Beta Testers
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

193 Valued poster


About Kenjister

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile Kenjister
  1. Keep in mind, the non-historical appearances can be disabled in the port menu. If you don't want to see it it'll function and look just like a normal Graf Spee.
  2. You might be able to fire a support ticket and get them to reverse the sale. I'm not sure whether it applies to prem ship purchases, sales, or both though. I do know there is a limit to the number of times you can do that per account.
  3. While sticking with one class because it's fun is reasonable, please don't try to limit yourself to one class "to become better". Playing all the classes will give you excellent insight on how to kill them all, something much more valuable than the mechanical skill gained by sticking with a single class. Also, as a bit of a warning, the heart pumping in your face torpedo assaults don't really as much as you go up the tiers. Tier 7 is the last place you probably see them with any regularity. On the other hand, the playstyle of other classes changes as well! By continuing down all the lines, you might find a few playstyles you don't see in the lower tiers. Possible fun things you'll miss: Tier 7-8 German BB Secondaries and in your face brawling. Tier 8-10 USN "Can I pull off this RADAR ambush on the DD and live?" Tier 7-10 Cruisers and the high risk "at the edge of your range, but definitely in that battleship's lethal range" play. Tier 5-7 Battleships who have vastly more effective/accurate guns than than tier 4. Tier 7+ IJN and USN Battleships. Broadside target? That's a paddling. Tier 10 IJN Yamato. Biggest stick. Comes with passive ability to aggro every enemy player in range.
  4. As a Kaga owner, I'll say this. Kaga is fun. Very fun. Almost too powerful versus surface ships. I have no regrets buying her. But she's hell to play against Saipan. And Saipan may not be anywhere as strong versus surface ships, but Saipan will rule the skies. I'll explain. A new Saipan captain that simply point clicks fighters against a Kaga (with Dogfighting Expert) will lose. With equal captain skills 5 Kaga planes vs 4 Saipan planes generally ends in Kaga's victory. But the second the Saipan captain learns about the no penalty strafe out Saipan has, Kaga cannot make solo strikes far from her allies. There's no way around it. You cannot strafe Saipan's fighters as Kaga unless the Saipan player is unaware or bad. Most Saipan captains will have no trouble dodging with the speed Saipan's fighters have. Even if you land the strafe, it's rare you'll get many kills. On the other hand, Saipan will strafe all day because there's no way to punish it. If you dodge a Saipan strafe and lock her fighters afterwards, the Saipan captain can simply have her fighters strafe away with no losses. It's even worse if you have multiple squads nearby since a locked squad can strafe away in any direction, with no way to tell. It also locks the squad they're running away from in place for a few seconds, making them extremely vulnerable to strafes. If you lock a Saipan squad and run your attack planes by, they will simply get strafed. Really, the only way to punish a Saipan player who misses their strafe is to dodge it, lock the fighter, strafe with you other fighter, and to strafe away with your locked squad before the Saipan does. Whoever puts in the strafe away command first wins. It's not impossible to beat Saipans. You can always sneak strikes by. But against an equally skilled player you'll be in for a really rough (and not very fun) fight in the skies. I suppose a good lower tier analogy would be Zuiho versus Fighter Bogue. The mechanics are different, as are the damage numbers, but the imbalance has a familiar feel.
  5. When this thread was made there WERE citadels on DDs. Or maybe it had just changed. 2015 was before hit ribbons, so we would never be sure what we were really doing. They might have been talking about normal pens on DDs. It's quite the necro... As far as AP and HE on DDs go, just fire whatever you have loaded. AP can still get normal pens is the DD is perpendicular to you and you get lucky with your aim. I don't really find HE worth the loss of flexibility. If the DD drops off of visibility it's more or less wasted, if a CA pops up broadside to me I lose an opportunity to devastating strike him, and so on.
  6. WGs extremely generous offers regarding the GZ are because it's an apology for selling an incomplete ship. It's not supposed to be a perk available to everyone, and if you made it available to everyone it defeats the purpose of making it part of the apology in the first place.
