CL	43,1 %	32,6 %	36,2 %	38,3 %	28,4 %	24,8 %	26,2 %	27,3 %
DD	15,2 %	16,7 %	17,4 %	12,3 %	15,6 %	12,2 %	23,7 %	27,6 %
CV	0,0 %	11,0 %	9,4 %	6,5 %	6,3 %	3,3 %	4,8 %	2,5 %
Total	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %	100,0 %

I will give it one more try.

From your table you can see that T10 ships were used 219 428 times. 

From that number you can make 18 285 teams (219 428 / 12).

CVs were used 5 576 times. Only one CV can be in team - thats important, its different to BBs. 

It means that 30,5% teams have CV (5576 / 182,85). CVs are always mirrored so we dont need to count with 24 ships.

Clear now? 

 

And sorry OP for such off topic 

[Capra76]

44 minutes ago, BillydSquid said:

No, I probably wasn't clear, it's not a straight 1 to 1 equivalent, you can't achieve that as the MM doesn't strictly control which tiers are present in each match, as such the lines blur with the +2/-2 MM. 

 

For instance, from T8 - T10 BBs account for around 55% of all battles played in T8-10, now obviously that doesn't mean that  45% don't have a BB in them, we know that's not true.

 

The only thing you can do is draw conclusions from the class distribution across the number of battles for a given tier for a period of time to get an idea of how heavily they are favored and compare the averages to adjust for spikes in activity 

 

I've no idea what any of that means.

 

 

44 minutes ago, BillydSquid said:

So for CVs we know that of all the T10 battles which took place T10 CVs account for only 3% of them.

 

That would be true only if each T10 battle consisted of one T10 ship plus 11 others drawn from lower tiers.

 

 

Here's what I think those numbers show:

 

First off, lets be clear about the terms, a game is a single player playing a single ship in one battle, a battle is strictly 12 players against 12 players so 24 games in total, but since CV are mirrored we'll simplify that to 12 games per battle for these purposes.

 

For every hundred T10 games played we expect to see 43 BB, 27 CA, 27 DD and 3 CV.

 

Assuming (for now) that T10 exists in isolation, for each battle we expect to see

 

BB: (12 x 43%)  5.2

CA: (12 x 27%)  3.2

DD (same)         3.2

CV (12 x 3%)     0.4

 

and for every 100 battles we expect to see:

 

BB (5.2 x 100)   520

CA (3.2 x 100)  320

DD (same)        320

CV (0.4 x 100)   40

 

so although CV account for only 3% of the games played in every 100 battles you would expect to see 40 of them, thus 40% of T10 battles have a CV in them (I emphasize that for the moment this ignores T8/9 in T10 battles).

 

Bringing T8/9 into the workings complicates things a little bit, it is not possible to know from the data what proportion of T10 battles have a T10 CV in it, if every T10 battle contained one T10 ship only then only 3% of T10 battles would have a T10 CV in it, if every ship were a T10 then it would be 40%, presumably the true number is somewhere between the two extremes, but what does that particular statistic tell us anyway?

[Capra76]

29 minutes ago, Zemeritt said:

Not if you know where the enemy has to go through. On some maps, Shimas would drop their torps into a small passage and still get hits, even if they dropped them over 15km away and spotted noone before dropping them. Although thats properly more a case of bad map design.

 

That's not exactly "no-skill" is it though, the DD player needs to predict that ships will be coming through that area, predict the time of the move correctly and the opposing BB has to oblige them by sailing into a predictable place at a predictable time without DD screening for incoming torpedoes.  

[dasCKD]

58 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

That's not exactly "no-skill" is it though, the DD player needs to predict that ships will be coming through that area, predict the time of the move correctly and the opposing BB has to oblige them by sailing into a predictable place at a predictable time without DD screening for incoming torpedoes.  

