Jump to content

Guardian54

Members
  • Content count

    568
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2682
  • Clan

    [70]

Community Reputation

88 Good

About Guardian54

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

447 profile views
  1. This is what happened when I tried taking QE into training room with 12 Aobas, shooting from within 5 degrees of bow-on for the bow-on tests and within 20 degrees of broadside for those: 1st Aoba: 6 salvos bow on 11.0 km, 16 hits no cits. 2nd Aoba: 6 salvos 9 km 1 cit 8 hits 3rd Aoba: 11 salvos 10km 18 hits (many ricochets), ended on cit for 6800, two of the salvos had NO HITS. Broadside 10km: 1st salvo 1 cit 2 overpen 2nd 1 cit 1 overpen 3rd 1 overpen 4th 1 pen 1 overpen, 4th Aoba killed. 1st 1 hit 1 overpen TIME RAN OUT That's 6 + 6 + 11 = 23 salvos bow on for 44 hits (sorry, didn't track by salvo so can't exclude +1 hit or so as a possibility) of 23 x 8 = 184 shells and 7 hits of 4 valid salvos (32 shells) for broadside I will now go test New Mexico in same conditions.... 1st bow-on salvo: 3 hits 11 km, HE fail there (instead of AP) so change target, 3 hits of 12 shells here. 2nd bow-on, 9.5km = 4 hits, 3rd bow-on, 9.3 km = 3 hits, 4th bow-on same range 4 hits, 5th 3 hits, 6th 4 hits, 5th 3 hits, 6th 5 hits, 7th 3 hits and killed. Total for 2nd target: 26 hits from 6x12 = 72 shells 3rd target more exactly bow-on than all other tests: 1st 2 hits, 2nd 2 hits, 3rd 1 hit, 4th 2 hits, 5th 5 hits, 6th 1 hit, 7th 5 hits, 8th 4 hits, 9th 3 hits and killed, total 22 hits from 8x12 = 96 shells Total is 51 hits of 180 shells BROADSIDE, 10 km: 1-1salvo: 2 cits 4 overpens 1-2 salvo: cit killed 2-1 salvo: 3 overpen 2-2 salvo: 4 overpen 2-3 salvo: 3 overpen 2-4 salvo: 1 cit, 7 overpen TIME RAN OUT Broadside total: 5 valid salvos, 60 shells, for 24 hits. QE scored to 44/184 = 23.91% hits to NM's 51/180 = 28.33% on a head-on Aoba, with two salvos completely blank (unlike NM who filled the aim circle) and 7/32 = 21.875% broadside for QE to NM's 24/60 = 40%. Conclusion: NM is roughly comparable to QE head-on, but broadside appears LAUGHABLY more accurate (dispersion 221m to QE's 228m should not be that big). QE's shots seem to fly out to edge of aim circle comically more often.
  2. When you can't even hit a bot going straight, how can you hit players? Answer: dumb luck. Because that's how worthless the guns on QE are. EDIT: my Training room results with QE and NM firing at bow-on and broadside Aobas bears this out. NM hits much more often.
  3. Try shooting the bot cruisers in Naval Station Newport scenario. Even if you begin in range you will almost never save Romeo from the cancerous Aoba fire chance and lack of bot repair party discipline. In fact you can run so close trying to save the Lexington that you get torped by Nurnberg (and promptly get burnt down by Myoko after using your repair for the flooding) and STILL fail because you can't delete cruisers like every other BB can. Any 12-gun battleship could delete that Aoba in one broadside. A QE takes 3 regardless of how well you aim (i.e. straddles every time) unless you are starting off within 5km or something where you barely need to aim at all. The accuracy on QE is a heap of pure cow dung and it is unable to citadel even an Aoba reliably enough at 7km to matter (Aoba straight line 7km is 2+ citadels and auto-delete for any 12-gun 14-inch BB, meanwhile QE takes 3 salvos). My QE stats are almost exactly your equal (small sample sizes for both of us) according to Warships Today (60% WR of 25 games vs 57% of 21, and 56K DPG vs 57K), and I find it an irredeemable garbage scow.
  4. Been trying to do dailies with QE in Operations recently. a) Without the equipment, turret traverse is far too slow to fight bots effectively--my basic metric for turret speed is "slower than hull such that I need to stop mashing A or D for over 1 second to aim = GARBAGE" and QE is GARBAGE even WITH the turret traverse upgrade and Jack Dunkirk's +1 deg/sec, which makes it a special level of GARBAGE (see Minsk and Gnevny for "Meh" with traverse upgrade + captain skill, and garbage without). b) My 15-inch AP whacks bot Aoba or Myoko broadside from under 6 kilometers... and I have not citted them once at those point-blank ranges (somehow I can cit Tenryuu and Kuma reliably from broadside at similar ranges). A 14-inch BB would trivially delete them. c) Disgustingly slow (especially in turns) with none of the NM's redeeming traits. Oh right... d) The accuracy is a complete lie compared to say my Fiji which connects 4+ shots per 12-gun salvo reliably. Way too often QE gets 1 overpen and that's it on a non-evasive bot at 10km or less even when I'm leading correctly.
