Jump to content


Lert's problems with Hood


  • Please log in to reply
159 replies to this topic

goldeagle1123 #41 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:39 AM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,253
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View PostTalonV, on 18 May 2017 - 08:37 PM, said:

 

Umm, I don't know if that's sarcastic or not. Sarcasm meter currently broken. Please advise.

 

Not sarcastic. I even gave you an upvote.

 

 

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"


HMS_Formidable #42 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:39 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View PostTalonV, on 19 May 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

 

Umm, I don't know if that's sarcastic or not. Sarcasm meter currently broken. Please advise.

 

these are the people who hype Bismark scuttling, not realising every Japanese carrier lost at Midway was scuttled

And in December 1941, USN AA was at August 45 standard...


http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


Battlecruiser_Tiger #43 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:42 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,353
  • Member since:
    08-10-2016

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 19 May 2017 - 01:36 AM, said:

 

based on experience, this will never happen.

An Ise-Renown is far more likely based on current form

 

I'm confused: why? Renown had the same type and number of float planes as any other capital ship - she wasn't in any way a carrier-battleship or some kind of hybrid.

[KNMSU] is seeking new members. Please PM me before applying! Thank you!

"Semi-notorious forum twit"


MaliceA4Thought #44 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:44 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,643
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

View PostTalonV, on 18 May 2017 - 08:26 PM, said:

 

Just ask Prince of Wales how well that went.

 

Exactly, so you are agreeing with me and by default so is Goldeagle..  my job here is done.

 

But the point is..  not that balancing Pacific to Atlantic is damn near impossible, it's the premise that ships should be balanced on what they were and not gimped or extended based on mythical gimmicks.

 

M


Edited by MaliceA4Thought, 19 May 2017 - 01:49 AM.

  

 

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, whilst defeated warriors go to war and then seek to win
(Sun Tzu)

A Veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to "My Country" for an amount of "up to and including my life."


Hillslam #45 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:45 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 381
  • Member since:
    01-20-2015

I agree with all of Lert's point about Hood, but I gotta wonder - why the surprise?

 

A ship getting "worn out stats" for some attributes, but "theoretical optimal" stats for others? So? Ok on one ship I admit thats a new one.

 

But come on - for years now we've had TWO WHOLE LINES where this was done: worn out stats on one line, optimal theoretical on the other! 

(Free donuts to whoever guesses which two lines we're talking about here before reading the next paragraph)

 

If you don't like the "game design"  /  "Balance"  / "National Flavor" decisions by WG for the limey ships, why be surprised after we've seen what was done to the 2nd BB line added - the USN.  Absolutely trashed. Artificially. None of them, at any tier, behave anywhere near their historical attributes. Nor do, for that matter, the jp battlewagons. Way off, just in the other direction: optimal hypothetical performance. Why? For game-design-balance-national-flavor reasons (and also to appease the international customer base of sick-of-america buyers, as well as the weaboos with wallets here in NA - but lets not get into that, its ok WG is here to make cash, were I CEO and making money off this title I'd sell t!ts to a turtle if it'd make money).

 

Why then, really, the outrage now?   


Edited by Hillslam, 19 May 2017 - 01:51 AM.

The Iowa is the better battleship. That fact doesn't require you to like it.

When your knowledge comes from nothing but books, your knowledge is worthless.


TalonV #46 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:46 AM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 27,445
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postgoldeagle1123, on 18 May 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

 

Not sarcastic. I even gave you an upvote.

Aha. Ok was not sure and thanks.

View PostMaliceA4Thought, on 18 May 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

 

Exactly, so you are agreeing with me and by default so is Goldeagle..  my job here is done.

 

M

Well glad to know I can help out at times.


 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


dseehafer #47 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:48 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 7,284
  • Member since:
    08-20-2012

View PostMaliceA4Thought, on 18 May 2017 - 07:38 PM, said:

 

UP stands for "Unrotated Projector." "Unrotated" meant that the barrel did not have any rifling, i.e., the projectile was not spin-stabilized. Each emplacement was a set of twenty smooth-bore tubes, usually fired ten at a time. Cordite was used to ignite ("Project") a 3-inch (7.62 cm) rocket motor which propelled a fin-stabilized 7-inch (17.8 cm) diameter Parachute and Cable (PAC) rocket which carried a 8.4 oz (238 g) mine. When the rocket reached approximately 1,000 feet (330 m), it exploded and put out the mine which was attached to three parachutes by 400 feet (122 m) of wire. The design concept was that if a plane hit the parachutes or the wire, it would then pull the mine into itself.