  7. Perhaps the opponent was more angled than you were. But the advice in the thread is pretty spot on. In most DM vs DM battles the first person to take out a turret wins. This requires AP. HE can be used but you need to aim for his superstructure, or bow. If you're further out, aim for superstructure, if you're close, aim for the bow. Also, if you're doing a bow on dance with nobody to interfere, try to gentry alternate between forward and reverse. This works best around 8km. At that range both shell types need to be aimed or they'll harmless bounce off the bow, or shatter on turret faces. If he can't tell if you're closing, stopped, or reversing, he's very likely to waste multiple salvos adjusting his aim or switching to the wrong shell type.
  8. While those instructions are valid, it's a bit of a hamfisted way of doing things. It's much easier to go into the World of Warships folder -> res and open "scripts_config.xml" with notepad. If you're not comfortable with this you can always make a copy of the file before you edit it. Once you open it look at the bottom where you should see "<disableTrainingRoom>true</disableTrainingRoom>". Change that to "<disableTrainingRoom>false</disableTrainingRoom>" and you should be able to select Training Room from the dropdown menu in port, much like you would select random or co-op. I would have never considered looking under "skirmishes" either, but training room did make sense to me. There's no universally known name for this time of game mode. But you're right, if you're searching for this for scratch is much easier to ask on the forums instead of randomly searching keywords in the hopes you get the right one.
  9. Ok, seems like this thread is heating up! Here are the results of my trial in regards to IFHE and HE effectiveness at range. Hypothesis: With the upcoming neutering of fire chance for larger caliber guns with IFHE, dropping IFHE+DE, and taking only DE with a 152mm gun will lead to increased performance against non-broadside cruisers near the limits of CL combat range because shells do not hit only-IFHE vulnerable spots enough to compensate for loss of fire damage. Method: To do this I entered a training room with my Murmansk (152mm guns, 12% base fire chance), and engaged stationary A-hull Admiral Hippers from 12km out, both us of bow on. Like this! I chose Hipper because she is a very straightforward CA. Tier 8 means she is covered in 27mm plating, and this armor is uniform. All her plating is 27mm, no exceptions. Her superstructure is pennable by both IFHE and HE alike. Her turrets are immune to both. A-hull Hipper also burns for 6600 damage, a nice easy number to play with during our analysis. Murmansk has 6 forward facing guns. To simulate more realistic gameplay conditions, I did not aim for the bow. Instead I aimed slightly above the first turret to maximize hits. All 6 guns were fired in salvos until 29 or 30 shell hits were reached. Number of pens, shatters and fires were recorded, as well as damage dealt. I decided to measure by number of shells to help account for the RNG involved in aim. It also means we can divorce number of fires from our results, as fire chance can be mathematically calculated, as well as further modified by commander skills and flags. After all, the primary goal is to determine the vulnerability of a ship, not shell damage numbers (which can be mostly theorycrafted). Results: NOTE: I forgot to add in my chart, but the average number of salvos was 12. Minimum was 8, and maximum was 14. This averages to about 2-3 shells per salvo of 6, roughly 30%-50% accuracy. NOTE2: Due to RNG, the average number of hits is higher in the non-IFHE trial. This is due to above average accuracy on the final salvo. However none of these extra hits caused a fire, nor did they ever exceed one penetration. Qualitative observations. 1) In trials 4 and 5 with DE (where there were 2 fires), the second fire was set immediately upon the first going out. 2) In IFHE trials, the fires were generally set within 7 salvos, and lasted will 30 shells hit. 3) In non-IFHE trials, the fires were generally set within 3 salvos, and would go out shortly before 30 shells hit. 4) Fires can be started by non-penning turret hits. In the first IFHE trial, a single shatter against the turret lit a fire. 5) All fires were set on the forward superstructure. Analysis: Ooh boy. This was rather surprising. Lets start with the obvious penetration vs shatters. With IFHE there was an average of 25 pens and 5 shatters out of 30. This gives an average of 14078 direct