  5. IIRC they cannot overmatch Tier 7+ bows. ...Which is a problem.
  6. That angle has to change all the time though unless you want to go in a straight line. Which I really, REALLY don't. And the gun turrets are so slow that after swinging to throw off enemy aim I have to swing back just to shoot. My Shchors seem to regularly be able to get an enemy on 2 fires if I actually connect more than 4 shells. Sure feels more like 18-20% to me (might just be putting the +2% on the captain though). I only shoot HE at bow-on BBs, enemy DDs, or when I happen to have it loaded and my last HE target disappeared--it's better than nothing. In fact I often shoot AP at DDs thinking they'll turn away soon and I can get full pens on their sterns.
  7. The Duke of York I got over New Years' Missions is serviceable (though having to fight a KGV with the strictly inferior DoY is still RAEG inducing). The Queen Elizabeth... isn't. No one gives a wooden nickel about "hurr durr 15-inch overmatch" when the guns refuse to hit the enemy. And compared to a NM, Fuso or Normandie's 12 guns? 2.0 sigma (95% of shells within the cited accuracy) versis 1.5 sigma (something like 80% of shells within cited accuracy) is irrelevant when it's 0.95 * 8 compared to 0.8 * 12 shells. The QE will hit the target less than the other ships with fewer guns. Then there's the cancer turret traverse speed. Even Jack Dunkirk with his +1 degree/second isn't enough to make it serviceable. Armour? What armour? It eats citadels often, takes full pen damage from AP EVERYWHERE, and the plating takes HE damage from 5-inch destroyer guns. It also catches fire a lot (even without being shot by the Soviet Molotov Cocktail rounds that Budyonny/Schchors seem to have compared to say Cleveland). The health is also nothing to write home about except for how fast it melts. The repair would have to resemble that of a Minotaur in HP/second to make this competitive. And the mobility... holy crap New Mexico feels faster in a turn than this thing with its speed bleed (and larger turn radius), and in a straight line it's not that appreciably faster than an NM. And the rudder time is nothing special either for the turn radius. FIREPOWER: GARBAGE Rate Of Fire: GARBAGE (32 seconds with traverse upgrade module is meh, but for only 8 guns...) Hit Rate: GARBAGE (Too few guns to work with) Range: GARBAGE Overpenetration (instead of citadel) vs cruisers: GARBAGE TURRET TRAVERSE SPEED: GARBAGE PROTECTION: GARBAGE Armour: MEH HE Protection: GARBAGE Fires: GARBAGE (too slow and not agile enough to dodge cruiser let alone DD flamethrowers at the stupidly close ranges it has to push up to, and tier is too low to have enough default fire resist) MOBILITY: MEH Top Speed: MEH Turn Speed Bleed: GARBAGE Rudder/Turn Time: MEH I dread what the Bayern is going to be like with the same gun layout, given I found Colorado inferior to NM when I finished the Colo grind a year ago. My only consolation is that German secondaries will hopefully be slightly less cancerous in PVE and Scenarios. Because the Queen Elizabeth feels suspiciously like a garbage scow when I play it...Yes, I know I have about 60% WR in it but the average win rate on NA at least is 49.73% right now and for Fuso it's 51.16%, New Mexico isn't even tracked (huh, somehow Warships Today tells me I have better damage and K/D than NM in both, but I won 2/3 in NM and had far higher survival...) Now I'm not saying any battleship needs buffing, but what does QE have compared to its rivals besides the nebulous, vaporous "overmatch" which if you are choosing targets correctly generally doesn't matter?
  8. Between ordering a shift to "all astern" ASAP and a rather slower-than-21-knot head-on ramming and tearing a gash in the side, in hindsight it would have been better to imitate a then-recent German liner, IIRC the Kronprinz Wilhelm and ram head-on (that ship survived). But of course they thought they could dodge it completely, which would have been a better outcome. The coal fire, I believe, is White Star Lines' great crime with the Titanic.
  9. The Titanic was handled like a lemming train that can't even be bothered to ram the enemy properly (if it had run straight into the iceberg it could probably have survived instead of dealing with a long gash down the side). The Britannic was handled like someone who has their cursor stuck with LMB signal constantly active (i.e. leaving themselves totally exposed)
  10. Bye Bye Colorado !

