Jump to content


Beta Testers
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About Berkutt

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia
  1. So I really liked this mod, and decided to make my own, since it hasn't been updated in a while. However, I am curious what people think about a couple choices: 1. SHould I show the caliber in inches alone, or continue with having it show both? IE should it say ""406 mm (16.0 in)/45 Mk6" or ""16.0 in/45 Mk6" 2. I did not convert most of the small caliber weapons, simply because historically (even in English) they were never really referenced in english units. So most AA weapons, for example, I left as 40mm Bofors, or 28mm, 37mm, etc etc 3. 16 in? 16"? 4. 16.0 in? 16 in? 5. I rounded all values to a single decimal place. 6. Does anyone other than me actually care about seeing gun calibers in inches?
  2. Any chance of this being updated? Hell, if someone told me how to do it, I would keep it updated!
  3. But that doesn't show everything at all. For example, the "All the Bonuses" item contains 5 different flags, but is only showing 3 bonuses. The camo doesn't show anything at all. There is no way to know what they do. And when you actually click on the item in question, it doesn't show anything at all about what the actual items do, just the item name. Clearly the item names should be links with a hover image that pops up showing the actual hover over image from the game with the details of the camp or flag bonus. This should take some dev about an hour to implement.
  4. The weird thing is that it is annoying and actually costs them sales. You would think this would be the area they would make absolutely certain is as informative as possible.
  5. Call me crazy, but I am thinking that I might be more likely to actually buy things if you told me right on the page selling them, what they actually do. Why can't I see what the bonuses are for flags? Why can't I see what the bonuses are for camo?
  6. Well, yeah. I was being ironic. Humans are generally pretty contradictory critters. Of course I want my cake and eat it as well!
  7. I like a new ship line as much as anyone, I really do. To my detriment really - I've been playing since beta and I still don't have a single Tier X ship! I have a bunch fo T9s, nearly all the T8s. I am a sucker for a new line, and always tell myself "Don't play Germans DDs! Finish the US BB line you swore you were going to get to Montana on!". But I never do. I just love new ships, and new lines, and playing with them. But enough already. We don't NEED more ship lines. What we need is some fresh content, some fresh way to play the game. Campaigns are nice, bring us some more. But more battle modes, more reasons to play, that is what I think the game needs at this point. Clan warfare? Maybe. Scenarios like that Halloween thing? Maybe. How about some content for all those ARP ships? Some reason for them to be sitting in my dock? Some kind of persistent results campaign with clans, or even solo? Fight *over* something, instead of just fighting to fight, or grind credits? How about a historical game match mode, where you define particular sides (Say Japan vs US) and both teams end up with the same nationality? I think that could be a lot of fun. Imagine you go into this battle mode, and you have to play only ships from the nationality you sign up for, and you get some actual nationality driven battles, US v Japan, Germany v France/UK, Russia vs....well, they didn't really actually fight anyone navally, but you get the idea. I am just brainstorming, honestly. But my point is that a little less focus on churning out new lines, which lets be honest, at this point is just going to be some slight variation on something that already exists, and more focus on creating some more varied actual gameplay experience. Just my two cents, maybe I am nuts and mostly people really just do want more of the same.... P.S. - The exception to this is the Brit BB lines. ZOMG get us some British battleships already! They pretty much invented the bloody things after all!
  8. How NOT to fix CVs