 

Whilst that is very much true, it's still an issue of player interaction and reciprocation. You could see a carrier strike incoming, Before you get hit by enemy shells, you would most likely be spotted. A Shimakaze though, isn't like that. You can't really anticipate where her salvo will be, and it can't really work to avoid it. The carrier rich early game made it so that the torpedoes would be spotted earlier, but it really only served to hide the problem beneath a thin veneer. The Shima's original state was as a fleet destroyer as she was conceived in real life, which doesn't really fit in the game very well into the game. The lack of skill doesn't come from the destroyer per se. It's just that a enemy ship could do everything correctly as far as they knew and still died to the Shimakaze. That isn't something that exists anywhere else in the game, with the exception of detonations. I think that the Shima was going to be nerfed eventually, it's just that the 'balancing' killed her as a competitive ship and the damage also spread to the rest of the IJN line.

[dasCKD]

4 hours ago, Captain_LOZFFVII said:

In your opinion, would you say Harekaze is a good addition to the IJN DD lineup (with her multiple gun configurations, allowing the player to choose slightly different styles of play for her), or not really anything significant?

 

The Harakaze is a decent destroyer with all around decent stats. She is a weak torpedo boat however, thanks to her speed. The improvement to the guns of the IJN destroyers to rival the destroyers of other nations would be welcome, but ultimately that only means that they are being turned into gunboat destroyers instead of making a workable line of torpedo destroyers. I'm not even sure if a proper torpedo destroyer even could work anymore, without restoring  ships like the Shimakaze that could launch walls of torpedoes that needed to be close to undodgable. It would fix the IJN line, but I'll still be said to see true torpedo boats go.

[Flid_Merchant]

Free situational awareness has pretty much screwed the stealth factor IJN DDs had in their favour and the idea of torp boats in general. Giving them single fire ability would be a good first step as it allows you to create much more random spreads which are harder to avoid. You probably know this but the RN cruisers can also reload their torp tubes relative to the number they have fired, which would allow for instance the Shima with 3x5 torps and say 150s reload to keep the maths easy to spit out 1 torp every 10 seconds if this was preferable to firing full salvos, maybe observing the enemies evasive maneuvers and trying to launch them accordingly.

 

I never got to play the pre-nerf Shimakaze but the Minekaze and T6 (Mutsuki? which everyone hates now) were my favourite ships back in open beta.

[BillydSquid]

2 hours ago, Quetak said:

I will give it one more try.

From your table you can see that T10 ships were used 219 428 times. 

From that number you can make 18 285 teams (219 428 / 12).

CVs were used 5 576 times. Only one CV can be in team - thats important, its different to BBs. 

It means that 30,5% teams have CV (5576 / 182,85). CVs are always mirrored so we dont need to count with 24 ships.

Clear now? 

 

And sorry OP for such off topic 

 

219 428 = 100% usage (battles played in period) 

100% / 24 = 4.17% 

219 428 * 4.17% = 9150.15* 2 =18 300.30 battles = 8.34% expected for CV usage in the T10 MM vs actual usage of 5576 = 2.5%

 

I think we're actually reaching the same conclusion here looking at the maths, but you're working to team composition, I'm working from expected usage vs actual usage statistics. (8.34* 30.5% = 2.54)

 

Anyway, after what seems to have been the war gaming equivalent of countdown, I doubt AP bombs will address the underlying issues of CVs, and to keep it vaguely on topic I'd put money on the fact that you'd see the same uptick in player usage of DDs in the glory days of the Shima at the same time as you saw the decline in CV use to it's current levels. I remember the golden days of Torpedo soup, I'd just reached T10 in CAs and walls of torpedoes were common, making any aggressive more a pain when no one wanted to get close due to the invisible Shimas sending walls of torpedoes through the map, where they could miss the first line target and hit ships behind; what we're seeing now is the same with BBs the usage has gone up after every nerf and if you can find the historic figures I bet you'll see it start when they nerf'd the Shima torps

 

 

[Capra76]

29 minutes ago, BillydSquid said:

100% / 24 = 4.17% 

219 428 * 4.17% = 9150.15* 2 =18 300.30 battles = 8.34%

 

Ok, what you've done in a round-about way there is prove that 1/12 = 8.3%.  (Hint:, re-perform your calculation and multiply the exact result by 3, the resulting figure should be exactly 25%)

 

 

31 minutes ago, BillydSquid said:

8.34% expected for CV usage in the T10 MM vs actual usage of 5576 = 2.5%

 

All that does is prove that instead of 3 CV per battle (25%) or 1 CV per battle (8.3%) we have 2.5% / 8.3% = 0.3 CV per battle or approximately 1 CV in every 3 battles, i.e. 33% of battles would have a CV in it.  