 

The first test fire of these weapons with dummy charges ended in disaster with ALL of the projectiles wrapped round the rigging of Admiral Toveys flagship.

 

These UP projectiles were kept in ready lockers close to the projectors. The sinking of HMS Hood showed that these stored weapons were rather flammable. They were also found to be an almost totally ineffective weapon, as the barrage took too long to establish (3 minutes for the rockets to get to height and deploy)  and was easily avoided. In addition, reloading was slow (> 5 minutes in ideal circumstances) and the mines showed an alarming tendency to drift back onto the firing ship. For these reasons, the UP was quickly replaced on surviving ships with either the British 2-pdr or the Bofors 40mm heavy AA machine gun.

 

They were so unreliable and the on deck stowage of the ammunition was so flammable that standing instructions in the RN prohibited them from use except in dire circumstances and were never used in action.

 

M

 

I know all of this. 

 

 

I'm just saying if they were never used in combat than it cannot be PROVEN that they were ineffective in combat.

 

Unreliable? Sure.

 

Bad concept? Sure.

 

Hazardous? Sure.

 

Ineffective in combat? Unknown, Untried, Unproven.

 

Because of this, WG can fudge the numbers all they want... just like paper ships. Because of the whole "unknown" factor.


CREATOR OF THE "A DETAILED LOOK AT" AND THE "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE??" SERIES!! 

KlnDiJZ.gif

"The whole strategy of the war turns at this period to this ship (the Tirpitz), which is holding four times the number of British capital ships paralyzed, to say nothing of the two new American battleships retained in the Atlantic."

- Winston Churchill

 


MaliceA4Thought #48 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:50 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,643
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

View Postdseehafer, on 18 May 2017 - 08:48 PM, said:

 

I know all of this. 

 

 

I'm just saying if they were never used in combat than it cannot be PROVEN that they were ineffective in combat.

 

Unreliable? Sure.

 

Bad concept? Sure.

 

Hazardous? Sure.

 

Ineffective in combat? Unknown, Untried, Unproven.

 

Because of this, WG can fudge the numbers all they want... just like paper ships. Because of the whole "unknown" factor.

 

but the point is, I believe, that they shouldn't gimp known facts to "balance" unknown gimmicks which is what they are doing.  Dammit.. we KNOW (yes even us Brits)  that WW2 British AA was particularly crud, except for a few dedicated AA ships..  and we (or I should say I) am OK with that, but making the ship what is isn't and was never designed to be whilst supressing things it was and should be in game is not (or should not be) the way forward.

 

M


Edited by MaliceA4Thought, 19 May 2017 - 01:52 AM.

  

 

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, whilst defeated warriors go to war and then seek to win
(Sun Tzu)

A Veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to "My Country" for an amount of "up to and including my life."


Lert #49 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:53 AM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,527
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostHillslam, on 19 May 2017 - 01:45 AM, said:

I agree with all of Lert's point about Hood, but I gotta wonder - why the surprise? 

 

If you don't like the "game design"  /  "Balance"  / "National Flavor" decisions by WG for the limey ships, why be surprised after we've seen what was done to the 2nd BB line added - the USN.  Absolutely trashed. Artificially. None of them, at any tier, behave anywhere near their historical attributes. Nor do, for that matter, the jp battlewagons. Way off, just in the other direction: optimal hypothetical performance. Why? For game-design-balance-national-flavor reasons (and also to appease the international customer base of sick-of-america buyers, as well as the weaboos with wallets here in NA - but lets not get into that, its ok WG is here to make cash, were I CEO and making money off this title I'd sell t!ts to a turtle if it'd make money).

 

Why then, really, the outrage now?   

 

You completely fail to understand the point in my OP.

 

First of all, I'm not outraged, I'm disappointed.

 

Second, I'm not surprised, I saw this coming. Just took this long to put it into words, and Hood was the perfect example.

 

Third, this thread is not about ship balance vs tiering. The USN and IJN examples you cite (in a very USN fanboyish way) are completely different from what I'm trying to discuss. Those ships are balanced on their own merit, on their own base line performance. You might not agree with their tiering and wish to see every IJN ship nerfed and downtiered and every USN ship buffed and uptiered because glorious undefeatable USN, but even you can't deny that those ships are slotted into their place based on merits of the in-game base ship itself without artificially moving it up or down via gimmicks. Lately though, WG has stepped away from that and has started balancing and tiering ships purely on gimmicks, rather than the ship's base line performance. The Royal Navy cruiser line is a very good example. Most of them would work fine a tier lower if given normal AP instead of super AP, meaning that the ships themselves are not balanced properly, but WG is artificually pushing them ahead of where they arguably belong in the name of 'national flavor'.