    "Torpedo bombers in particular - along with torpedoes overall - are not subject to ANY RNG. Nada. Nill. Zero. Once they drop - usually dropped manually with zero chance at evasive - all will hit and cause excessive damage." Damn, I must be doing something really, really wrong...
  9. 1: If you did that, you would be making torpedoes vastly more powerful. One of the limits on the torpedo as a weapon in the game is that there are times, often pretty common, where you cannot use them because the map situation is such that doing so risks hitting a friendly. Maybe you fire anyway, maybe it is even good play to fire anyway and take the chance. Removing the ability of friendly torpedoes to damage friendly ships is A) Stupidly unrealistic, and B) Would be a significant increase in the power of torpedoes, and C) Would be a way of taking a considerable measure of skill out of the game, since players would no longer have to consider that variable. 2. Yeah, I think ramming a friendly should cause a LOT more damage. The need to have multiple ships able to be close enough to each other to support one another, while not running into each other (which in real life is a mission kill at best for the ships involved) is a key factor that drove naval tactics, formations, and strategy. Again, making it so ramming each other basically means nothing just takes a significant measure of skill out of the game -- it lets poor players play poorly without consequence. 3. Meh, whatever. I've turned pink a few times for killing friendlies, and I didn't really pay any attention to it. If it lasts 5 battles or 10, so what? It is a little bit of likely deserved shame. 4. I've never seen anyone do that, ever. If they did, I guess maybe I might make it a point to go ram them on principle, but it is a completely fake issue.
  10. Some people certainly do have too much time on their hands.
  11. The U-Boats were not defeated because their torpedoes were inadequate.
  12. That is actually a really good point, and there is one other factor to that that WoWS does not model (although it could...). IRL you need to have a bunch of ships moving together, and more important than basically anything is that they DO NOT RUN INTO EACH OTHER! IRL, two ships colliding is almost certainly a mission kill, at least, on both ships. In WoWS it is largely meaningless, so there is no need to worry much about it.
  13. Yeah, but that just explains why the results are different, not why the tactics are different. If it was all the same, but you had 30% IRL hit rates, it wouldn't mean that everyone starts driving bow on to one another, that would just make the battle even more devastating. This isn't about just simple hit rates, but rather about HOW hits are actually achieved, and how the armor actually performed. I think IRL, estimating range is really hard, while estimating bearing is (relatively) easy. This actually makes intuituve sense. You can look at a ship, and with practice and basic optical equipment, get a pretty good idea of its bearing and speed. But telling whether it is 20,000 yards away or 20,500 yards away? That is incredibly hard, and is the difference between a hit and a complete miss. WoWS recognizes that and basically gives every player perfect range finding radar. Otherwise the game would be incredibly frustrating. So that leaves the "easy" part of the hit equation to the player (ignoring for the moment all the actual calculation and work that has to go into all of this of course, historically the fire control teams were just that - entire teams of men doing noting but calculating all this), and makes for a much better game. But it also makes for a game where the tactics available to the player to protect themselves are radically different from real life, and hence we see radically different tactics, with players bow tanking and such, that would never really happen historically when big gun BBs were fighting.
  14. So, one thing Ilve been wondering about is why in this game, how ships fight is so radically different than how ships fought in actual history, and how ships were designed and intended to fight. As an example, historically battleships would work very hard to NOT find themselves in a position where they are bow on to an opponent showing a broadside, the classic "crossing the T". The basic reason being that it means that you are taking their entire firepower, while only being able to deliver a fraction of your own. I actually discussed this with a friend of mine who I considered to be incredibly knowledgable about historical naval gunnery in WW1 and WW2. A couple points he made: 1. It would be utterly foolish to show the end of your ship (bow or aft) to an enemy, if you can avoid it. There are several reasons for this: A. You can only fire some of your weapons, while they fire them all. (This is represented fine in WoWS) B. Fire control pre-radar was actually very accurate in bearing, but much less accurate in range. IE, you missed long or short much more often than you missed left or right, because determining precise range was very difficult. Indeed, once a bearing was determined, the fire control officer would fire the guns in a range "ladder", but all at the same basic bearing. Because the desire to get hits meant that you wanted to "spread" your shots across the range bracket, but you could be pretty confident that your bearing was correct. So you spread was in theory an oval across the beam of the target, rather than along its length. This means that having the length of your ship spread across that range (IE your T has been crossed) is very, very bad. It allows that oval to cover your ship, rather than cross it. When they talk about successfully "straddling" a target, they are NOT talking about getting shots to the front and back of the target (ie along the bearing) they are talking about getting them across the target (range). That is when you know you have the range correct, and can shrink your oval and start getting more hits. (This is very, very different from WoWS, indeed the exact opposite. The game handles range automatically, you always know the EXACT range, and it does all the ranger calculation for you, which you have to do the work of figuring out the bearing. Which means that minimizing the bearing exposure as a player is MUCH more important, since that is what you can make the other guy get wrong. I think this is about 90% of the reason we see the tactics so different in game. The shot pattern in real life is a oval where the long axis is the range variable, and hence showing your broadside is actually completely desireable since it minimizes your actual exposure to that shot pattern. If the shooter tried to change the shot pattern so the long axis is the bearing variable, for one, that is silly since they actually know the bearing well, and two, it would just mean that the entire salvo misses more often than not) C. The design of battleships places all the amor along the sides of the ship for the reasons above. Why in the world would the captain of a ship expose the *weakest* part of his armor (the ends) to enemy fire, when they entire design of the ship was to armor the sides? This just makes no sense at all - it would be like a Panther tank driving into battle backwards. Angling is certainly a thing, but in naval warfare, the ability to try to increase your effective armor by "angling" just doesn't make sense. The only way to do that is to provide a much larger effective target (given the range/bearing issue) and expose the portions or your armor that the ship is designed to NOT expose. (In WoWS, the ability of much less armor to "bounce" shells is likely radically over-stated. You have BBs with 300+ mm of side armor, and it makes sense for them to try to take shots with their 30-40mm bow armor instead? If that was really true, why not take a bunch of that weight out of the belt side armor and move it up front?) Obivously there is plenty more to this discussion, I am just putting out some very basics. I am not advocating for any change to the game, I love it how it is, and I suspect that these differences make for a more fun game. But being someone who is very interested in history, I always wondered why the gunnery duels in the game don't feel at all like how something like Jutland is reported, for example.
  15. If anyone is interested in reading a really, really good operational history of Midway that really goes into the battle as it was fought by the Japanese, you can't do much better (in English anyway) than Shattered Sword. It is absolutely outstanding, and once you read it you will stop asking yourself questions like "Why didn't the Japanese do X instead of Y"?