 

 

[MeTaLMooSe]

20 hours ago, dasCKD said:

A-poi-calypse Now II: what killed the IJN destroyers? Not a guide, not about the update. Do not move!

  Reveal hidden contents

Image is a spiritual sequel to this post.

Yeah, we're doing this again. The poster girl this week is Yuudachi of the Shiratsuyus by the way. We won't be talking about her.

 

I recently returned from a prolonged and painful surgery to correct various extreme medical injuries, self inflicted during and after playing the Shimakaze. Needless to say, I needed to have several of my teeth forcefully extracted from my tongue. I'll also have to drop by a nearby church for some supplies to clean up the things I managed to summon with my guttural screaming whilst playing the Shima. That brings me back to something that I would like to discuss however: the state and the future of the IJN destroyers and torpedo focused destroyers in general.

 

The Shiratsuyu will be nerfed, as many may know. The Shiratsuyu, War Gaming's last attempt at introducing a fleet destroyer after the menace that was the Shimakaze in early release, was designed in the game to fulfill the role as a fleet destroyer despite her quite weak torpedoes and small size. War Gaming has decided that she was too strong however, and they decided to remove the last non-Akizuki Japanese destroyer that could genuinely be considered good aside her peers. Even now, it appears that War Gaming has no place to put the high tiered IJN destroyers.

 

Reminiscing about: torpedoes

  Reveal hidden contents

Torpedoes are in some ways better and some ways worse weapons than guns. Both are capable of killing enemy ships in one shot, but torpedoes don't lose their lethality with range. They also don't have to be aimed as precisely as guns. As long as the aim is more or less correct, the torpedoes will hit for deliberating damage. In return, it requires far more predictive ability than the gun to use effectively. So much that, in fact, the game has a built in prediction mechanic which still has to be supplemented by personal player skill to be used to notable success. Torpedoes could be used very effectively against ships with a known general location but with an unknown exact location such as in the case of ships inside of a smoke screen, something that a ship's guns struggle to do. Shells also bounce off, shatter, or hit non-vital components whereas damage is basically guaranteed with a torpedo hit. To add to all this, torpedo use doesn't affect the concealment of the ship. To balance this incredible power, torpedoes are given a significantly longer reload than guns on the same ship. The description of these two weapons seems to make them perfectly complementary. One allows for moderately stable but limited damage. The other with far more knockout punch which has to be used sparingly. In theory these two weapons are perfectly complementary.

 

Averages are a funny thing. Being a statistics, averages are inherently deceitful little buggers that scuttles around undoing shoelaces and bumping into things deep into the night to scare children and sarcastic forum editorial writers. Take for example a Shokaku and a Lexington. The two carriers have an average difference of only around 5000 to 6000 damage points in the Shokaku later, but the Shokaku has a massive fundamental advantage over the Lexington even assuming that the fighters were removed from the carriers. Briefly put: Shokakus have consistency that the Lexington can't boast. A Lexington's dive bombers are left largely to RNG even with a perfectly aimed salvo, making it extremely difficult to guarantee damage. A ship that does 20 k damage every time, in a skill based tactical shooter, is fundamentally better than a ship that does 40 k damage 50% of the time and none the other half.  Whilst not directly analogous, USN dive bombers and IJN torpedo boats suffer from the same issue: a lack of consistency.