damage. Without IFHE the was an average of 16 pens and 15.6 shatters out of 31.6 This gives an average of 8350 direct damage. Basically, with IFHE you only shatter one 6th of the time against Hipper. Without IFHE you shatter a little less than half the time. Basically, at 12km against a bow on Hipper approximately half of all the shells hit the superstructure. Looking at the difference, we can also conclude that ~10 out of 30, or 30% of all shells hit the plating. This is the part that surprised me the most. Hipper is an ideal target for IFHE, but I expected her bow on orientation to offer more protection. Currently, IFHE + DE is superior to DE. That's pretty obvious. But what if the fire chance were mauled? To get a nice base to work with, we can compare the IFHE damage w/o Fire (14079) to the DE damage with fire (17589). This is only a starting point. The fire chance isn't going to completely go away, but knowing we have 30 shell hits for our IFHE numbers, allows anybody who knows the fire coefficients to calculate the chance of a fire occuring. Also, given that the second fires were on the same location, we can also compare the data with the second fire removed. This gives us IFHE (14079) to DE (14949). Given that the DE category had a few instances of 1 addition pen, we can safely assume the damage against tier 8 cruisers is roughly equal if we assume IFHE has no fire chance. The unfavorable orientation of the Hipper also prevented more than a single fire at a time. This was also rather surprising. While the sample size was small, I still would have expected at least one fire on the bow somewhere since 30% of the shells hit the plating. This is likely because of the 30% of the shells that hit the plating, most hit amidships, not the bow. This will of course take more testing to verify, but it also makes IFHE stronger. Not hitting the bow reduces the effect of damage saturation, while preventing additional fire stacks. Of course, we can't overlook the second fires that much either. While this belongs in the realm of number crunching, I observed that DE build set fires much faster than IFHE +DE did. If the IFHE changes go through, it would become significantly harder to set fires in the first 30 shells. While continued combat would certainly make this less noticeable, for skirmishing it could make a noticeable difference. Assuming a short engagement, Damage control could save a cruiser from an IFHE fire, but not from a second fire. Conclusion: IFHE is pretty hard to beat when fighting cruisers. This test was set up to set unfavorable situations for IFHE. Bow-on minimizes exposed plating on cruisers, increases the protection offered by turrets and makes is harder to miss the superstructure. While DE certainly seems to have the upper hand in short engagements, where Damage control might be used once, DE captains will suffer against bow or targets protecting their fire points. There are of course a few problems with this experiment. While bow on is not uncommon, it's not very common for cruisers. Honestly I'm not sure why I chose Hipper first. Furthermore, people love to hit bow and stern this game. I got no bow fires on a bow on target. I would find that extremely hard to replicate if I went bow-on in a random. Probably the most useful outtake of this is hit ratio of amidship deck, turret, bow, and superstructure. Your superstructure and deck will take a beating. But you're probably not taking as much HE damage to the bow as you think you are. But against ships with a armored deck, or relatively thick plating like Bismarck, IFHE will significantly fall off on performance. I think I'll repeat this experiment sometime with a battleships to confirm that.
  10. The answer to getting radar'd in a cyclone is not being predictable, and by using situational awareness. Look at it from the perspective of the radar ship. It's not easy to radar somebody in a cyclone unless you already know where they are. Normally a radar ship can tell if somebody is in radar range if they're spotted when they shouldn't be. In a cyclone, both parties are blind. They're going to have no idea whatsoever you're 8.1 km away from them, unless you do something like enter a cap. And in a cyclone, they can't afford to waste a radar. Now, if you're spotted by one of their buddies, they can radar up to get vision on you safely. Likewise, if you spot them, and THEY break contact then light you up with radar, you got outplayed. Cyclone interactions have tons of depth, but unless we know exactly what happened we can't really help you with it.
