Jump to content

CSSBT

Members
  • Content count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5275

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About CSSBT

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

327 profile views
  1. Good to know. So the Khaba's torps are kind of like mid tier Russian cruiser's torps for its tier... Its guns are hell for a BB player though. Maybe instead of removing HE from BBs, they can instead reintroduce the whole set of ammo types: top fuse HE, base fuse HE, and AP probably with base fuse also. Their fire chance, alpha strike, and pen should all be readjusted accordingly. Although this proposal might throw the performance of ship's armor completely out of whack. The radar thing also kind of goes back to the prevalence of power-creep in WG's products. It's understandable that they wanna introduce new game features and mechanics to keep people interested and draw new players in, but that tactic also has the potential to upset balance. Although I think highly specialized and strong premium vehicles is probably a bigger issue than the proliferation of radar. And of course WOT seems to suffer from even more power-creep. This is a good point and is exactly why I think radar should not work in game over hard terrain covers as if the can see through everything with no penalty.
  2. Speaking from experience, it seems that radar is why the Missouri is superior to the Iowa in game, and why my Edinburgh can never dominate like the Fuji a tier below despite being a better ship... #1 Thanks for the information. Although I don't think as of now WOWS features everything exactly or close to scale in comparison to reality. Aren't the typical engagement range for capital ships in game compressed versus in real life? Also aren't the penetration value of guns overvalued and armor thickness undervalued, and that the effect of bow plating iffy? I suspect these things didn't scale properly in game... #2 I think on Epicenter and Domination, we tend to see less of the passive slow bleed type of win or loss and I like that. But wouldn't the need to engage and eliminate the enemy be enough of an incentive to advance? #3 I'd Two Brother is the poster child of the problem I mentioned. Usually the two teams split, one team tends to win one side and the other team wins the other. Often how many ships managed to survive losing a side and the decision for a team to continue its attack or double back to defend decides the win or loss. It seems that how well can a team do any of this is rooted in how many of which ship initially went for a side... #4 Well what I said is kind of generalized but then it's just some of my observations rather than an end all style summary. #5 I agree. #6 They just seem to not use their guns when they should more often. In comparison, I rarely find a Khaba or Gearing driver not using their guns even if they play poorly otherwise... For awhile after radar was introduced, I thought that it wouldn't work around islands or at least it wouldn't work as well. But with the way it is now, radar can essentially go all the way through an island...
  3. I'm sure I will get there eventually. I just happened to find BBs most entertaining at higher tiers. My highest tier cruiser, CV, and DD are at tiers 8, 7, and 3 respectively. I suppose the DD driving experience isn't quite my cup of tea. Radar is quite an iffy game mechanic for sure. Perhaps allowing it to work beyond hard terrain covers with no penalty at all is not realistic. The reality with WW2 style radar is that hard cover screw with them quite a bit in real life I think... Looks like I screw up that poll. Tried to fix it to no avail. The CV situation is a total can of worms at this point. I used to play the class casually and have played both lines up to tier 7. But nowadays there's no point to continue... Sure without a doubt WOWs is a good game if not arguably the best of its genre. And it's true that I've only played BBs above tier 8. But then that's also the result of the economics of things and myself not wanting to be a burden to the team when playing a class I'm iffy with. Cooperative play is a good thing. But just as DD players often find BB players to not be up to par, the same is also true in reverse. In the last replay of my video, I ate 2 friendly torps fired at an enemy cruiser with only a few thousand HP which I killed. I get that torps get fired sometimes for the sake of area denial or in hopes for a hit, but sometimes it end up becoming an accident... The key word is "tier 6". I agree with your point. But then at tier 10 the situation is very different. As a BB driver I do not fear the same tier DDs at tier 6 nearly to the extent I do at tier 10.
  4. I noticed it. Looks like I screwed up. Tried to fix it but couldn't.
  5. Hello everyone, recently I produced a YouTube video featuring replays of the USS Montana at tier 10. If you are bored and can use a distraction today, feel free to check it out. But rather than a typical ship review video, I've kind of noticed that the footage in the video showcases various issues and things that can be improved with game play at tier 10. Among the things I noticed (and suggestions for improvement): #1 Most maps features a Littoral environment with close by shorelines, islands, shallow water, and straits. I think although ships did fight in environments that fall into this category in history, it did not happen nearly as frequently as it has in game. Arguably it's probably not a good idea to sail capital ships in such confined waters in real life due to various asymmetrical threats that they cannot sufficiently defend against. Mines, attacks from much smaller units like torpedo boats that thrive in the environment, shore batteries, air attacks, arguably even sabotage largely renders heavy ships vulnerable in a littoral environment. For example, in the Battle of Surigao strait, the IJN Fuso and Yamashiro fought a futile suicidal action in such confined and unsuitable environment. Meanwhile, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the