 

Currently, the best performing destroyer at tier X is basically a cruiser without the weaknesses of a cruiser. The second best is a dedicated destroyer hunter with the smoke and hydroacoustics combo. Torpedo boats aren't completely obsolete, but more and more they are being edged out by the growing number of destroyers that are rendering them weaker and weaker by the day. Destroyers are by far my worst class, but the reasons behind the current status of the true torpedo boats are obvious to anyone with just a cursory glance.

The Golden Age of IJN DDs

Whilst only the Shimakaze has the official designation as fleet destroyer in the game (for the Japanese tree), many destroyers of the IJN line used to act as fleet destroyers. They distinguished themselves from the lower tiered destroyers by being utterly lethal area denial and fleet destruction weapons. Before they were neutered and nerfed into the ground.

  Reveal hidden contents

Destroyer hunting destroyers always existed in the game in the form of American destroyers. Back before the Russian destroyers, the Nicholas was a real danger to the Minekaze and the Gearing was a problem to the Shimakaze when the former spots the latter. In the golden age however, both the Shima and Minekaze both had the ability to remain safe even against their natural enemies (exceeding even the cruisers before armor could deflect HE). I am quite certain that this is caused by very specific outcomes of game factors that has been modified in the past years: namely the 4 line captain skills, the push towards directed torpedo attacks, and the introduction of more destroyer lines.

 

A Minekaze and a Shimakaze are incredibly dangerous ships in their golden age, but the reason that they were could not be less similar for torpedo boats. The Minekaze is small, maneuverable, and extremely dangerous due to her blisteringly fast reload speed, excellent torpedo speeds, and excellent concealment. She can easily avoid a Nicholas thanks to how stealthy she is, and a Nicholas doesn't have a chance of catching a Minekaze before the guns of friendly cruisers turns her to a smear of oil over the ocean's surface. Her rapid rate of fire means that even if the enemy manages to avoid a salvo, another will be on its way. I, for one, have lost count of the times I have been caught out by the rapid fire torpedoes of a Minekaze or Kamikaze and the speed of the torpedoes means that her torpedoes will hit more often than they miss. Her torpedo range is moderately poor however. Even with a full layer of concealment, she has a torpedo margin of only 1.5 kilometers. This necessitates her to chase down enemy ships in order to make use of her torpedoes. She is a very reactive destroyer, and about as close to a true battleship hunter as the game has in those days.

 

A Shimakaze is nothing like that. Her main strength is her ability to perform even without a target. If a Minekaze is a sniper rifle, a Shimakaze is a carpet bombing. A Minekaze generally requires her to be in the precisely perfect location in front of her target to launch an effective salvo. Due to the size and maneuverability of the higher tiered ships, the Shimakaze requires far less precision. In her original incarnation with 20 kilometer ranged blisteringly fast and excellently concealed torpedoes, she could end an entire ocean ecosystem just from the salt she is able to generate from multiple ships with one simple salvo. The Minekaze is powerful, but she requires a precise target. Lucky hit on invisible ships that she wasn't aiming at is virtually unheard of. Conversely, generating massive amounts of damage on invisible ships is almost the whole point of the Shimakaze. The Shimakaze has a very low chance of winning a fight with a Gearing despite having similar concealment. If A Minekaze has the same concealment range as the Nicholas, she would be a far weaker ship as it is easy for a Nicholas to escort enemy battleships. A Shimakaze back in her golden age however, did not need to get close to a target. Launch a salvo, and you'd be unlucky not to hit something. The Minekaze and Shimakaze are both formidable, but they are also extremely different. The only time a Gearing could have a chance of catching a Shimakaze off guard is when a Shima is on transit towards a new enemy fleet. The Shimakaze was one of the few torpedo kiters in the game, a race that is all but extinct now.

