Suraknar

I have been Continuing the research Focusing on IJN Cruisers and asking questions in different Ways to make sure there is more accuracy. My questions are also kept simple and to the point to avoid confusions or ChatGPT being induced to express errors (it is possible to do). My aim here is to get Research Data assistance. Here is an excerpt on Atago (Takao Class): In other words, Atago could Launch Torpedoes' in an almost 180 degree Coverage per Broadside as each launcher had a 90 degree from the centerline forward and from centerline aft. This IS correct and Wargaming has this class Correctly Functioning in the game too. So No errors here. The error comes for the other IJN classes. The standard Coverage Capability seems was in fact 90 degrees coverage per broadside and not limited to aft firing angles only. It is an error and not factual to have the IJN Heavy Cruisers be limited to only aft Firing Angles. Here is a specific one for Mogami. Overall I think that this should be corrected in the game. While Atago is somewhat special and would have a larger angle and more offensive capability, it is not correct to arbitrarily limit the rest of IJN cruisers to ahistorical Capabilities of only aft firing angles. The least that could be done is to correct the firing angles from the centerline to a minimum of 45-70 degrees forward firing for the forward launcher and same in aft quadrant for the aft launcher. This way the Atago would still retain a superior Capability, while the other IJN cruisers would not be hampered and could operate more historically as they should. I know that there is Cynicism towards Wargaming, but I also know that Designers Pride themselves for the Historical accuracy (within some Game considerations as this is still a game and not a simulator) for the Historical accuracy of the ships the game features. And so I am appealing to that and respectfully suggesting for corrections on this line of ships from that point on the decision rests with WG. Peace.

Since the very beginnings of this game I had my doubts on the actual representation of IJN Cruisers in this game. And while the first 6 months were really fun playing IJN, the nerfs started coming up and changes that made IJN really sub par, as the years went by many people in these very forums kept bringing up issues with IJN, lower general HP, abysmal Damage mitigation and generally low reload really affect IJN cruisers but one thing always bothered me and that was the actual firing torpedo arcs of many IJN cruisers starting with Furutaka, Aoba all the way to Mogami, and the never commissioned Ibuki and Zao. So I searched and searched for information, from Wikipedia to Discussion Forums to Naval Historical Archives I could find, nothing. The narrative Wargaming and many players here always gave us is that "IJN cruisers Torpedoes were meant to fire in Retreat", these "are for defense" etc. But I did not buy it, to me I always thought the way these ships function in this game was not Historical and was made so arbitrarily by Designer decision. And to me it made nonsense, it was illogical to think that Japanese Engineers would build a ship and restrict the arcs of its Torpedoes to try and fit the Ship in to a specific role, for a Real Life Situation this was highly Counter Intuitive and Artificial, even could say it was stupid, and history shows that Japanese Engineering is anything but Stupid. So what gives? I maintained that it was an arbitrary decision for the game. And so I continued searching for confirmation to no avail, my last resort was to actually try to find someone who would have access to the Naval Archives in Japan or even learn Japanese myself and try to find the info. Enter, ChatGPT, it recently hit me to ask the AI instead, I mean it has access to a very vast repository of information and can correlate and dig it up in a few seconds, and so I did. Low and behold, turns out my hunch was right. Here are the answers: AOBA Info AOBA Torpedo firing Arcs Myoko Info Myoko Torpedo firing Arcs Mogami Info Mogami torpedo firing arcs Ibuki and Zao Since both these Classes never saw service, completed or commissioned, the information on the Tropedo Complement and Firing Arcs is not available. However, it is conceivable to infer that these would have followed similar Naval Architecture paradigms of previous Classes, and would have been equipped with quadruple and quintuple Torpedoe Launchers. I did actually ask ChatGPT on these and this is a response: Ibuki And Zao Conclusion It turns out that IJN Cruisers all had a Torpedo Firing Arcs similar to Atago/Takao ships, where the forward Launchers would fire in forward facing angles and aft launchers cover an aft area angle, giving a ship almost 180 degree coverage on each side. The decision to make them only fire aft, is purely arbitrary by Game Designers for Game "Role" reasons and is not Historical. I think it would be about time that Wargaming corrects this and do justice to IJN Cruisers. Peace!

