Jump to content

Craterkhan_1

Members
  • Content Сount

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    12993
  • Clan

    [-66-]

Community Reputation

51 Good

About Craterkhan_1

Recent Profile Visitors

752 profile views
  1. The best battle I had in the subs was with the U-190, The game lasted till the end and the enemy bots actually won the battle (Somehow) with three ships left, a Balao, a Bismarck, and a Parseval (Big read) The subs do indeed have carry potential when played appropriately, however, I would definitely say it's much much harder to pull off a carry in a sub than a DD, as a DD can still blast low health targets with its main guns rather than having to wait for the torpedoes A couple of unusual suggestions that I feel would improve the gameplay just a bit. (Note these are actually pretty fun for me to play and I have access to all 6 submarines) 1. Speed doesn't have to be modified, but the turning ability of a submarine underwater does. When your on the surface you feel like your driving a destroyer and have the maneuverability, but underwater, you feel like a Vermont trying to turn, which means that in sub vs sub battles, if neither of you land torpedoes on each other on the first pass, you both have to wait for ages to turn so you can get another volley off from your bows unless your one of the submarines equipped with stern torpedoes. The core issue is that it feels like you are playing two different ships, a destroyer on the surface, and a battleship down below. While that does make sense historically, gameplay-wise it can be an issue. None of the other 3 surface classes have that issue and it's doubly worse if you have a broken rudder. Shifting between the depths is fine and the speed changes when translating from above the water to below the water are fine, its just the turning. Its really more of a personal gripe. 2. Slow the torpedoes down. Not because fast torpedoes will break the game (Halland exists and the torpedo guidance is pretty simple to dodge) but because its very difficult to utilize fast torpedoes in a close-in battle where the guidance is important if the enemy is maneuvering. You don't have the time to keep pinglocking a ship when the torpedoes go that fast. This means a lot of wasted torpedoes that have a long reload which slows down the fight. An idea to fix this, but keep the fast torpedoes in the game, would be to start them slow, a ping lock speeds them up a little, and a double ping speeds them up to their current levels. This mostly applies to sub vs sub battles and not so much to surface ships, as if your that close to a surface ship on the surface in a sub, your borked. 3. Adjust the camera so it moves in the vertical plane when targeting a submarine. If the submarine is constantly changing depth, it can become difficult to track with the camera. Surface ships do not have this problem vs each other as the dynamic reticle and various other reticles incorporate vertical tracking aspects to improve shots, something that isn't present when targeting subs. The horizontal tracking capacity is fine, but there definitely needs to be a vertical tracking aspect so more pings do not get wasted by players when they attempt sub vs sub combat in close quarters. (A lucky detonation with that score) Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions about the subs. No, Subs do not bypass torpedo protection even with the double ping lock. They can still hit citadels, but torpedo protection will still be in effect. Testing has proved this to be (Mostly) true. (I debate whether the torp hit the belt or an unarmored section sometimes) Homing guidance for torps does appear to stop at 1 kilometer still. So no matter how locked on you may be, expect your guidance to stop at 1 kilometer and fire torpedoes accordingly. This is a good thing as you can see the torps coming from a long way away as a surface ship and you have time to dodge appropriately. AA does not work at all. This is something that should definitely be incorperated. If you are stuck on the surface as a sub and a CV spots you, your borked, simple as that. Edit: I did not use any flags for these games, only the standard camoflauge
  2. TL;DR, Don't be a 2nd grader on a game, otherwise your no different than a 12-year-old Fortniter.
  3. People just get incensed about carriers because they are the class designed to do what the other classes cannot, barring maybe 2-3 exceptions. I myself have 3 of the 4 techline T10 carriers, the Gapedoften, the Hackysack, and the Audacity, Still working towards Midway, but with the 3 distinctly different t10 carriers and having played all of the carriers leading up to them, I think I can state my opinion. Especially since I have multiple top tier ships across all the other classes as well, so not only can I give my opinion, but counter my own opinion too. The CV hate wankers will always cry when their ship gets smacked as properly as it should be. Sure, you positioned well in your 12km radar HE spamming 32mm penning cruiser that can reach out past 18 kilometers and thus be safe for most of the game (See Des Moines, Alexander Nevsky, some Worcesters), or your 15km torpedo range 94 knot rocket torpedo Halland that even with a Hindenburg Hydro unless you were already out of the way of the torps, your eating at least one. And you consider the ship on the other side, who could be a properly tanking battleship, or a cruiser covering his allies with his 6.9km AA, to be having a good time? Oh and you thought the french destroyers were still doing poorly, but when that half-health Mogador rushes you and decides to unload his torpedoes into you, and you can't kill him because his nose is already saturated and french DD health distribution is far different, then you'll be whining about no counterplay to that as well. (Side note, even a Khabarosk can pull what Mogador and Kleber does, it's just that no one wants to do it XD) Unless you get a lucky detonation, you will almost never devstrike any ship in a