F3s and the Minekaze

The problems with the Japanese destroyers from tier VI onward basically all stems back to a simple change. The Shimakaze was the scourge of the sea in her golden age. After the first drop in carrier players, there was nothing left to stop the Shimakaze to become the dominant ship. Poor concealment but having the fastest speed of her time, she could keep any enemy at arm's reach and fill an entire map area with torpedoes that even destroyers struggled to dodge. A Minekaze needs 80-100% of her salvo firepower to kill a battleship. A Shima could kill most battleships with four torpedo hits, and most cruisers with two. Due to the escalation of arms, more players kept gravitating towards the Shimakaze until it was not rare to see half of each team made out of nothing but Shimakazes. War Gaming stepped in, as they probably had to, to begin the collapse of the IJN destroyers.

  Reveal hidden contents

From a game design perspective, the Shimakaze was broken and the Minekaze wasn't. WG has decided to nerf both, but only the Shimakaze went against a fundamental game design pillar. If you are being targeted by a Minekaze, and you had to be targeted by a Minekaze to be at risk from her, there was a clear and simple action you could take to avoid a Minekaze. You knew you were being targeted, and so you evaded accordingly. For a crippling strike, the Minekaze has to be in the perfect place and requires you to sail straight. A Shimakaze doesn't need that. You could be entirely unspotted for the entirety of the game and still die to a Shimakaze's torpedo salvo because you were in the wrong half of the map at the time. A Minekaze could also be rendered entirely ineffective by running the other way, whilst a Shimakaze's torpedoes would pursue you to the ends of the earth. The Minekaze worked because she worked as a torpedo boat, she can hide from enemy destroyers just by turning away when she spots them. A Shimakaze can't, so she is forced to stay at a distance.

 

Along comes the introduction of the F3 torpedoes. The F3 were a bit of a shame on the Zao. Conditionally very dangerous, but her concealment and torpedo arcs makes the Zao a quite unsuitable platform for the F3s. The IJN destroyers on the other hand, were a perfect candidate for the F3s. The thought process was entirely understandable. The Minekaze was a ship that was balanced: she was an easy ship to counter whilst maintaining her strengths that made her an effective weapon. The Yuugumo is a joy to play thanks to her F3 torpedoes. She isn't comparable to the Minekaze however. The Minekaze can outrun every single ship at her tier, and she has double the speed of a fair number of battleships. The maps were also far smaller. A Minekaze works so well because she can cross the map incredibly quickly and her torpedoes are ready the second she arrives at her next victim. By the time she approaches a target and finishes turning away to avoid spooking the enemy, her torpedoes are ready again. Her concealment also means that she is able to either chase enemy destroyers away (with the team's support) or force the enemy destroyer to drop smoke and deny their team intelligence and risk being sank by the Shimakaze.

 

The same can't be said about the Yuugumo. Not only can she be outran by every other destroyer at her tier whilst having to deal with far larger maps than the Minekaze ever has to worry about, she also doesn't have anywhere near the reload period of the Minekaze. The more aware and skilled higher tiered players are also able to easily avoid her longer torpedo periods. There is a reason that the Kagero and Hatsuharu were considered so poor compared to the Fubuki and Shimakaze. The Minekaze model didn't work at the higher tiers like it did at the lower ones. Some battleships lagged behind destroyer by a matter of knots, whilst the map grows far larger and more sparse. The Hatsuharu lacked the torpedo weight to be considered a fleet destroyer, whilst the tier 8 Fubuki had the torpedo reload speed and torpedo weight to defend a flank without having to target a specific victim. Using her nine 15 km torpedoes, it was easy for the Fubuki to constantly bleed an enemy fleet of health just by hitting them again and again, caring little for the evasive maneuvers they pulled. The Kagero is considered a poor destroyer because she was a regression of that playstyle, and the play style matured with the Shimakaze. It is well and good to try to give the Shimakaze and Yuugumo the F3 torpedoe, they can do horrific things to enemy ships given the correct circumstances, but they lacked the ability to readily get into those circumstances considering their size, speed, and the speed of their prey. Their concealment is also relatively poor compared to what the Minekaze enjoys. It's easy for a Gearing to ambush a Shimakaze thanks to her concealment, it's easy for just about any destroyer to ambush the Shima in fact. Even a Grozhevoi could ambush a Shimakaze now. The Shimakaze in her original iteration had a design that made her similar to her original planned intent in real life, whilst the current attempts of WG to shoehorn the Shima into a role that she fundamentally is incapable of fulfilling continues to kill her. The buffs to the 12 kilometer torpedoes and the extension of said torpedoes into tier 9 suggests that WG seems to grasp this, but are hesitant to give the IJN destroyers more power least they recreate the past. Whilst understandable, their hesitance is slowly strangling almost the entirety of the IJN destroyer line.