    Except Trident where BBs that aren't brawlers (cough Germans) often should at least consider diagonally cross the map to maximize broadsides-on-target.
  11. Britain's 'Midway'?

    Here's the thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/april-1942-alternate-indian-ocean.305957/ It didn't change too much in the Pacific, but Arakan held against the Japanese...
  12. Britain's 'Midway'?

    Zheng He on Alternatehistory.com has an excellent timeline where Somerville completely kicks Japanese sterns, sinking IIRC four heavy cruisers and Ryujo and gutting the Kido Butai air squadrons for a few minor ships in return.
  13. how is it possible

    Radio location perhaps? Otherwise you were in a common spot and he fired just for the lulz?
  14. TierX Worcester

    Durability: Plating gets penned by all non-DD HE and the common IFHE DDs. And the belt is only enough to autobounce or fuse AP. Verdict: GARBAGE Armament: +20% number of guns over Minotaur, 30% less ROF, that's 1.2*0.7 = 0.84, so only 84% the DPM, fair in exchange for being able to set fires, but... MUCH LESS RANGE ON A CARDBOARD BOAT. Also, NO TORPEDOES. Verdict: GARBAGE. AA defence: Compares favourably to Mino at mid to short ranges. Verdict: GUD Mobility: Slightly Worse than Mino, MEH Stealth: Significantly (1km surface base range) Worse than Mino, MEH Consumables: Nothing as useful as Mino's smoke, and cannot carry hydro. VERY MEH Overall: Due to poor general durability and poor armament vs Mino, especially for a smoke-less boat, somewhere in the borderlands between GARBAGE and MEHBOTE
  15. Because the Japanese ships are completely ahistorical in-game by failure to explode spectacularly or at least take citadel-level damage whenever their torpedoes get hit, or even splashed by HE. Which is quite strange as the devs are Russian and any chance to... ...wait a second. Russian cruisers tend to have torps too, with often-impotent short range... ...Ah, we have discovered why torps are not a "shoot here for massive damage" thing on cruisers, because it would hurt Russian ships WORSE than it hurt Japanese ships! Now if only they didn't feel the need to paper Russian cruiser line into existence, they'd have been free to dump on the Japanese by making deck torpedoes... volatile...
×