carrier using ANY of the carrier's (3) armaments, say goodbye to that medal. Unless you're in the almighty FDR, you're almost never going to get high caliber, or Witherer, or Arsonist. The only carrier that stands a chance of doing that is Midway with her far superior HE bombs to the Audacious's carpet bombers. Due to AP bombers being nerfed into oblivion, it shows that people would rather die to fires and HE rather than get overpenned half the time with AP bombs, sure take that consistent damage, it makes my play through the Ranger easier. You used to be able to consistently get First Blood if you happened to fly your rocket planes over the cap where the non-AA spec destroyer decided to foolishly charge in without AA support. Now with the changes, you'll probably get your planes shot down long before they can even fire their inaccurate rockets. Be real destroyer players, you weren't ACTUALLY worried about dying to the carrier, you just irritated that the 3k damage from the rockets that he flew over you one time during the whole game made your three-point investment into survivability expert useless, learn to play a stock HP destroyer instead of relying on the captain skills. If your a destroyer with smoke, spotting by the carrier does not matter to you as if he drops fighters, you drop a smoke, consumable for consumable, you still getting that cap. If you French or Russian, you can PTFO out of there, and if you're a Pan-European (Swedish) destroyer, you want the planes to be flying over you so your ungodly DPS can shred them and earn you AA defense expert. "Oh but muh plane spotting me is gonna get me shot at by the whole enemy team!" If you were playing so far ahead that the enemy team has a reasonable chance of shooting at you and hitting you, you were in the range of a radar. Lets be real here, there is never not at least one radar ship in the game, mostly two, RNG dictates four, everyone knows that story. The only ships that can consistently land shells on a destroyer at long range are the high-velocity ships, and those ships (Unless you're Russian) Don't have radar. "CV's can dumpster me from A10 and I can't shoot back!" Are you actually a moron? Seriously, most carriers don't even move from their spawn even when a DD is shoving torpedoes into their rear. The ones who do end up moving to A10 are usually doing so late to end game, when they are already losing and don't want to die, like any reasonable player would probably be doing in any ship if they aren't manly and trying to 1v5. And by late game, the carrier is sending out half-squads (Unless you are FDR) that if they make it through even your Japanese BB AA, will do 3k damage to you, whoopdy do. I once got down to 45 HP in my Al.Nevsky, my AA mount status was 32%, I had no DFAA (I ran hydro) and low and behold, because I wasn't an idiot chasing the carrier, I didn't get killed by him, got my dreadnought and my fireproof too and a victory, funny how that works. An intelligent CV player moves their carrier closer to the front lines at first so they can field their squad faster and by proxy cut the return time to the carrier. "CV's have infinite planes!" You have infinite ammo and torpedoes that travel faster than my planes, shut up. Not to mention I can't shoot shells out of the skies or torpedoes out of the water. You don't want to admit that though because having a limited shell count that forced you to pick your targets would keep you from yoloing in. Lets imagine it like this. A ships turret has the shells that are loaded in the upper storage near the gun. Once you run out of those shells, it has to raise the ammunition from the larger, lower storages, which takes time. Shocker, isn't that pretty similar to a CV having to raise its planes from the hangar to the flight deck before it can launch them? Oh but because it has wings we cant do correlation because we are all 2nd graders that stamp our feet when the bully throws a rock at us from across the playground. If there was EVER a timer for ammunition to be raised to the gun, never mind loaded, then all hell would break loose in the game. But, when the time comes when a cruiser needs to be dislodged from an island, the team calls upon the carrier to dislodge him and risk HIS planes and HIS consumables to get that campy spammy cruiser out so the team can shoot him. When the last ship on the enemy team is a DD, and you have a carrier, your team expects the carrier to go and find him. It would be a SHAME if you had to get spammed down by a cruiser and couldn't call on 'The Fun Police' to help you. It would be a SHAME if that destroyer that sneaked past your formation was torpedoing your battleships and no one could find him in time before he sunk your tanks and capped your base. It would be a SHAME if someone couldn't hit the Vermont that was hammering your team from 24km away and no one could reach him or else they'd die to his overmatch. People are so two-faced about carriers that its not even funny. The changes are, agreeably, stupid, and are designed to cater to the whining class that can never seem to close their mouths, typically it's people who haven't even played 'The God Class' before, and you don't have to spend 100 games playing a class you don't like in order to know that it is difficult. The one true OP thing about carriers in REAL LIFE, was that they could field hundreds of squads at the same time and overwhelm ships from ranges so unbelievably far it would take days for ships to cross the gap. In-game, they are nowhere close, with their one single squadron that has planes there solely to be sacrificed to the bullet gods so the other planes can drop their ordinance and have only a CHANCE to hit. But because I am a Pro-CV and anti-campy gameplay with a focus on killing backline snipers, I guarantee my opinion, nor the facts presented in actual gameplay, will make anyone think twice about the truth. If people still believe in a Flat Earth, people will still whine about carriers, and that is that.
  4. Craterkhan_1