 

Much is made of the terrible concealment of Japanese torpedoes and whilst the concealment does contribute to the inherent awfulness of those ships, they are but a tiny part of the attempt to address the dominance of fleet destroyers by trying to force them to fulfill a role inherently unsuitable for their natures as ships.

 

The Captain's Skills

All good things comes to an end, and the age of the Japanese destroyers slowly died. The first death blow was the changes to the captain's tree. Namely the removal of sixth sense and the fifth line of captain skills.

  Reveal hidden contents

For newer players to the game:

Tier I skills

Expert loader - faster shell switch

Basic firing training - faster loading secondaries, -10% primary gun reload speed, +10% AA firepower

Basics of Survivability - -15% to repair time for modules, floods, and fires

Situational Awareness - Indicates when a ship is spotted

Expert rear gunner - largely useless

Tier II skills

Expert Marksman - faster turning main guns

Torpedo Armament expertise - faster loading torpedoes

Fire prevention - largely useless

Incoming fire alert - to use, look at indicator and hold rudder

Tier III skills

Torpedo acceleration - illegal mods to naval approved torpedoes uses up fuel faster

High alert - faster damecon

Vigilance - spots torpedoes earlier

Dogfighting expert - largely useless before the premium carriers

Superintendent - more consumables

Tier IV skills

Demolition Expert - Burn.

Advanced firing training - more gun range for destroyers, more AA and secondary reach

Survivability expert - more ballast tanks at the bottom of the ship

Aircraft servicing expert - faster service, tougher planes

Manual fire control - More AA

Tier V skills

Concealment expert - More ninja

Last chance - adrenaline rush when it still sucked

Manual secondary control - confiscate secondary crew's liquor

Preventative maintenance -  -50% chance of module incapacitation

Air supremacy - should not exist

Jack of all trades - -15% to consumable reload time

 

I can be brief here. Thankfully. My eye is beginning to go off. Of the changes to the game itself, the biggest contributor to the damage to the IJN line is probably the move of the fifth captain skill, namely the situational awareness and concealment expert skill. The effect of situational awareness is obvious, the concealment expert skill is less so. But the effect is far from nonexistent. In earlier days, battleship captains won't necessarily take situational awareness as basics of survivability are usually deemed to be more important and are chosen over situational awareness. Thanks to how little random players communicates, this makes it simple for a lucky Japanese destroyer to run across an entire pack of oblivious battleships and to laugh evilly before sending death their way. The addition of this skill as a default skill makes it far harder for a destroyer to catch an enemy battleship fleet unawares. When battleships see no targets but are constantly spotted, they start sweating and begin evasive maneuvers that makes it harder for the torpedo destroyers to do their thing. Certain battleship captains still took situational awareness, but the fewer ships with situational awareness meant that the IJN fleet destroyers could still do their part for the team's victory.

 

Ships in this game sails in fleets, usually at similar speeds. When an enemy battleship is spotted going at a relatively stable speed, it'll be easy for a entrepreneurial Shima captain to spot the targets and lay a wide spread the way of the enemy before heading towards where they were heading earlier. A battleship generally is following a destroyer or a cruiser, meaning that if the Shimakaze captain is lucky they would be able to catch several of those out as well. The expensiveness of Concealment expert and the existance of skills like AFT, Vigilance, Superintendent, and High Alert makes it so that battleship captains generally choose multiple tier II and III skills over a lone tier V skill. In the old system, only 1 tier V skill is available to a captain, meaning a fair number of battleship captains miss out on a tier V skill entirely or opt to instead go for Manual Secondaries. The change instead towards the 4 tier system makes it so that battleships don't really act as 'markers' for the enemy fleet like they used to. As the game goes on, it gets more difficult to see a battleship before they start firing which makes it difficult for a fleet destroyer like a Shimakaze, the former Fubuki, or the Shiratsuyu to acquire a moderately accurate firing solution on enemy ships. Whilst not as dramatic as the free situational awareness, it still contributes to the downfall of the IJN fleet destroyers.