  11. Like everyone has said, Fubuki is a good boat. IF she's not stock. You said you used a bunch of free exp to skip mutsuki. Did that leave you any leftover to use on Fubuki? A large amount of your issues with the line might be because you skipped Mutsuki. As the first DD to use triple launchers as a primary weapon, she can feel realllllly slow gameplay wise. This gives many people a bad impression of Mutsuki. You might have simply shifted this onto Fubuki. Also, you if you're using the dreaded 6km torps and just came from the USN DD line, you're probably not in the IJN DD playstyle yet. That playstyle really begins with Mutsuki. You shouldn't feel like you have bad guns because you shouldn't be using them except in emergencies (or smoke). Your torps are spotted from further away but they hit harder and have over 100% flooding chance. Flank and shoot them onto broadside targets who won't have enough time to dodge them all even once they're spotted. If you're charging in with smoke and trying to kill them like you could do in the lower tiers then you need to readjust your playstyle for the line.
  12. Great analysis! It's good to see somebody take the time to demonstrate something instead of just theorize numbers. However I have a few points of contention on the difference between your trial and real gameplay application. These primarily relate to your methodology. My first major contention is the engagement range and target orientation. While I understand that near 100% accuracy is ideal for testing purposes, it skews things heavily in favor of IFHE. Short range changes the profile of the target. With shots coming in horizontally can easily targets sections you know IFHE can pen, realistically this cannot happen. At the ranges cruisers usually engage enemies at, shells will come down at a steeper angle. While this angle is nowhere as steep as people make it out to be, it does mean that the 27mm sides of bow/stern become relatively smaller, the impenetrable turrets become relatively larger, and the extremely vulnerable superstructure also becomes larger. Given the natural increase of dispersion at those ranges, even excellently aimed shots will have a much higher change of going into either an impenetrable area or an area that you don't need IFHE to pen. All these areas will(?) still roll for fire chance (I gotta test this versus turrets). The other issues is the broadside orientation. Broadside is ideal, yes, but only constitutes a small portion of engagements. The closer to bow on, and the further out you are, the ratio of IFHE-vulnerable area to HE-vulnerable area goes down. The number of possible fire locations also go down. I'd argue in most real gameplay situations, you will be dealing with a max of 2-3 possible fire locations, with only 2 that you can reasonably aim for. I would be very interested in a test showing bow on engagements, with regular HE targeting the superstructure once fires are set. The second major point is engagement time. In most gameplay situations you will not be able to fire continuously. Two salvos can be certain, but after that it's pretty likely attention will shift to you and you'll be looking to break contact. In this situation, fires would be favored to direct damage. This is because, RNG willing, a fire will cause more "damage per shell" than IFHE boosted direct damage against battleships. Instead of average time to kill, it would be very interesting to see average damage over x salvos. Theoretically speaking, against a BB with DCP down, 1 IFHE salvo with no fire will lose to 1 fire. But at what number of salvos do things break even? Is it reasonable to discount IFHE fires, or will they completely change the outcome? How does range change things? What about cruisers who can't heal? And in the end, will the data support IFHE or HE +DE? I think you've inspired me to hop into a training room of my own! I think your trial was a great way to establish that IFHE has the highest theoretical maximum. But I'd hesitate to draw a conclusion given it's a completely ideal setup.
  13. It is very likely a detonation. However for a detonation to occur it requires the shot to hit your ship's magazine. Generally this can't happen unless you're in a DD yourself, or one of the low tier cruisers.
  14. In case this hasn't been settled yet, this is what happened. I double checked the replay, and the 1st and 3rd torpedoes pretty much hit horizontal to the #1 turret. Damage saturation is very real, and knowing how it works can be really useful in some late game situations. Unfortunately you gotta know your ship realllly well, or you'll overturn and take torps in the midsection.
  15. While I often wished I could see damage, I think it'll just lead to more negative feelings. The first thing people do when they're angry at a teammate is compare their damage numbers in WoT. And face it, I'm sure every WoT player her had done the same at one point. The big difference is damage dealt is a much poorer indicator of performance here than in WoT. 40,000 damage in a tier 10 game is great if it's all on DD. Very poor if it's all on BBs. If damage was listed newer players would focus more on it, because that's what usually matters. WoWS is different though, so I think it's good that they emphasize that in the score screen. XP might not be the best measure of performance, but it's many times better than damage.