(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


TalonV #50 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:54 AM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 27,445
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Bah, all these gimmicks are really holding back the game. I mean I can understand national flavor to a point, but when it's actually limiting what you can do with the game instead of opening it up, maybe it's time to try a new approach.

 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


MaliceA4Thought #51 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:56 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,643
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

View PostTalonV, on 18 May 2017 - 08:54 PM, said:

Bah, all these gimmicks are really holding back the game. I mean I can understand national flavor to a point, but when it's actually limiting what you can do with the game instead of opening it up, maybe it's time to try a new approach.

 

upvoted from me :)

 

M


  

 

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, whilst defeated warriors go to war and then seek to win
(Sun Tzu)

A Veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to "My Country" for an amount of "up to and including my life."


dseehafer #52 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:56 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 7,284
  • Member since:
    08-20-2012

View PostMaliceA4Thought, on 18 May 2017 - 07:50 PM, said:

 

but the point is, I believe, that they shouldn't gimp known facts to "balance" unknown gimmicks which is what they are doing.

 

M

 

If WG calculates AA damage like they do shell and torpedo damage then the amount of explosives may play a role in why they do so much damage. These are, after all, large caliber weapons.

 

This probably has nothing to do with history and may just be a result of the formula WG uses for AA shell damage.


CREATOR OF THE "A DETAILED LOOK AT" AND THE "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE??" SERIES!! 

KlnDiJZ.gif

"The whole strategy of the war turns at this period to this ship (the Tirpitz), which is holding four times the number of British capital ships paralyzed, to say nothing of the two new American battleships retained in the Atlantic."

- Winston Churchill

 


Hillslam #53 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:57 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 381
  • Member since:
    01-20-2015

View PostLert, on 19 May 2017 - 01:53 AM, said:

 

You completely fail to understand the point in my OP.

 

First of all, I'm not outraged, I'm disappointed.

 

Second, I'm not surprised, I saw this coming. Just took this long to put it into words, and Hood was the perfect example.

 

Third, this thread is not about ship balance vs tiering. The USN and IJN examples you cite (in a very USN fanboyish way) are completely different from what I'm trying to discuss. Those ships are balanced on their own merit, on their own base line performance. You might not agree with their tiering and wish to see every IJN ship nerfed and downtiered and every USN ship buffed and uptiered because glorious undefeatable USN, but even you can't deny that those ships are slotted into their place based on merits of the in-game base ship itself without artificially moving it up or down via gimmicks. Lately though, WG has stepped away from that and has started balancing and tiering ships purely on gimmicks, rather than the ship's base line performance. The Royal Navy cruiser line is a very good example. Most of them would work fine a tier lower if given normal AP instead of super AP, meaning that the ships themselves are not balanced properly, but WG is artificually pushing them ahead of where they arguably belong in the name of 'national flavor'.

 

no I got your point and agree with it.

 

Not fanboying. I don't want USN glorious uptiering. (in fact I never mentioned the word uptier at all in my post - please stop projecting fanboy onto me just because I refuse to shut up about WG bb stats choices that we all know are [edited])

 

I just want ships not artficially gimmicked, buffed, nerfed, etc etc etc for "reasons".  ALL ships. I'm agreeing with you.

 

WG doesn't have the courage to do that. Its ok, they're making the better business choice - they're raking in cash.

 

If *I* made this game, trust me, the stats would be the damn stats. Zero servicing of US, JP, UK, GERM fanboys. None.   ....And it wouldn't sell a dime.


The Iowa is the better battleship. That fact doesn't require you to like it.

When your knowledge comes from nothing but books, your knowledge is worthless.


HMS_Formidable #54 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:59 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View PostBattlecruiser_Tiger, on 19 May 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

 

I'm confused: why? Renown had the same type and number of float planes as any other capital ship - she wasn't in any way a carrier-battleship or some kind of hybrid.

 

Exactly

About as unlike the real Renown as Hood is from the real Hood.

 

And I am sure wargaming will not want TWO British anti-aircraft battlecruisers in game.