    CV Isnt Overpowered

    At least a CV has to fly to its target to get the damage and play the minigame of AA in order to get it. BB's can sit 20+ Kilometers away and still get it without ever being touched by anything other than another BB or the enemy CV half the time XD.
  5. Craterkhan_1

    ST 0.9.7, changes to test ships

    We have that already, no surprises its Russian, because its the Kremlin. Hell the Kremlin even gets the blyatful accuracy buff at close range and is practically immortal while being fast too. There still isn't a reason to pick Vermont over the Kremlin.
  6. Craterkhan_1

    ST, asymmetric battles

    I think a lot of people are misinterpreting how the words are said. The tier of ships on either side are still going to be in the same spread (E.G no Omaha is going up against a Massachusetts) the game is still spread between tiers 5-7, for example, it's just that one team gets more t7's but has fewer ships, and the other team has more t5's overall but there are more of them on a team. That being said, it sounds like something that could be fun, especially if they make it so unicums face up against a bunch of lower-skilled players. Those lower-skilled players would learn to work together to defeat the higher tier players while the high-skill players need to exercise that skill in order to pull a victory since there are fewer of them. Test in a separate mode though first and then go for randoms as a map type or something.
  7. So with the advent of submarines coming into the game soon, I noticed that people are getting upset over more tasks being added on to the DD role with very little added into the BB, CA, or CV roles. My suggestion is to perhaps expand the capture points diameter so that way battleships and cruisers will end up contesting for captures more often. Even if a cap circle needs to be removed, the larger circles will prevent radar cruisers with giant radars from camping islands and radaring whole caps, carriers will have to search a broader seascape to hunt destroyers, and battleships can stick their noses in to tank. Yes this change could make matches take longer, but considering the relatively fast pace of games and more roflstomps occuring, this change could help get battleships and cruisers involved more in cap contests rather than just telling destroyers to cap and waiting for the enemy DD in the cap to get spotted and nuked. No hate, but what do you guys think?
  8. Craterkhan_1