Thanks for the feedback and confirmation. And actually yes I also think that the Zao Line is made up of Light Cruisers anyway, in the game.... what was WG thinking going to dig up even lighter ones, and so frail in heir digital equivalent compared to all other ships that have no role in the gameplay of battles... I am genuinely puzzled. Because I will not grind just for looks and "having them" I have no time to waste like that. And plus who would want to lower the chances of the Team winning by bring in to battle one of them? It is already tough, and losing streaks and one sided matches are frequent, you want us to weaken the side we play with even more? There are far better choices of ships to play and actually fight with.

"The greatest Victory is that which requires no Battle" - Sun Tzu In other words, the best way to play the IJN Light Cruisers, is not to play them. --- Historically these Cruisers saw very little action and served mostly as Escorts for Cargo Missions, and as Glorified Destroyers, which in game they do not even have the tools to fill that role. Sorry WG but I play to have fun not to get frustrated by inadequate balance, this line is not to my taste or within my idea of fun, nor balanced with the rest of the game in PvP, randoms, ranked etc. I watched the video and it looks to me that whomever made it has no Idea how Tier X battles play in practice. To play these Cruisers as is explained in the Video each match needs to last 2 hours. hah. In current game these cruisers are but cannon fodder. Better play a DD with 20km Torps, to fill in the Stealth Role that is being suggested, playing these cruisers is a waste of a slot in a Team. The only place I can see these cruisers have a place is in PVE.. Coop and Operations, play against the AI. In my humble opinion.

Hello, thank you for your sensible reply :) I am not suggesting that Win rate has "nothing" to do with player skill, yet I am suggesting that it has little to do with individual skill indeed. Certainly not as much as many people think it does. And I really like your question which I quote. It is a fair question to ask I would even say a good analytical question. Firstly - RNG Luck definitelly plays a role here of course, but RNG is not all, I agree. No matter your RNG luck, if you do not activelly participate or playing in a supportinve way to the Team effort towards a win all that RNG good luck will give you is a ton of Damage. It will not ensure the Win, you will still lose. Secondly - By my answer on RNG I think we are in agreement that individual contribution towards a win will raise your chances for a win. Yet, even that is not enough, because I may try to contibute 120% in a given battle but if all the other mates in it do not care about the Win, I will still lose, no matter my contribution. So if nor RNG Luck nor Individual Contribution play that much of a role in Win Rate then what does? Well...after much thought and consideration, I submit that Group Play is what makes the difference. People who play in groups with others, (friends, guild mates etc) will have better Win rates than people who play solo which are reliant to the randomness of the Team. Therefore given a sufficient sample size Win Rate will mainly show how often one plays with groups or Solo, and not how Good one is necessarilly. Players playing solo will gravitate around 50% +- 2-3% and people who play consistently with groups will have better win rates beyong 55% because inherently they benefit from a combined contribution towards a win, better coordination better communication and information and advice etc, now add the occasional RNG luck too, and the result is smashing Battles, melting enemy teams. As such Win Rate is a very unreliable metric of Individual skill or of how good a player is... and it goes without saying that Stat Shaming is not only bad, it is ignorant. Exceptions of course exist, in both sides of the spectrum, yet these do not Define the conclusion, the rule (that is why they are exceptions). I say, judge people based on their actual perfromance in battle, their capacity to coordinate with others to maintain a spatial awareness, or make decisions towards the win. Just an unreliable stat is not enough. A player can be very skilled and not have a good Win rate, simply because they play Solo all the time. --- In reality if you have played other games the same applies. Example a game with Instance/Dungeon Raids and with "best" Gear awarded from them etc, who gets the best gear first? Not necessarilly the most skilled people but rather the people who play in Groups consistently achieve the best gear first. No different here, this is why I say.... ID-10-T errors ;) Food for thought ;)

Thank you, No I do not have Modstation but just found it and downloading :)

