Jump to content

NozTheWhiteDawn

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6176
  • Clan

    [SOV]

Community Reputation

32 Neutral

About NozTheWhiteDawn

Recent Profile Visitors

208 profile views
  1. T8 French DD Le Terrible

    ...As far as I'm aware, Tashkent's best recorded speed was made with absolutely no weapon mounts on the ship, something both the Soviets and WG conveniently ignored in claiming what kind of speed it could realistically make. As in both gun turrets and torpedo mounts hadn't been installed on the ship, and it likely wasn't carrying ammunition either - I'd additionally suspect it wasn't remotely carrying a full fuel load. All of this adds up to a huge amount of weight missing from Tashkent, and it wouldn't have remotely have been able to make that speed in trials with a full combat load, let alone actual combat conditions, and thus its trials weren't conducted at anything remotely close to its actual 3400 ton displacement. If you have an actual link with something different, I'd love to see it. Shimakaze, for example, actually made its top speed of 40.9kts with a full combat load.
  2. T8 French DD Le Terrible

    Well, this is rather disgusting... in that it's yet another nerfed high speed destroyer - this time a premium whose defining characteristic was her speed - for no real reason (well, not counting infringing on the imaginary speed niche the RU destroyers have as a reason). Or, in blunter terms, the only real historically significant thing about the Le Terrible is that it was the destroyer that, during trials, set the world speed record for that class... at 45kts.
  3. Fastest AA Defense Expert Ever

    More than useless, they were in fact actively detrimental to Hood because the wires drifted back and got tangled in her superstructure with any unexpected wind - not too terrible with practice rounds, but can you imagine if it was live ammunition? Hood being selected as the super special battleship with DFAA really was hilariously absurd.
  4. For someone weighing in on the historical aspect, it's almost impressive how uniformed you are. 1. IJN Type 93 torpedoes, in addition to being some of the hardest to spot torpedoes in the world due to the compressed oxygen which meant they left no bubble trail, were also carrying the largest warheads in the world. Yes Torpex is more excitable than the explosives the other nations were using, but when your warhead has to be mounted on a 21" diameter torpedo, as opposed to the 24" ones the IJN were basically unique in using, you are also using far less explosive in the first place. Depending on the exact mixes the US torpedoes might do slightly more damage, but it's not going to be hugely noticeable due to the warhead size difference (Mk 15 uses an 825 lb warhead, Type 93 uses a 1080 lb one). 2. Sure, the reloading process was slow, but it was also unique that IJN ships could reload during a battle AT ALL. Torpedo reloads being kept on the surface ship itself was a feature basically only the IJN did in the first place, everyone else had to either retire to a port or a torpedo tender ship. This was definitely an advantage for destroyers, but ultimately probably a bad decision for their heavy cruisers. 3. Yes, the actual IRL speed of the Long Lance is significantly slower than its in-game speed... but this applies to all other torpedoes as well. Torpedoes in general had selectable range settings that affected their speed, and comparing the Type 93 to the Mk 15, or even the Mk 17, at the same overall range settings is never favorable to the US torpedoes... and the word overall is used because the lowest range setting for the Type 93 is 20km... while the Mk 15's short range settting is 5.5km. The Mk. 17 is actually accurate in-game in it having a range of 16.5km (no range settings I can find for it, just that one range)... which still puts it as slower than Long Lances on 20km settings. 4. Part of the speculated reason why IJN cruisers have such exposed citadels in the first place is due to the torpedoes, so that little issue is likely already in the game. And I love when people decide to strawman legitimate complaints. There are actual game balancing reasons why the state of IJN torpedoes is such crap, without even getting into historical reasons, and it starts with the line(s) giving up so much for torpedoes that are roughly equivalent or even arguably WORSE than those that certain gunboat lines get. Because honestly? I'd rather hit with two 19k torps, or even two 16k torps, than a single 21-23k torp... especially since they come with a superior ship overall in other aspects (including torpedo reload and number of tubes). People mock it on the historical aspect due to garbage like the RU destroyer line being based on an aspect of them that was completely unrealistic (Kiev's stated speed was done in trials with absolutely no armament on the ship - not only ammo, but the actual entire turrets and the like which would add tens to hundreds of tons to the ship) while the IJN not only gets those huge issues on their torpedoes, but nonsensical garbage like Shimakaze getting nerfed 2kts below its actual trial speed with full combat load. Let's not even get into the gargantuan physics violation that is the Khabarovsk. If they wanted to base a DD line on gunboating speed, they should have just used the French ships, which actually has the incredibly fast destroyers like the La Fantastique.
  5. This is completely wrong, because in WG's armor penetration model exact numbers do not cut it. You need at least a fractional amount over the target number in order to penetrate a specific armor value.
  6. You know, if you're going to hammer someone for accidentally spreading misinformation, you should probably not do it yourself. Cruisers have 27 or 32mm hull/extremities since when, exactly? Last time I checked, it's 27mm for US/German, 25mm for IJN/French/Russian(bar Moskva's new 50mm lower bow plate) and 16mm for British. Not a single cruiser in the game has 32mm bow armor, not even the "totally not battlecruiser/large cruiser" Kronshtadt/Stalingrad/Alaska. And superstructure is only 16mm, even at T10, for all cruisers (bar the Brits at 13mm). 19mm is what BATTLESHIPS have as default superstructure numbers at T8-10.
  7. Pen for zero damage?