    USS Black, PA DDs and the proposed anti torp mod

    On the other hand, the upgrade states, "Allows for torpedoes to be detected at a fixed distance of 1.8 km, regardless of the torpedoes' detectability range." So this means that Shimakaze's 2.5km detection torpedoes would be detected at 1.8km instead. Not that many people would take the 20km torpedoes over the 12km or 8km torpedoes, and it only affects one ship, but at least its something favorable for the Shimakaze XD.
  9. Craterkhan_1

    Misconception on Sinking Smolensk's

    Depending on the angle at which the AP shells enter the citadel it is of course possible to land a broadside devastating strike with the Montana. It's slow shell velocity will allow the shell more time to arm in the citadel, whereas with every other battleship their velocity is higher and results more often than not in overpenetrations. As for the HE nonpens, thats due to the fact that Smolensk has that 70mm armor plate and the Montana can only penetrate 67mm of armor with its 406mm guns, otherwise for every other battleship, they have just enough HE pen to get through. British and German battleships gain 1/4 HE pen, Republique, Kremlin, and Yamato just have big guns, and they dunk on ships otherwise. A slight trick to getting AP to work on a broadside (Although VERY RNG dependent) Is to try and get the shell to hit the water JUST before the ship. Im not sure if water actually fuses the shell or not but it seems to score cit hits that way.
  10. So I was perusing the forums and I noticed that the salt over Smolensk was a bit higher than usual this week, mainly over the fact that it is, as termed by the majority of people, a "Smoke HE spamming uncitadelable monster." Now for me, the monster known as Smolensk isn't all that much a monster and I wanted to share some of the ways that I figured out that were quite good with dealing with a Smolensk in order to hopefully help those who have trouble dealing with the vessel. Keep in mind this is simply a VS comparison and these notes do not take into account the POTENTIAL positioning of a ship and it's teammates against an enemy team. Therefore do not read into it as a universal guide to sinking a Smolensk every time one appears. This guide is lengthy, so if you do not wish to read lots of text, do not attempt to read. First, let's highlight some of the traits that make Smolensk a good ship. 1. 16 guns with very good velocity and a high ROF and fire chance for their caliber. 2. A skinny profile with minimal armor that most would think makes the ship easy to destroy with Battleship AP, but in reality, allows most Battleship AP to fly straight through it without detonating. 3. The Smoke Generator consumable allows the ship to maintain distance and remain undetected while being able to support a flank or a push with concentrated HE fire. 4. A powerful AA suite that can deter the majority of carrier players. Only a few select best can make it through her HP pool and cause damage. All these aspects combined with other smaller factors such as high speed and good maneuverability make Smolensk a fearsome ship no doubt, but this is a "How to fight it" type guide, not a ship review. The first thing that has to be overcome when fighting a Smolensk is the psychological factor. Many tend to believe because it is a light cruiser with minimal armor that it should be deleted by Battleships whenever it even appears on the minimap, but this simply isn't true. Quite the opposite in fact. Smolensk is one of the few ships that break the rock-paper-scissors type combat in World of Warships, and becomes the paper that breaks the scissors. Because of this, the mentality that a battleship should be able to destroy a Smolensk every time it appears should not stand. But the Smolensk becomes vulnerable to other factors in order to gain this power against battleships. Namely cruisers. Cruisers are by far the most effective vessel for fighting a Smolensk. Even contemporary light cruisers with the exception of the Minotaur stand a fair if not good chance of putting a Smolensk down. It should generally be preached that Battleships are NOT supposed to be the Smolensk's counter, but other cruisers. There are a few reasons for this. 1. Smolensk is equipped with 16 130mm rifles. Ordinarily, this is very scary to many foes, especially DD's with the lethally fast ROF. However due to the small gun caliber, the HE penetration of these guns is only 21mm. Couple this with Smolensk's pathetic stock firing range of 13.2km, and now Smolensk captains have to choose between two skills. IFHE, which will boost the penetration of these guns to 27mm while cutting the fire chance down, or AFT, which can boost the firing range out to 16.6 Kilometers. Concealment Expert is, for the most part, a given take on any vessel, and as such if you were to invest in all three skills (IFHE, AFT, CE), it leaves Smolensk captains with very few points to throw elsewhere. Most captains tend to choose AFT as operating with a 10km detection range on a light cruiser when the maximum firing range is only 13.2km leaves little wiggle room. A fair majority even sacrifice the 3 Million Credit module that enhances reload and instead opt for the extended firing range mod to bring the maximum firing range out to 19.2 Kilometers, adding a massive amount of room for Smolensk to operate in. This means that a lot of Smolensk captains must forgo IFHE in their builds. Those who do take IFHE certainly can penetrate 27mm of armor and cause amazing HE alpha damage due to shell volume, but this limits their maximum range to 16km, which can be a chore to work during a tier 10 match, and it cannot overmatch 30mm of armor plating still, a popular armor found on many cruisers including the Smolensk's deck itself. Now let's take a look at all contemporary cruisers, including the battlecruisers. All of these vessels, both light and heavy, with the exception of Minotaur, possess at least 25mm of extremity armor plate (Minotaur only possesses 16mm of extremity armor plate). Most cruisers also have at least 30mm of deck and upper belt armor. This means that Smolensk's tend to shatter the majority of HE shells on cruisers that don't hit the superstructure, which on most cruisers, such as Zao, Des Moines, Worcester, Henri IV, and others, is quite hard to hit as their superstructure is smaller compared to the likes of Hindenburg and Moskva and Venezia. The battlecruiser Yoshino possesses very little superstructure with lots of 25mm armor plate, and I have found it is quite easy to push a Smolensk clean out of its position with the Yoshino, as their speeds are quite similar, meaning the Smolensk cannot run away easily. 