 

So Renown needs a fantasy 're-flavour'


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 19 May 2017 - 02:02 AM.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


Lert #55 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:00 AM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,527
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostHillslam, on 19 May 2017 - 01:57 AM, said:

 

no I got your point and agree with it.

 

Not fanboying. I don't want USN glorious uptiering. (in fact I never mentioned the word tier at all in my post - please stop projecting fanboy onto me just because I refuse to shut up about WG bb stats choices that we all know are [edited])

 

I just want ships not artficially gimmicked, buffed, nerfed, etc etc etc for "reasons".  ALL ships. I'm agreeing with you.

 

WG doesn't have the courage to do that. Its ok, they're making the better business choice - they're raking in cash.

 

If *I* made this game, trust me, the stats would be the damn stats. Zero servicing of US, JP, UK, GERM fanboys. None.   ....And it wouldn't sell a dime.

 

In that case, I misunderstood your post - at least partially - and I owe you an apology for that. Have a +1.

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


Battlecruiser_Tiger #56 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:03 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,353
  • Member since:
    08-10-2016

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 19 May 2017 - 01:59 AM, said:

 

Exactly

About as unlike the real Renown as Hood is from the real Hood.

 

And I am sure wargaming will not want TWO British anti-aircraft battlecruisers in game.

 

So Renown needs a fantasy 're-flavour'

 

Oh, heh. I didn't realize you were being sarcastic. Well played, sir.

[KNMSU] is seeking new members. Please PM me before applying! Thank you!

"Semi-notorious forum twit"


MaliceA4Thought #57 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:04 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,643
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

View Postdseehafer, on 18 May 2017 - 08:56 PM, said:

 

If WG calculates AA damage like they do shell and torpedo damage then the amount of explosives may play a role in why they do so much damage. These are, after all, large caliber weapons.

 

This probably has nothing to do with history and may just be a result of the formula WG uses for AA shell damage.

 

really?  10  x 238 gram mines every 5 minutes  in a general area or (using a bofors 40mm single)  120 rds per minute, therefore 600 shells in 5 minutes each with 56.7 grams bursting charge aimed rather than floating in space.  yeah that calculates well :)  Personally I would rather use the drunken sailor on an Imperator with a pistol than the UP projector.

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying about possible unknown stuff, just that nothing in the spec of that weapon could ever have made it a succesful weapon, even under theoretical best possible circumstances and certainly in this game its a joke.

 

M


Edited by MaliceA4Thought, 19 May 2017 - 02:07 AM.

  

 

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, whilst defeated warriors go to war and then seek to win
(Sun Tzu)

A Veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to "My Country" for an amount of "up to and including my life."


Destroyer_Kiyoshimo #58 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:07 AM

    Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 11,994
  • Member since:
    05-25-2014

View Postdseehafer, on 18 May 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

 

I know all of this. 

 

 

I'm just saying if they were never used in combat than it cannot be PROVEN that they were ineffective in combat.

 

Unreliable? Sure.

 

Bad concept? Sure.

 

Hazardous? Sure.

 

Ineffective in combat? Unknown, Untried, Unproven.

 

Because of this, WG can fudge the numbers all they want... just like paper ships. Because of the whole "unknown" factor.

 

All this tells me is that if the British AA rockets can work in WoWS than so can the Japanese Type 3.

Edited by Destroyer_Kiyoshimo, 19 May 2017 - 02:08 AM.

 Kiyoshimo's aircraft carrier rework Kiyoshimo's Torpedo Campaign

I am the Hull of my Torpedo. Steel is my body and Oxygen is my blood. I have caused over one thousand hull breaches. Unknown to flames, nor known to penetrate. I have withstood pain to launch many torpedoes. Yet those guns will never shoot anything.
So, as I pray-- Unlimited Torpedo Works


Sir_Davos_Seaworth #59 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:07 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,575
  • Member since:
    03-17-2016
Do we need a sarcasm smile? LOL.

The Onion Knight demands trial by World of Warships

Fleet in Being at Put-In-Bay Ohio: Brig, Niagara. Ironclad, Michigan (latter Wolverine)

 

 

 


TheKrimzonDemon #60 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:10 AM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,426
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

Her guns performing as they do is my one and only problem with the ship. They put her in as a BB, while admitting outright that she wasn't one, and then made her weaker on top of that. It makes no sense to me, unless they actually want Hood to be sunk a lot.

 

If that's the case, they're pulling a very expensive troll on the player base.


I drive ships. That's right, drive. I do not sail them. They don't have sails.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users