    Haha, no. This issue has been around for a while, and it's not just module damage causing it. However the hell WG models ribbons, there's definitely things wrong with it - from 0 damage AP "penetrations" in spots (even those without modules - and spaced armor is not supposed to completely stop AP shell damage, though it occasionally does cause a shell to magically vanish of course), to listed AP penetrations only doing overpen damage, to the ever fun "overpen" that did 6k and is really a double dipping shell that only recorded for you as the initial overpen.
  8. Is the Akizuki good/worth it?

    Akizuki is good, but if you're just grinding it now because of the upcoming line completion, you're better off not rushing. Both are looking mediocre at best, and straight up garbage at worst, because WG continues to screw over IJN DDs no matter if they're torpedo boats or not. "Hey, let's give this DD a larger turning radius than some equivalent tier BATTLESHIPS, let alone the cruisers, that sure makes sense" says WG's brilliant "balancing" (and I use that term lightly) team. Along with the only thing it being able to reliably damage with its guns (see: gunboat) being DD and cruiser superstructure unless it has IFHE - and thus at least a 10 pt captain. 8 torpedoes - Akizuki is still only mounting a quad launcher, not a quintuple... and this is probably for the best given WG's insane torpedo balancing system is apparently almost entirely based on how many tubes a DD has per launcher, rather than anything sane like total number of torpedoes - see also the 3 minute reload on Kitakaze and Harugumo's singular sextuple mounts.
  9. Baked in IF HE on 114mm and lower?

    Basically any remotely competent DD player has been saying this from the time it was originally announced. It's not remotely a "Will want the old way back" thing, I just want WG to actually competently fix the real issues, but it seems they are literally incapable of bothering do do so. Why introduce a simple solution when you can just massively overcomplicate to the point of completely breaking other things. Who cares about the Type 98 not historically having AP (something I'm fully aware of)? WG certainly doesn't care about historical accuracy a large chunk of the time, and arguments solely along the lines of "well, historically..." instead of anything remotely related to proper game balance are some of the worst in the game. Akizuki HE and AP are used in completely different situations - at least by competent captains of the ship - and making the HE better does not somehow make stripping the AP off and turning the ship into a mindless HE spammer with no ammunition considerations "balanced." There are plenty of actual "well, historically..." issues that could be brought up that would actually improve the game, starting with the idiocy of the underwater British BB citadels, to try and argue incredibly arbitrary nerfs/buffs based upon that principle should go through. To play the "well, historically..." game, they're not even remotely historically accurate, even before accounting for the hilariously bad powder handling practices by the Royal Navy which should make them even more vulnerable. Or IJN torpedoes with their hilariously large detection ranges and incredibly long reload times - because that certainly makes sense for the nation with the stealthiest torpedoes of the war... and the only one that regularly carried torpedo reloads at all on their ships.
  10. Baked in IF HE on 114mm and lower?