2. Smolensk's shells have a stock fire chance of 8%, which can be boosted to 11% with proper flags and skills. This combined with its high ROF makes it a huge firestarter and is the main source of the Battleship's pain as well as a Smolensk's damage numbers. The sheer volume of fire chance is beyond lethal and Smolensk's can easily set 2-3 fires on a battleship in a matter of seconds. Damn those angry little turrets! However in this category as well, a cruiser far outpaces it's larger cousins when fighting Smolensk's. Cruisers, unlike their Battlecruiser and Battleship cousins, only burn for 30 seconds maximum as opposed to the standard 60 seconds for larger vessels, and their fire prevention chance is similar to that of a battleship of the same tier albeit slightly lower. In practice, this means that Smolensk's primary source of damage, fire, has its overall damage slashed clean in half and possibly more depending on what type of build the enemy cruiser has. Cruisers also possess a faster recharging DCP, and can put out fires faster than battleships can. 3. Smolensk possesses a very skinny profile and very minimal armor of 16mm bow and stern armor, 30mm of deck armor, 70mm of citadel belt armor, and 50mm of citadel deck roof. When a battleship shoots at a Smolensk, this very minimal armor plate often fails to arm the majority of battleship AP shells. To put this into perspective, the Japanese Battleship Yamato requires 77mm of armor in order to arm the fuse in it's AP shell. This means by the time it penetrates 77mm of armor plate, it is already halfway through the Smolensk and from there the fuse timer begins to count down. However, once that fuse finally goes off, the shell has already exited out the other side of the Smolensk, resulting in an Overpenetration rather than a Citadel Hit. This is true for the majority of battleships, as even those with a lower AP arming threshold such as the Grosser Kurfurst with it's 68mm of arming threshold, often have a higher AP shell velocity, and so the shell travels through the skinny Smolensk even faster. Cruisers however do not suffer the same issues as battleships, especially battlecruisers. All cruisers have a much lower AP arming threshold than Battleships and stick in the Smolensk's citadel far better than a battleship AP shell. Even the Worcester's AP shells, widely considered the most inferior AP shell of all the tech tree cruisers due to no improved angles or penetration as well as the smallest caliber, are lethal to a Smolensk, as they arm with only 25mm of armor plate. They cannot overmatch Smolensk's 16mm bow armor plate, but if a Smolensk is caught broadside by any cruiser, they will receive massive damage. A single salvo from the Des Moines frontal turrets is capable of dealing 30,000 points of damage assuming all 6 shells are citadel hits, which is actually not that hard considering Des Moines has very good dispersion even at range. This damage is almost ALL of a Smolensk's hitpoints. Factor in the back turret of a Des Moines and that is 45,000 damage, an easy devastating strike even against a Smolensk running the Survivability Expert commander skill. Battlecruisers, as well as the Henri IV, can also overmatch the 16mm bow and stern plating of the Smolensk, resulting in good penetrations, and for Battlecruisers, the occasional citadel through the nose or stern. 4. Smolensk possesses the Smoke Generator consumable. This consumable allows it to fire from long range without being detected by enemy warships. Due to the small caliber of its guns, it's smoke firing penalty is only 5.91km, which means it is safe from enemy fire past this range excluding torpedo attacks. Cruisers are the perfect counter to Smolensk's smoke. Cruisers have a very low detectability in general (Excluding obvious no's such as a Moskva) and can get close to a Smolensk's smoke without being seen and shot at. They also have a much better chance of dodging Smolensk's torpedo's than a battleship does. A lot of cruisers also possess means of long-range detection. Both the Worcester and Des Moines equip radar, which can reveal a Smolensk in smoke from 10km away. The cruiser Moskva possesses an even farther 12km reach with its radar, completely invalidating a Smolensk's smokescreen. Hindenburg, while not fast enough to pursue a running Smolensk, can utilize it's Hydroacoustic Seach consumable to detect the Smolensk in smoke and a Henri IV, while possessing a shorter range Hydroacoustic Seach consumable, can easily run down a Smolensk that tries to retreat out of its smoke. Battlecruisers such as the Yoshino which I mentioned earlier, can also drive a Smolensk out of its smoke with its speed and cause significant damage. ---------- Now what if you are a battleship player. I've enumerated that cruisers are a significant counter to Smolensk, but not everyone runs cruisers. So here I will add an addendum as to some options to fight a Smolensk in a battleship, a carrier, and a destroyer. In a Battleship: Your primarily designed to engage big targets. A Smolensk shouldn't be a target you aim at every time, as the majority of times you hit it, it is like hitting a destroyer, for very minimal damage. If you must shoot a Smolensk with AP shells, you must wait until it either turns it's nose towards you or presents an angle so your AP shell can pass through more armor. Doing this will allow your AP to arm inside the Smolensk and explode inside, most likely in the citadel. The majority of battleship devastating strikes that occur against a Smolensk is when a Smolensk is nose-on to the battleship. Granted this requires a lot of RNG to accomplish, but it does net at the very least a solid penetrating salvo, which hurts enough considering Smolensk's low HP pool of 32,400. Alternatively, battleship HE is quite effective against Smolensk. With the exception of Montana, almost all battleships at tier 10 possess over 70mm of HE penetration, more than enough to score HE citadel hits against the Smolensk, which can cause significant damage as well as destroy modules with ease and start fires on the firestarter itself. In a Destroyer: Engaging a Smolensk in a destroyer directly is a fool's game. With its incredible guns for anti-dd warfare, a Smolensk easily cleans up destroyers like a Roomba picking up dirt, but there are ways to for a destroyer to fight the Smolensk. Smolensk does not possess the ability to mount radar, and so farming a Smolensk from smoke is an easy game. Even the British destroyers without IFHE can damage a Smolensk's main armor plate of 16mm, and thus can melt down a Smolensk very quickly. Smolensk's that sit in their smoke also make themselves prime targets for torpedoes. The Harugumo, Kleber, and Khabarovsk are all very good destroyers for annihilating Smolensk's with main guns provided you play the ships as they were intended. In an Aircraft Carrier: It can be hard to launch an attack on a Smolensk. It's already impressive AA is married with a Defensive AA Fire consumable, making Flak Clouds able to literally deplane a squadron in a single second. The primary type of ammunition to use against a Smolensk with an Aircraft Carrier is Rocket Attack Aircraft as they can easily penetrate Smolensk's armor and cause a lot of damage while being relatively easy to aim. American Tiny Tims makes quick work of Smolensk's. Do be careful however as rocket planes are shot down very easily. HE Bombers and Carpet Bombers especially can cause an immense amount of damage to Smolensk, and so those should be the backup type of attack you utilize against Smolensk. Refrain from using Torpedo Bombers if possible as Smolensk's agility and high speed makes it very likely to dodge a torpedo attack. ---------- I do hope this guide, lengthy as it was, provides insight on how to defeat the Smolensk. Personally I don't consider the Smolensk overpowered (It's nowhere near the top of the stat boards that I look at). I can see why it might be unfun for a lot of people to play against, but personally, a Worcester presents a deadlier threat than Smolensk. So far in Ranked Worcester has proven to 1up Smolensk by a huge number. But that could be attributed to luck. Anyways, good luck out there captains, and happy Smolensk hunting!
  11. Craterkhan_1