I have no problem with this myself, but the all sorts of players in a random battle could be properly distributed between the two sides too. In other words, I do not think that the stystem should be segregading players and matching battles of players meeting certain criteria, I think like you that randoms should include players of all levels of experience, however, there should be ways, hidden to players, that the match maker uses to distribute those varying levels of experience equally between teams as much as possible. This way we can avoid one sided battles, which technically happen by random...supposedly ;)

@lbfreitasBR That was a nice battle, you did very well! Now personally I love hard fought battles like this where both sides push to their max. They are the most enjoyable even if ending in a Draw. But I can understand if you really need it to be a victory. I wonder what Mods/Addons you are using I am not using any ever but it seems I am at a disadvantage a bit not using them some of the info you have there can be useful in battles. Abrigado!

Stun bombs? Whaaat? I was not aware, and NO is my position too. Oh wow, this is not a Game that require Crowd Control abilities, can we get off that wagon please? Well I am glad they listened there. :)

If there is really a Data basis which clearly shows a mismatch then I think your request is valid and should continue to bring it up. maybe also in other sections where Devs monitor? feedback section of the forum etc. --- Please ignore "Learn2Play" Zealot, comments and errors. Just yesterday I had to deal with an ID10T error myself which was suggesting that Win rate is an accurate indication of an individuals skill, in a game where success is defined by the overall performance of a Team and the Dice roll and algorithms of the MM. Go figure, these errors are all too common, got used to them popping up, and promptly redirect them to the Recycle Bin. WG should investigate and adjust, unless it is by design to entice people to think that they need to have better and more powerful ships in order to see more success and higher Win rates...hey you never know, it maybe part of the business model ;)

I agree, especially with the FUN factor aspect. Albeit, unfortunately the reason for all these unnecessary changes that no one asked for is just an attempt to generate more profits and show growth as a business to the board of Directors. This is a very common in many long running games, only a few have resisted going that way and saying "we are happy with what we have lets continue on that path"... It is on the other hand normal that as players we do not really consider the business behind the games we play, very normal, because we are here to have fun. In my gaming over 20 years and mainly playing MMORPG, MMO and MOBA games I have often dwelled about that question, every time a game direction changed. At a high level my conclusion is that Games and For Profit Business model are not compatible. Games should be made by Non for Profit Organizations instead I really think. That way the game and its Fun and the player community remain the focus and are not pushed aside in order to show a positive growth quarterly statement and strive to generate more profits than previous year. I do not think this is what WG will do I do not think anyone from WG will read your reply either and take note...unfortunately. :( But we all can find some solace by discussing it amongst each other that is for sure and a reason for Discussion forums in games anyways :) In the end we the players are the real persistent part of this all, Games and Game companies come and go over the years, we remain for a bit longer and in a more consistent way, so ya was great discussing this with you in this impersonal and asynchronous communication medium :P

That is a pretty conservative view, we live in Liberal times, share the joy with all, don't claim it only for yourself.

Yes this is a nice explanation so the Tactical behavior is simply players adapting to the new dynamic of the game as it changes based on what new stuff is introduced. It explains the Teams who stay back focus to weaken the enemy and charge. it does not explain the teams that simply run or stay back doing nothing. ..not coordinating not communicating not supporting not even trying to win like if they did not know what to do what are the objectives how to cap etc. And I just had such a game and was discussing it with some other players a bit during the battle and it suddenly hit me. Maybe, what's happening is that allot of people simply bought their accounts with ships from tier I to X already and they simply haven't learned to play...who knows, that would at least explain why sometimes there are bots in game...it is some person leveling ships on an account and then selling the account. It happens in many online games.

I noticed too and it is difficult to explain. I mean in some games it is a sound strategy, be patient wait for the enemy to rush in take objectives and fall in your kill zone start eliminating them one by one by focusing fire and then advance and win the game. Usually when this is the case players coordinate the effort. But on many games people just spread out doing nothing not even supporting each other or coordinating the defense and the counter offense nothing, some spend half the game behind an island not even shooting.. It is weird.. I seen games where ships do not even fire on the enemy just sailing around, sometimes pretending to support you then turning away...and hiding...?

The new line is plain ol Useless in Today's game..not worth the effort the time or the money.