    And your reasoning for this is... what exactly? And it's not just T8+ DDs that the 114 and 100mm HE are ineffective against - T8+ battleships also have 19mm of superstructure armor, meaning without IFHE you literally cannot do damage to battleships at all with your HE - and AP against them is incredibly situational based on angle. Even slight angling starts causing a large number of shatters with the AP against even 19mm of armor, which does not remotely fly if you're fighting someone at all competent. Akizuki can somewhat get away with it due to being T8, and thus gets at least some games with T6/7s, against which the ship doesn't doesn't need IFHE. Kitakaze/Jutland on the other hand will almost entirely see T8+, and Harugumo/Daring will exclusively see T8+, meaning that no longer applies.
  11. operation cherry blossom - devs

    Instead you'll just deal with a flood of torpedoes, since Shiratsuyus made up 3/6 of the IJN DDs at Empress Augusta Bay. :P Yeah, yeah, the operation is not going to stick to precise ship numbers for any number of obvious reasons, but given tiering seeing a bunch of that specific T7 is a likelihood. All the other aspects they were talking about for this operation just seem plain cool, and I'd love to see more in this vein in the future - night battles made up a fairly large part of the surface actions in the Pacific. As for the historical aspect, WG manages to make minor errors in their historical discussion again - the IJN only lost two ships, not three, during the battle. And it can't just be lumping actual sunk and withdrawn ships together, because that total was higher than three even before the force decided to withdraw as a whole. Secondarily, whoever's currently doing the voiceover work REALLY needs a voice director. The first person had absolutely horrid pronunciation - seriously, it took a moment to realize he was even talking about Rabaul it was so bad, and Bougainville was only recognizable due to how long it was - and it was made worse because the second person also mentioned Rabaul like 5 seconds later with a completely different pronunciation (a far better one). This isn't exactly something it should take a lot of time or money to do right, and it looks so much more professional.
  12. What would make AP more attractive?

    Not to be unkind, but this is only true to an extent. There are multiple cruisers that Conqueror can citadel with HE and, given HE doesn't give a crapabout armor angling, can do so from incredibly steep angles where AP would have bounced or overpenned. Hell, even without hitting the actual citadel I've lost half of cruisers to a single Conqueror HE salvo, simply because RNG decided multiple shells hit me at 15+km - angling doesn't matter, and there's nothing aside from the belt (on SOME cruisers, not all) that shatters it. This is of course all ignoring the secondary effects of the HE too on targets - i.e. fire chance, of course, but also broken modules in general, or destroyed secondaries and AA in particular. Making the line HE focused to begin with was already incredibly dumb, but giving said HE 1/4 pen remains one of the most idiotic decision's WG's ever made. Yes, Conqueror can perform fine with AP too, but at that point you're just playing the same as any other battleship line. If you're not having lines of ships stupidly sailing broadside to you, even after knowing where you are, then your damage potential goes way down.
  13. WG Hates IJN DD Confirmed

    Let's be entirely fair, the entire CV model, and the way WG's handled it for a while now, is complete garbage. Virtually every single tier is a complete mess - from T5s having no autodrop or strafing and having to deal with T6 CVs which do*, to Saipan at T7, to the idiotic Graf Zeppelin at T8, to just the dumb "stick massive AA numbers on everything," WG has pretty comprehensively proven they're terrible at even implementing CVs, let alone balancing them. US CVs in particular often getting the short end of the stick - and Midway in particular is a problem, because it was the utter OP monster, not Hakuryu, back in beta when it had dual torpedo bomber squadrons - is just a minor problem in the grand scheme of things. It getting that second squadron back NEEDED some sort of nerf to go along with it. Or, as Fara pointed out on his original GZ video back when that firestorm initially hit, basically none of the developers have any CV time on their public accounts. Always a good sign for a class in any sort of multiplayer game when none of the devs even bother playing it to learn how it gels with the rest of the game in a live environment. *: Additionally, the removal of those mechanics at T5 was what truly hurt the Bogue, rather than the complaints about # of squadrons or hangar size that have been around forever. Contrary to what many people claimed, a competently played 1/1/0 Bogue was far more dangerous than Zuiho prior to that.
  14. This is almost certainly correct, but there have been a few times I've had to stop and wonder.... Most notable case being just after the game went gold and I was in Kawachi. I snap-fired a volley at a Tenryu darting behind an island and, due to the nature of how fast I took it misjudged his speed. The entire volley came down on my aim point, well behind him as he disappeared behind the island... except for one single shell which scattered all the way to the very edge of Kawachi's dispersion, arcing up and over the island and directly down on the poor guy's citadel. Realistically it was just some ludicrously absurd fluke RNG, but the sheer absurdity of that shot, or ones like it, does occasionally give me pause.
  15. Top This... A Weekend Challenge to all

    No screencap but I had a 124k Akizuki game with a Kraken... as bottom tier. No screencap because it was a loss - just been my fate this week to get ALL the bad teams (played 26 matches this week, won 8). I capped, I spotted, I killed, I scored nearly double second place (1820 vs. 980) - just wasn't enough.
×