The addition of destroyer lines

The last cause of the death of the IJN destroyer line is perhaps the addition of more destroyer lines. The IJN line maintained the weaknesses they had in their earlier and far more dangerous phase, whilst lacking any of the strength of the other destroyers. The KM line is introduced almost as a 'fixed' IJN destroyer line. They are designed after the Minekaze playstyle. The issue with map size and ship distribution has gone unaddressed by War Gaming however, which means that the German destroyer lines are primarily played as anti-destroyer miniature cruisers. The IJN destroyer line is dying due to their lack of distinctiveness and the rise of awareness in the player base that makes the playstyle of the Minekaze style torpedo sniper more and more nonviable as time goes on. Ultimately, the Shimakaze will most likely not get restored to her old glory. I am unconvinced that such a thing could even be done without breaking the game. Ultimately though, there is little I could do or say. The problems with carriers is caused by gross incompetence and lack of comprehension of the class from the developer's standpoint. The problem with torpedo destroyers are far more intrinsic, and I can't say how they should fix it if it could be fixed at all. There's not much I could do, but watch it slowly vanish into the dark of the night without being able to say even a word of farewell.

 

Addendum: I do realize that IJN DDs are still around, death is a literary device used in the editorial. I'm putting this here because no doubt someone will try to start a semantic argument with me down in the thread about this. To that guy, screw you!

das I gave you a like for the sheer enjoyment of reading your well written post. Ultimately it comes across as an orbituary  for your beloved Torpedo boats.

Well done for highlighting the facts, highlights and downsides and an understanding towards the balance.

I can't say I ever encountered the OG Shima wall of fish you could do a Viking oar dance on, but it's still pretty fearsome to see a contemporary wall of red triangles approach you.

Strangely despite my dislike of torp walls as a BB and CA main they always made me slightly jealous of that slow but inevitable advancement of floodings and detonations.

Hated yes. But part of the game? Indeed. It was my personal mission from God (yep I had the crappy suit and shades on) tonight to either sink or scare away that annoying Shima in Two brothers. Maybe my Hindenberg was better employed elsewhere but these torp botes invoke an element of hatred which is good for a game when passion = ££££ and good gaming.

[Zuzia_10]

OP I will not say how good your post is but will quote an kids film when a pig won sheep herding competition. TAT WILL DO PIG, THAT WILL DO.  unfortunatetly wg will probably pass your post as too long to read or as distant memory they rather forget. in cbt i loved playing my yama as dd hunter:) crazy i know but worked most of the time and i do remember times when few bbs getting out of spawn where deleted by one good shima opening salvo.. ha you may eaven if lucky get a replay from tuccy saying how bad for the game and meta those times were but otherwise don't count on much. as of personally i will save your post to favorites as i done with ichiro post about cvs.

 

ps miss my kitakami

[eliastion]

In the meantime, new patch notes for the second round of PTS came out aaand... I don't understand WG. Not at all.

I mean, they saw Shiratsuyu as stronger than other DDs of her tier. That's understandable and an action would be in order (although what was really needed was buffs to other non-premium t7 DDs, not shira nerf). Then they crippled Shira with double nerf (making torp reload booster worse AND making you choose between it and smoke) and (most likely) found out that Shira is just bad after that. So, they decided to buff her... by buffing the torp reload booster. And while I must say the new new Shira is, once again, a very good ship, I'm kinda... ok, I'll just say this: the new Shira wouldn't be fun for the same reasons old Shira was. The new Shira's playstyle is something for people whose favourite ship is Shimakaze.