British raid on Taranto, and the Italian raid of Alexandria were extreme examples of what happened to capital ships when they can't maneuver while attacked. Obviously the game cannot be completely realistic or faithful to history, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to look into this and come up with maps that features different types of environment. #2 The roles caps play in game aren't always good nor are they always conducive of good game play action. I think winning a fight in terms of damages, kills, and spots while losing because the enemy has more points is not an ideal situation. When there are more than two caps (i.e. WOT style set up) in game, the presence of the caps alone often promotes passive game play. It takes away the focus of the fight from engaging and annihilating the enemy. Rather camo, capping, spotting, and area denial become important. I think it is rare to have a situation in the history of modern naval warfare where it was key to control or contain a small patch of the ocean like a cap on WOWS. Sure if there's an amphibious or combined arms operation at play, it could happen. But then that's not a factor in WOWS. When a team's stealthier ships are not up to par or incidentally get taken out early, the team will watch victory slipping away due to having a major disadvantage to contest the caps. At this point, the team with the points lead often farm damage and/or hide and milk the caps, while the losing team becomes either passive or reckless: either way it often ends badly. What if we try to set up games that has no caps at all? Not even 2? This will bring the focus of the fight back onto engaging the enemy. The points count could be determined by the number and types of surviving ships, like the way historians look at the tonnage sunk and human casualty after the Battle of Jutland? What if as an alternative to having caps, the game offer an option for damaged ships to withdraw by offering them a chance to limp away to a designated part of the map's edge? I think this is also a game play mechanic faithful to history as the withdrawing of damaged ships often have strategic implications. For example, the USS Enterprise was seriously damaged in the Pacific multiple times but its survival proven crucial. Meanwhile the survival and withdraw of the German High Sea's fleet's capital ships after the Battle of Jutland was key to the strategic situation then. I think it would be good to make people fight eagerly and then withdraw. It's a better situation than the passiveness or recklessness found in game now. #3 Some maps by design forces a team to split up into multiple sub fleets to contest different areas of the map. This seems like a forced gamble, and it often was in history. Sometimes a smaller or weaker subfleet's demise in the hands of a stronger opponent often snowballs quickly and makes the team's success elsewhere irrelevant. Some maps also kind of isolate the subfleets by the design of their geography so that once the team has been split, it's hard to once again combined forces for cooperative play: distance is too far for effective engagement or timely relocation and line of sight is blocked... This often means doing your part isn't enough for a win just cause the team kind of went the wrong way or ran into the wrong enemies. #4 Ships, battleships in particular tend to not move much but rather try to function as bow tanking artillery barges. I would say that usually the Yamatos are probably the worse offenders of this. In a sense I don't blame them cause they have the guns that can go through bow plating, their citadels are exposed on the side, they aren't particularly fast, nor do their turrets turn quickly enough for shooting while turning. But ultimately this situation is kind of odd and not fun. It penalizes ships that don't have most of its firepower concentrated in the front and devolves games into a strange naval version of trench warfare where ships try to hide while bow on behind islands and mountains and take pot shots at each other like soldiers in neighboring trenches tossing grenades over the top. Although nobody likes to eat citadels, I still think this situation is not good for the game. #5 Destroyers' playerbase seems to have the highest skill floor and ceiling in game at tier 10. As a BB player, it seems that sometimes the cap situation is already a done deal due to the DDs even before I get to engage anyone. A good DD player can take out a not so good DD player extremely quickly. How good your DD is often puts a hard limit on how the rest of your team will fare. If the friendly DDs die early or are less skilled, the BBs often suffer tremendously due to not being able to anticipate enemy intention or have sufficient situational awareness. #6 I in particular dislike having torpedo boat style Japanese DDs (Shimakaze line) on either teams. As enemies they often come in divisions and can torp spam and/or snipe in ways that's almost impossible to counter in a BB. Ever been targeted by 45 torps at once? I have. It was not pretty. As allies, the Japanese DDs often do not counter enemy DDs. They might spot and cap. But when they run into the enemy DDs they will often run away while dumping their torps which aren't always good for attacking DDs. I've noticed that many of them almost never fire their guns. An enemy's on 500hp at 6km? They fire torps but their guns stay silent. They are also often so obsessed and tunnel-visioned that they will try to saturate an area where friendly BBs are engaged in a brawl with the enemy with torps. I've lost count how many times I've been torpedoed by friendly DDs while brawling. (my video shows this happening 3 times...) #7 Ironically, at tier 10 cruisers seem to play very differently versus at mid tiers, especially from a BB player's perspective. Maybe due to their vulnerabilities to big guns, they'll often play 2nd line at most. This often means they aren't close enough to the action to counter DDs or close enough to the BBs to provide AA. So much so that DDs and BBs often fight their own fight without help. The cruiser at tier 10 seem to focus on farming damage and opportunistic moves, on a good day they usually chime in and engage enemies that are already being engaged, distracted, or has overextended. But them as a defensive screen and support against enemies BBs can't see or maneuver against, often don't exist... Just some of my observations thus far. I'm obviously a fan of the game and I want it to improve and fulfill its potential. Feel free to discuss share your thoughts on the points I brought up and how things could be improved.