    Questionable Hatred?

    As expected, the discussion is quite lively between the sub-haters and the sub-supporters. I can say I am a Pro-Submarine person, and as I was browsing the forums, I realized that the single complaint about submarines was their citadel-damaging torpedoes that pretty much make their high-risk high-reward playstyle. People do not seem to like the Alpha that these things can do. Now for me, I see it as necessary. How else are these subs going to get good damaging games like other ships can? But anyway, this isn't what the thread is about. What it's about is, why is it that people whine and moan and complain about large alpha strikes, but then at the same time absolutely despise the DOT killers (CV's) and the HE Spammers that slowly whittle away at your health? Sounds counterintuitive to me. Everyone hears it all the time. "Ohhh no that BB deleted me from full HP!" "Ohhh no that Smolensk burned me down and I couldn't do anything!" "Ohhh that DD torpwalled me too much skill!" Are we trying to find like a middle ground across all spectrums of vessel? If that were the case there would be no diversity between classes or nations when it came to how the damage was obtained, and it would be boring as hell. Just curious as to thoughts on this.
  12. Craterkhan_1

    It's hard to take CV feedback to the devs when...

    I just find some things about the community hilarious. (Wall of sensible text incoming!) I need not quote statistics or anything here. All I need to use is logic to see that the CV's are no different in influencing a game than any other line. First. All the Anti-CV people wanted quote on quote "Infinite spotting to disappear." As such that happened. Now CV's only have one squad that can drop a fighter consumable. Now reasonably speaking most people wanted fighters to be controllable. The result is that there would be CV players that destroyed the fun for Strike CV players as Fighter CV players. How is that any different from RTS CV play? Cause one you effectively deplane the carrier. (Which in this system would be far too easy) then you can freely strike with your planes JUST like in RTS. So there can't be any controllable fighters. On top of that, the most a CV can spot in terms of ships is two. One with the fighter you drop wherever (Which is so easily shot down even by DD's) and of course the strike squad. At t10, where before you could have 6 or even 8 planes squads spotting at one time, I certainly think that the area in both fighters and spotting has been drastically improved so as to make the people who find it difficult to play the new CV's still able to play against a good player. Second. Everyone complained that they could be crossdropped alphastriked deleted off the map by a CV back in RTS (Which I admit was difficult to do because of the proliferation of DFAA, but when it happened it was fun). Lets subjectively say that in this version of CV's you could make ONE attack run like people seem to want. Considering the damage output of torpedoes for example. You could drop four, maybe land 4-6k if lucky (Or if playing as the Japanese a bit higher, maybe 8k), and have to grab new planes off the deck, pretty much be GUARANTEED of losing the old aircraft, and fly all the way back to the target again, unlike in RTS where you could be dropped and the CV could potentially lose nothing. Even if you use boost, drop far away ETC, a battleship can fire off 2-3 Salvoes in the same amount of time it takes you to make that one run against a ship. So the CV gets 6k and the battleship can dish out WAY more damage through penetrations alone nevermind citadels. Wargaming's solution to balance this was to allow the squadrons to be larger and make them do multiple drops, so instead of making long runs against a vessel and getting minimal damage plus losing planes in the process, you can run multiple strikes. That seems very fair considering DD's can torpwall, cruisers can set multitudes of fires, and BB's can citadel. It's only fair to offer the same damage potential to the CV, that IS what makes a balanced game correct? Yes you have Midways ripping 12k off of a DD in a single attack run and that SHOULD be neutered, but to dish out 12k over the course of multiple strikes from the same squad is perfectly reasonable. There is no difference between that and a Minotaur getting the jump on you or a DM radaring you, in fact in those situations you die faster I would say. Third. And this is probably why everyone RAGES about carriers. I've heard it said across the board, in voice on various voice chats, ETC, and it always boils down to this one sentence. "They can shoot me, and I can't fire back." Wow. First off. What is the difference between a Midway hitting you with his bombs and a battleship deleting you from outside your firing range? You can't hit said battleship, but he can sure as all heck hit you, and kill you in ONE shot. Seems pretty frustrating correct? We have ALL been that victim at one point or another. In fact, it's skewed towards the battleship because at least with the Midway you have not only your AA, which is similar to angling against said battleship, but you have CONSUMABLES to assist you. Fighters, DFAA, etc. So you actually at the very least have a say in how you're going to die. With DD's you get smoke, which hides you completely from the CV. And if you are dumb enough to leave your AA on and start shooting, of course the CV is going to try and drop you in smoke. JUST like a DD would torp you out of said smoke or a cruiser would radar said smoke ETC. You can't do anything about it but your still dead. So why is it that its ONLY the CV that gets the hatred for "Oh I can't shoot back." ? Your just as helpless in every other scenario as you are against a carrier dropping you. And there is no carrier who can kill you in one shot unless it's a lucky detonation. All of them require multiple attack runs to kill you in which you are dodging and weaving and shooting down planes ETC. With a BB shooting you, you are gone in the timespace of the shells being fired to when they explode in your ship. There are numerous other arguments I could deploy here, but these are the big three it would seem. Everyone had the chance to learn against the carriers in the PTS and no one did. I did go on the PTS and it was all bots, which let me freely expand my skill at CV's. None of these Anti-CV haters deserve to be whining when they were the ones going, "I WON'T TOUCH A CV EVER IT'S TOO BROKEN." When in reality the effort that goes into CV's is about equal to that of the effort you must expend playing a cruiser. These people were the ones that were saying such gameplay was going to be boring and yet it seems just as popular as all the other lines now. All you wanted was to return to the days where Unicum CV players only showed themselves in rarity, and one dominated game you could handle. Well get used to it, the world changes, and when you look at the facts of the CV rework, its what people asked for, its what is surprisingly balanced considering the speed at which the system was developed. And I play all classes, but mostly DD's the supposed targets of the CV rework. I do possess the t10 Aircraft carrier Hakuryu. And I can clearly say that I haven't had an issue against CV's. If you can't be bothered to just turn off your AA (A simple push of a button) then you deserve what you ask for. I've had people who hate the CV's try them once and then say to me "Gosh it really isn't all as simple as it seems. I'm sorry. I dare all the CV haters to attempted grinding their way up to the t10 CV's and you'll see there is effort required to play them. It is not the pointnclick adventure people make it to be. Also while we are here, let's talk real quick about the subject matter. Analyze the data these Anti-CV's players are spouting. Who or what is apparently victimizing said people? Dun duh DUUUUUN! It's the Midway. As far as I have been able to discern, people admit that tier 4-8 CV is not easy. And yet here the quote overpowered ship talked about in all t10 videos is the Midway. You never hear about the Hakuryu being OP anymore. You never hear about the Audacious, which should definitely be under at least some scrutiny considering it's a new t10. You never hear about any of the other carriers. It's only the Midway. This is the only vessel that has the capability to be a flying battleship, with good rockets (Especially Tiny Tims) lots of torps, and great bombers which don't have the worry of limited target RNG AP or the slow-to-fall low damage limited target carpet bombers of the Audacious. Therefore if it is the Midway causing all of said issues would it please the Anti-CV population to nerf that one ship? I think most of the whining would cease as soon as that happened. Of course you have the holdouts of any class that will pick anything at all to whine about no matter how stupid they sound, but once the Midway gets nerfed, I would put money on saying the CV hate would die tomorrow. Just my two cents on the matter. You Anti-CV people got what you asked for, now live with it. At least you can fight back against a CV unlike Artillery in World of Tanks where like battleships do to cruisers your deleted with no say in record time constantly across every game. You tell me which is the better experience. You have skills, modules, consumables, and built in mechanics to deal with your supposed bully, it is your choice whether or not to actually use them. And there is ALWAYS RNG involved in every conflict, you may hold the knife, but someone skilled enough to dodge your knife can still kill you.
