Jump to content

Old_Guard

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11816
  • Clan

    [POO69]

Community Reputation

26 Neutral

About Old_Guard

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

455 profile views
  1. Old_Guard

    Submarine Testing

    Game size. Thought I saw a post on this but could not find it. There are too few surface warfare ships in a game when subs and carriers are included. Time to upgrade the servers again, Wargaming.
  2. Old_Guard

    Submarine Testing

    Essentially ran out of functional signal flags, so I am done. Can't see the point of playing Tier X, particularly battleships, without at least November Foxtrot. (Particularly when you have to burn a repair just to break a homing torpedo lock.) Battleships, over 5 games: I sank a couple of subs with secondaries, although one was already hurting. Damaged a couple with ASW planes, most damage was 7,420 (about half the sub's HP?). Battleships need escorts (difficult to do unless you have a division) or a stronger weapon. Destroyers, over 4 games: Only got one good drop in Z-52 but: HANS!!! Ve need more powder in ze depth charges!!! 7,362 in damage (plus a bit of fire & flooding) with 16 depth charge hits. (Same game a Shima murdered another sub with a similar drop.) I would like to think they will equalize the damage between different national lines once they analyze the effects. It essentially cost me the ship - under fire from a Minotaur, a Grosser Kurfurst and a Midway at the time.
  3. Old_Guard

    Submarine Testing

    Yeah, I think they know that though. Unless the head office pushes the devs into an early release (an epidemic of that going around in gaming in general) I would expect something that tests Tier 8 (assuming they go with the skip-a-tier thing they did with carriers).
  4. Old_Guard

    Submarine Testing

    The submarine test bug reports folder is closed for further comments. A work of typical genius. So I'll put it here: 1. Description The armory is not functional. An insufficient number of functional signal flags was provided for the test and there is no way to replenish them. The routine containers-for-XP function has been disabled, blocking the only other source for these signals. 2. How to reproduce Run out of signal flags. (In my case, November Foxtrot, first screenshot) Go to the armory and get nothing but the whirly icon in the middle. (Second screenshot) 3. Result Those who put in the battles on the test are penalized by less effective damage control. I am doing battleships currently - November Foxtrot and India Yankee (three left) are particularly helpful. I may have enough India Delta (10) to make it through the combat mission for battleships. (Already completed the cruisers mission, and it is not quite as crucial for destroyers.)
  5. Old_Guard

    Submarine Testing

    I haven't had much of a problem. My initial problem was that three instances of the game (NA, Test & TST) maxed out the C partition on my hard drive and it took me a couple of hours to move the whole mess to another partition. Can't get the master launcher application (whatever it is called) to work, so I just launch the instances from separate icons on my desktop. (A long way of saying that the console may have gotten bugged.)
  6. Old_Guard

    Submarine Testing

    I haven't had much of a problem. My initial problem was that three instances of the game (NA, Test & TST) maxed out the C partition on my hard drive and it took me a couple of hours to move the whole mess to another partition. Can't get the master launcher application (whatever it is called) to work, so I just launch the instances from separate icons on my desktop. (A long way of saying that the console may have gotten bugged.)
  7. Old_Guard

    Submarine Testing

    I would not oppose a few buffs for the submarines. Again, not a fan of them coming into the game but bowing to the inevitable. I haven't played them this round - figured out on the last round of tests that I am absolute crap at that level of multi-tasking, so not going to bother. Short version - no where near the level of cancerous blight provided by aircraft carriers, and we are stuck with them so why not one more gimmick? In the games I have played the top sub player is generally around 4th or 5th on the team. There was only time that I really got the kind of helpless feeling one often gets when a carrier player decides your ship has to sink and there is not a &^%$ thing you can do about it. That was in a Tier X game when I was sailing the Montana, it was towards the end of a losing game and I had two sub drivers on me who knew how to ping. I landed depth charges on them with my ASW planes, but it is like shooting down aircraft - does not do you much good. (I was top on a losing team anyway - the kiss-your-sister prize.)
  8. Old_Guard

    Submarine Testing

    SIGNAL FLAGS. I guess I am done with the test since I ran through all of the crucial (functional) signal flags and there is literally no way to get more: No armory - I get a WG symbol with the little light going around it indicating the application is confused. No "normal" daily containers for XP. The only ones you can get at the online store are economic. I will probably go back in tomorrow and see if I can get through the destroyer and battleship missions with reduced signal flags. (Not a fan of that at Tier X.)
  9. Old_Guard

    Submarine Testing

    Just to be clear, I agree with Xime's comment. But I bow to the inevitable, and recommend people play the test as much as possible despite the awkward time slots. I.E. - submarines are inevitable, and helping them test them may mitigate the damage to gameplay for those of us that prefer a more realistic experience. If they have to come into the game, bring them in at the kind of nuisance level of the lower-tier carriers. Wargaming wants to attract players that want fun and splashy full-on arcade play and do not care a lot about actual ships and their capabilities. I have no problem with that - my problem is that those of us who like real ships and a reasonable semblance of realistic performance are having more and more trouble avoiding the arcade ninjas. It is the intermixing of full-on arcade with semi-realistic that causes the problem. I break it down as follows: "Realistic" - most ships up to Tier VIII, with a smattering at Tier IX and X. "Arcade" - all aircraft carriers (including particularly the Ise) and most Tier IX and X. Obviously, submarines are a prime candidate. I would really like to see at least one separate battle mode for folks that like more realistic ships and capabilities, and another for those who don't care and just want a splashy arcade experience. Tier VIII used to be my default tier, but I have had to back off to Tier VII. (Getting my Tier VIII destroyer or cruiser smacked by a Tier X carrier or by overpowered monsters like Stalingrad pretty much wrecks my experience.)
  10. Old_Guard