Shira's torp reload booster is back to torps reloading in 5 seconds and now the premium variant is supposed to have 160 seconds reload. It's limited to 4 uses even with superintendent, but still: Shimakaze has 150s cooldown on her 15 torps. Shiratsuyu now has some 165 (160 consumable+5 for torps to be ready after consumable use) on her 16. Basically, while losing on versatility and Ranked viability, the new Shiratsuyu is going to become exactly what it was so far unjustly accused to be: a ship that out-shimakazes a Shimakaze on t7 

Frankly, I didn't notice much resentment from the community about Shiratsuyu's performance. It was certainly doing better than (not too good overall) silver ships of her tier, but she didn't seem hated or feared too much. These new changes may well change that. Shira will probably perform on average worse than she used to (and certainly would cease to be such a good pick for Ranked), but I'm pretty sure her victims won't share this perspective, because nobody really notices a squishy DD dying because she has no smoke. A torpwalls of 16 torps every third minute with 8 torps in the middle of that waiting time, however? Or, for someone more focused on big walls: torpwalls of 16 torps with cooldown just a dozen or so seconds worse than Shima? Oh, these ARE going to be noticed alright...

 

OP, your Shiratsuyu-class related picture proved to be prophetic... or at least it will if the changes go live as described in current PTS notes.

On 7/10/2017 at 11:31 PM, dasCKD said:

[IsamuKondera]

The problem with the Shira nerf is that there is no real possibility to buff her other stats.

 

She already reached her original official speed, she has less guns then Akatsuki and uses the same technology as akatsuki so buggin shira means buffing akatsuki and the AA was also weaker on Shira then on Akatsuki. So when you nerf her Torp potential, the last thing she got, it's basically overkill because you nerf the only selling point of her. She was dangerous due to low concelament and Torps but the rest is just low end garbage. Just compare the stats form shira with akatsuki and you will find out that she is basically everywhere worse except with concealment and that she had the possibility to "spam" a torpwall of 16 torps once all ~3mins.

 

Just a calcullation

 

Akatsuki got a reload of ~76secs if i remember correctly

 

Shira got a torp reload of ~101secs

 

Akatsuki shoots 9 torps per salvo

Shira 8

 

So I will now calculate the idal amount of torps when you shoot them instantly when they are reloaded with using the TRB on shira over one game

 

240sec reload, max 4

 

So Akatsuki can get out 15 salvos => 135 torps per game

and Shira can get out 11 salvos => 88 torps per game without TRB

 

In case you use TRB (perm) and superintended you can shoot out  32 more torps in an ideal 20min game. Which is still less then Akatsuki.

 

Shira and Akatsuki Torps have the same damage, speed and range. The only thing that Akatsuki doesn#t have is TRB and the potential of "walling" the enemy in a total amount of 4 times over a 20min game.

 

This numbers above are based on a standard ship without a captain which decreases reload times. But even with a decreased reload times the gap between Akatsuki and Shira gets bigger. Because Akatsuki will always shoot one more torp then Shira and this in a faster pace.

 

 

 

 

 

[AnotherDuck]

Regarding the concealment, Shiratsuyu is still a T7 DD, which are the largest DDs that don't get the extra concealment upgrade. That means that even if she's got great concealment for her tier, it's still worse than several DDs above and below her tier. Kagero and Yugumo work well with the torpedo reload booster without smoke simply because they can still out-stealth just about everything not themselves. Shiratsuyu can't.

 

Essentially, it means you're going to have to not get overconfident play it more safe, and rely more on the torpedo soup method of playing. That's exactly the same kind of playstyle WG doesn't like. The high risk/reward playstyle of getting close to strike, which they've said they prefer to encourage, is actively discouraged yet again.

 

It's kind of obvious that WG just doesn't get Japanese DDs and torpedoes. Or balancing properly after the playstyles and ship choices they claim they want.