  13. So we know that Russian BB's are coming sometime soon, probably after the CV rework. All over the place we have been putting pieces together of this fact, but we have yet to get a solid lineup of the tree and take a guess at it's abilities, I have done some looking around and I think I may have assembled an idea of what Russian BB's may look like, as well as some theory crafting on their abilities. Some of it is guesswork too, but hey a good portion of this game is built on guesswork. Tier 3-Imperatrista Mariya class Probably going to be extremely powerful as a t3 BB since it has 12 12 inch guns, but considering the way the tree is laid out now and of course Russian Bias, I doubt WG will have a problem. Especially since the only other ship you could slot in there is the Andrey Pervozvanny and that thing would suck at tier 3 since it has only 4 guns. AA would be nonexistent and secondaries would have low power, so this ship in particular would rely on sheer gun power and angling and the player would have to find a way to offset the what is likely to be a godawful rudder. Tier 4-Imperator Nikolai I Class Not going to be THE Imperator, but WG can think up a name, seems to fit just fine at t4. Tier 5-Gangut class I expect Marat (Petropavlovsk) to be here. Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya does incredibly well here. Tier 6-Arkhangelsk Though the Revenge class ships were budget versions of the Queen Elizabeth class, they still pack a hefty punch with those 15 inch guns and make a prime t6. QE and Warspite do well for their tiers, so I expect Arkhangelsk (Which is the British battleship Royal Sovereign under Soviet control) to do the same. Good maneuverability and decent AA/Secondaries as well as concealment, but still light armor. Reference the QE for a general playstyle. Tier 7-Borodino class Speaking about the Izmail, we are talking 12 14 inch guns at tier 7. King George V gives us an idea of how that works out. While the Borodino is not as heavily armored, she still has a decent 26.5 knots (I am looking at you Colorado...) and her broadside firepower is only outmatched by the Lyon. Perhaps with some tweaking to her main guns accuracy and range she could become a long range sniper. A glass cannon if you will. She has secondaries, but they are the crappy secondaries still found on the t3-4-5. And unless WG decides to give this ship an AA refit, CV's will jump at the opportunity to sink this thing. It bears a striking resemblance to the Imperator, which scares me considering that it is a t4 hull with t7 level armament, but since it is low on the waterline maybe that is offset. Tier 8-Project 21 A study for a ship with a Nelson style layout of main guns. It seems this project would have been equipped with 16 inch guns. Nelson is an odd ship at tier 7, being both amazing in the right hands and sucky in the hands of pretty much everyone else, but I believe that is due to it's armor scheme, which will probably differ with Project 21. Increase the speed to bias levels and we should be all good for t8. Secondaries are finally in turrets, but there is that lack of AA again. And you cannot bear the guns directly aft, which means you will have to expose side to get them on target. But if Richy and JB can do it, so can this. Tier 9-Sovetsky Soyuz My favorite ship of all time. Sovetsky Soyuz is equipped with 9 16 inch guns. Her armor scheme is about as protective as the Yamato's except it doesn't have the obvious "Here is my citadel" spot. Speed would have ended up being 28 knots which is not terrible. It is equal to Izumo. The best way to think of her is an Iowa with Yamato's armor. There are two versions of this ship, one without a refit and one with. The picture below is it without the refit, but the refit version has two more twin 100mm secondaries on the very stern and increased AA. Still not a secondary monster, but she can pop a DD every now and then. Tier 10-Project 24 The dreaded Project 24 only rumored about on the internet. This battleship has seen many versions of armament, including a 4x3 16 inch layout, a 3x3 18 inch layout, and even a 4x3 18 inch layout. Though the most likely to appear is the one with this image with a 3x3 18 inch gun layout. Speed is estimated to be 29 knots although I can't imagine the turning circle of this thing. A significant increase in AA near the superstructure and the secondary guns are dual purpose 130mm guns. Not much data on the armor scheme, but if this is an improvement over Sovetsky, then it should be about the same if not better, with more 16 inch plate covering more portions of the vessel. The Russian battle-wagons are gonna end up playing an interesting role in the game. Up until t9 especially with this tree it's all lightly armored ships, meaning that these ships are going to have to be played as long range snipers like the Japanese, just taken to higher extremes. Up till t8, detection ranges would be quite low and then it would take a big turn. All Russian guns tend to have long range and good penetrating power coupled with a very high initial shell velocity. In history this was set back by the extremely short barrel lives. I imagine Project 24 especially would play out to be one of the best brawlers in the game. A heavy armor scheme that doesn't offer much weakness coupled with heavy guns and a bucketload of secondaries. Though a huge offset, especially with the incoming CV rework, is the fact that all of these ships have comparatively weak AA. Given the size of these monsters, they will become excellent torpedo fodder and since massive detection seems to be a trait of Soviet ships, I can see the t9 and t10 having up to 18-20km detection range, meaning that pushing a strategic point is going to be difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. The main concern is their ability to tank damage. WG has already introduced two Russian BB's into the game, one with a standard DCP (Imperator Nikolai) and the other with limited charges of DCP. (Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya) I believe that Soviet battleships will receive the limited charge DCP. This works well for t3 and up, but I think that it will fall off heavily past t7 since that is where the flamebotes start to really make an appearance. Instead I would not be surprised if WG introduced a special heal to these battleships, similar to the one that the Massachusetts and the Gascogne have, which reloads in 45 seconds and they get more charges than the standard. Their way of "Tanking" damage would be to simply hit their repair party rather than their DCP, which would add a level of challenge since you would want to manage how you dealt with fires and floods. Personally I would reserve DCP to repair 3+ fires and flood and just use the heal to restore the 2 sets of fire damage. They are definitely going to become victims of HE, but that is to be expected given their powerful main guns and at t9, heavy armor. It is likely that these ships will have enormous health pools since you still have to offset the raw shell damage these ships will be receiving. The t3 4 5 and 7 have the benefit of not having much superstructure to burn, which could be an offset to the relatively thin armor. The t8 and 9 also get the benefit of catapult fighter, something that the rest of these ships do not get. How to take them down? Focus fire, especially if you are in a CV. Almost all of these ships have sub-par AA armament and due