  6. Technically the Bohemian Corporal was. But then he was rather clueless about the Navy and Naval affairs. In terms of the branch's political importance, the Kriegsmarine was kind of their red headed stepchild (excluding the U-boat aspect of things) deprived of resources and attention. In comparison Goering's Luftwaffe was the 800 pound Gorilla in the room, while SS kind of took charge of many of the state's institutions, and the Heer was a much larger organization. I think Hitler clashed with Erich Raeder (head of the Kriegsmarine) so badly that he had Raeder replaced with Donitz and made the Kriegsmarine a mostly U-boat and almost nothing else operation. But I don't think Ernst Lindemann is someone unacceptable that has committed crimes during the war. As a reference, his task force commander during Operation Rheinübung, Gunter Lutjens had a post war Bundesmarine destroyer named in his honor. (Ironically I don't find Lutjens to be particularly competent while in command...) Incidentally another ship of the same class is named for Erwin Rommel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lütjens-class_destroyer
  7. I think gunboat DDs are often good counters to other DDs in general. But buffing DDs to counter DDs or vice versa can lead to powercreep that renders other ships classes more vulnerable, BBs in particular. With cruisers often not working as a DD screen for friendly BBs, strong DDs often pose extreme danger to BBs even if the BBs are well played...
  8. It seems that most of the names mentioned were naval theorists or strategists rather than ship commanders. Also the selection seems to have a slant in favor of pre-WW2 figures. What about Ernst Lindemann? Maybe he can have a buff to his main battery's accuracy, secondary reload and range, and a better chance of detonating the enemy's magazine? Though hopefully not at the price of garbage AA and no concealment after his fuel bunker gets damaged.
  9. I think perhaps WG should study historical naval battles more and try to model operations after them in terms of the ships involved, weather, and geography... Cause the way it's set up right now is kind of ad hoc and fictional if not speculative.
  10. The problem with anything below tier 5 and to an extent including tier 5 is that the ships are in general too inconsistent in terms of performance, capabilities, and balance. For example the BBs' main battery design vary significantly in terms of their layout and number of guns. Something like the Kaiser will suffer from awkward turret angles and locations during competitive play, while the Wyoming will out shoot the Myogi simply cause it has twice as many main guns. Quick reloading cruisers and other ships that can spam HE have massive damage potential due to ships having relatively thin extremity plating and the HP difference between BBs and cruisers not being as huge as it is at high tier. It will take skills to survive in cruisers as their citadels at low tier tend to be extremely vulnerable. So the balance between 2 teams are more easily upset just cause someone took a wrong turn and got blown out of the water in an instant. The problem with "incidental sudden death" is probably also gonna be pronounced with DDs. The role of CVs are obviously contentious at lower tier and might seal the fates of many teams due to the players' skill level gap. Also people will probably overuse premium ships at lower tiers as many of them are OP. I personally would've preferred that premiums serve the role of solid specialists, but in more often than not in game, they're now often the highest performing generalists of their type and tier...
  11. If they give the ship the Lion's transom stern with 3000 extra HP, maybe 1.5 knot higher speed, maybe a better heal, a little better sigma and dispersion, and a 2km buff to the range, the ship would then be fine... No wonder people claim the ship is a paywall or free XP sink.
  12. That works if the enemies chose not to push towards your general direction, cause if they do, the Monarch lacks the speed to evade. In my video, I fought a fighting retreat while trying to get away from a Grosser Kurfurst. Technically I could've ceased fire and try to get away using my concealment. But his bigger ship is also faster and there's only so much of the map where I can go. To top it off, all my maneuvering killed off more speed and he closed in... If the Monarch can turn as well as the UK cruisers, its top speed would be less of a problem... Also if the enemy have help from DDs and CVs, the Monarch might be in trouble anyways...
  13. That poll actually was set up to allow multiple answers. So you are not limited to picking only 1 answer. And I think regardless of everything, the QE at least has decent AA, enough range, good AP shells. And most importantly it will never be chased down by a Grosser Kurfurst. The Monarch really has no chance when cornered by tier 10s. All of the tier 9 and 10 BBs are bigger, tougher, stronger, and ironically faster. Concealment doesn't seem to be enough to save the Monarch cause it lacks the speed to disengage when needed...
  14. That's how it should work of course... But it's rather hard to make it work if you are matched against mostly Des Moines, Minotaurs, and Hindenbergs on the enemy team... Sometimes it shows up as the alone tier 8 cruiser on the team.
  15. It's the Monarch that has problems. The Edinburgh just gets shafted by the top heavy MM... That's a different aspect of the problem of the MM being top heavy...
×