to their massive size, will be easy to hit, especially Project 24. If WG decides to implement the limited DCP, then keep burning them down over and over again. And if they choose standard DCP, well you can treat it like any other BB. They may become victims to torpedo walls too since they are so big. Speaking from the perspective of the t8-10 ships, one would be advised to take vigilance on their Russian BB commander as well as expert marksman to offset horrendous turret traverse times. Superintendent is mandatory since you want as many heals as you can get and fire prevention is a good way to go to mitigate some fire damage as well as basics of survivability. With the incoming CE nerf and just the general size, like the GK it is probably not worth taking Concealment skills or the mod. Target acquisition is more effective. AR is pretty much a must have since you are the biggest punching bag known to mankind and it is player discretion between priority target and preventative maintenance for a t1 (I personally use PM since it seems like Russian modules just decide to blow up on their own and given your size, you don't need a stupid indicator to tell you that everyone wants to shoot you) And for t3-7, if you decided keeping these ships is worth it. I'd imagine concealment can help you. Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya can get down to 11.4km detect which will increase following the CE nerf, but not by much, so this means you could potentially be sneaky like the British, but you sacrifice some sneak for Stalinium rounds. A well worth trade. To sum it up, these ships strike hard and take a beating, but pay in sneakiness and AA firepower and in some cases maneuverability. What do you guys think? I think it's time for some truly massive BB's that are like GK in size and I honestly want that Sovetsky Soyuz. And this is coming from a DD main. British battleships might have some competition and I would LOVE to see Yamato or GK vs Project 24. It would an interesting battle.
  14. I remember the days where the Khabarovsk was actually a fun ship to play, now I feel like it is garbage next to the Grozovoi and sadly neither one you see very often. I mean, now Grozovoi does almost everything the Khab does. The only things Khab holds over the Grozovoi is slightly higher HP (Big whoop) faster by 3.5 knots, 1 more gun, and that 50mm plate. Grozovoi brings a bucketload of consumables, MUCH better detect, better guns (In my opinion) considerably better maneuverability, usable torpedoes, decent AA (OP with the DFAA consumable) and a much lower profile while having no considerable drawbacks that aren't shared by other contemporaries. I think people whined about the Khabarovsk at the time because they were not used to blowing the thing out of the water, the fastest ship at the time was the shimakaze. Nowadays people learn how to kill 43 knot dds when they attack minsk and leningrad. People screamed that they couldn't hit it before but now pretty much anyone with half a brain can hit a Khaba. Hell at one point I sold off my Khaba to buy the Udaloi back since it was more comfortable overall. Hell I can even take down Khabs with most t8 dd guns cause Khab has so many weaknesses. If they restored Khaba back to the way she was when she was first implemented, I think she would be pretty balanced against the rest of the ships, especially with all the powercreeping and the Minotaur+Worcester combos that have been appearing, I have no reason to run my Khaba over the Grozo right now and that makes me really sad. That being said, Khaba can counter Harugumo just fine right now. Haru can't pen that 50mm belt with HE and hitting something outside of 10km with Akizuki guns is hard for most people (I run 15km build on mine so I am used to it) so all a Khab has to do is sit broad to block most of the HE and stay around 8-10km and start slinging the HEAP shells she has. The only worry the Khab would need to overcome is the 12 torpedoes but even a half decent WASD user should be able to manage.
  15. As a die-hard Akizuki player, maybe I will be a bit biased writing this, but I will try to stay as neutral as I can. Harugumo is receiving the same kind of attention that Asashio received. I can promise you all that Harugumo is not going to be all-powerful. After all, everyone screamed bloody murder when they saw the videos of Asashio and how many Asashio's do you see in game? Very very few. All the Japanese lines are designed to be the hardest lines in the game to play. A Shimakaze is a difficult ship to play, but in trained hands people can still dish out loads of damage. Hakuryu is much more difficult to play than the Midway cause your squads are weak and you have so many to control it gets overwhelming. The Harugumo is going to have the same kind of skill requirement. High. She has enumerable weaknesses compared to her one strength just like the Asashio. Asashio annihilates all bb's with her torpedoes. Harugumo does the same thing except with guns. Even in Akizuki, BB AP will wreck you at pretty much any angle even from cruisers. Harugumo is thicker and longer and so will eat all kinds of AP even from contemporary destroyers. Fire a couple salvo's of HE to disable the engine, and then nuke it. And of course lets not discount the fact that with the exception of Khaba, Harugumo has most of the worst traits out of all the dd's. Slowest speed and biggest turn circle. The biggest detection, bad AA, and no real gimmick consumable like DFAA or Hydro or heal or a super engine booster. Just a dinky torp reloader. People like me who have spent incredible amounts of time on Akizuki are going to enjoy her cause they can account for all those weaknesses. That is the whole point of progression up the tree, you learn the weaknesses and work with them. But if you buy up the line or don't recognize and adapt to the ship (Which sadly most people fail to do in Akizuki) you are going to be melted to slag. Even Khaba has a pretty hard requirement to play cause you have to be very aware of your minimap and you need to learn to dodge/take light hits. You learn how to do that and Khaba rewards you well. Heck WG even stated in their images that they released of the ship early on, "Inherited gameplay style from Akizuki." meaning if you can't play a t8 well, you are certainly not gonna perform in Harugumo well at all. And not a bad word to Flamu cause he did put the effort in to make the video, but lets take some things into account here. That Roon should NEVER have been charging in like that, of course he was gonna get dissolved, if not by Flamu then by the team. The driver of the Roon didn't play the ship like he/she was supposed to and died quickly, and Roon is very susceptible to Harugumo HE because a good chunk of it's body mass is superstructure. The Donskoi was at low HP and Flamu did die to sink it cause his maneuverability is bad. And if a DM can't manage to take down a DD in close quarters like that, sorry your not using it right. you have Hydro and radar + an insane amount of DPM, same with Worcester. Flamu snuck up and killed him. I will take into account to that a battleship did blap him for 6k. But that DM salvoed off many times into Flamu and was only getting minimal damage off of it. Most of the time when a DM blasts a DD it does an insane amount of damage, especially at that range, that was just bad RNG for him. That torpedo spread he got against the FDG and the Monarch was a extremely lucky shot that may never happen to him ever again. So to sum it up. Harugumo isn't going to be the do all and end all that people think. And there is one other thing to keep in mind here. Flamu is only going to show off the best replays he can get with the ship, which is natural, you don't want to watch a boring video of the ship being played getting destroyed over and over. And Flamu is really the only one doing reviews on the ship that I can see. Notser hasn't looked at it, Flambass show's it off but never really gives opinions that I can see. And every time I type Harugumo into youtube search or even google, I am finding old videos and articles that were made before the ships went into testing. Worst that happens, this ship comes out a little strong. Then it will get the same kind of focus fire that Conqueror does and focus fire on a DD with no heal and a large detection compared to contemporaries will be removed from play quite quickly. I think the Bbabies are just a little scared as usual. They will quiet down when they can slam the Harugumo like that Yamato did.
×