    PTS 0.10.5

    Thanks for the input. I was baffled by that also. Kind of used to the idea that my main account ships would be in the test, it did not occur to me that I had to unlock them again to get back in to this event. The word put out generally, and particularly on the tests, is long on hype and short on useful information.
  11. Old_Guard

    Bismarck reduced to Useless BB?

    Wargaming's failure to maintain "older" ships and lines to prevent power creep is an ongoing annoyance. (By "older" I mean time since introduction of the ship into the game, not its real world age.) For the Bismarck, this has been: Introduction of battleships with better guns and armor. (As well as better accuracy.) Upgrades in cruiser armor to compensate for #1. (Wargaming does do upgrades to counter power creep from time to time. Just not enough.) Add the global secondary nerf of the commander skill rework as another nail in the Bismarck/Tirpitz coffin. Add the matchmaking phenomenon Aeroon alluded to - almost always up-tiered. For me, the coffin is not quite sealed but they are getting close. I have attached a comparison of penetration/flight time for Tier VIII battleships in my inventory (I actually have the Massachusetts rather than the North Carolina, but the guns are the same.) The chart is from EdibleBug's "WoWS Fitting Tool." The Richelieu's 380 mm guns have virtually the same penetration value as the North Carolina's 16"/45s, whereas the Bismarck's 380 mm guns lag significantly behind. (Vlad the Impaler: paper beats steel every time in a virtual environment. Enough said.) The other attachment is the "overmatch" chart - if a Baltimore or Admiral Hipper (27 mm bow plating) sails straight at you at a reasonably close range then your goose is pretty much cooked. The secondaries may chip away at them a bit, but since the rework they will not protect you. (The Richelieu has even more of a problem, with the awkward secondary placement.) Before the rework I did OK in the Bismarck, even when up-tiered, by pushing into islands etc. then letting the secondaries handle destroyers and light cruisers while I worked on battleships and heavy cruisers with the main guns. Now, it is too much of a struggle. I have not done much with "Dead Eye" other than criticize the spelling. (Should be "Deadeye") But those who claim this skill only makes guns with poor accuracy somewhat less bad. These were great battleships, and it is a shame what has happened to them in the game. I will continue to tinker with them, and hope that Wargaming does not continue the trend and bury them completely. WoWS Fitting Tool-Tier 8 Battleship Pen.pdf Armor thresholds - Global wiki. Wargaming.net.pdf
  12. Old_Guard

    Update 0.10.1: Italian Battleships

    Anti-aircraft and flak. This amplifies an earlier post. There seem to be more aircraft carriers in the game in recent weeks, which brings the Conte di Cavour's bad AA into even more focus. The Conte di Cavour should have its flak guns enabled. In World of Warships flak guns under 88 mm do not work. If there is an explanation for that, I have yet to see it. Late in the Pacific war the U.S. navy noted that the 3”/50 dual-purpose gun was more effective than the famed 5”/38 against Kamikazes (the plane not the ship) because with fixed ammunition (powder case and shell in one unit) it could be loaded and fired faster. However, in this game they do not shoot flak, but are somehow counted in the dpm total. (Good luck hitting a plane directly with one of these guns.) In my inventory, the primary victims are the Murmansk and Texas with 3”/50s and the Conte de Cavour with 76mm/40s. We don’t need to shed any tears for the Texas, but the Cavour needs help. (Take the Cavour into a game with two Tier VI carriers/side and you will see what I mean fairly quickly. Although flak may or may not be effective in damaging planes it will tend to complicate a squadron’s attack run. Also, the “Expert AA Marksman” commander skill is effectively nerfed for flak-free battleships because adding one flak burst to zero still equals zero.
  13. Old_Guard

    Update 0.10.1: Italian Battleships

    Conte di Cavour: Comparing the performance of the Cavour with the Andrea Doria I believe the 305 mm main guns of the Cavour need a serious buff. This is particularly true because the SAP shells seem to bounce with about the same frequency as the AP. Of course the Cavour is not the only 305 mm battleship at Tier V. There is also the Konig. I am attaching the chart which compares the Konig and Cavour (305 mm) with the Andrea Doria’s 320 mm guns. (The premium Giulio Cesare’s 320 mm guns are fairly close to the Andrea Doria’s.) The screenshot may be a bit difficult to work with – going to source, EdibleBug’s “WoWS Fitting Tool” under the “Artillery Chart” tab, is easier. The bottom line is that the Cavour will need to be at about 6.5 km to penetrate the Konig’s 350 mm main armor belt whereas the Konig can penetrate the Cavour’s 250 mm main armor belt all the way out to 19.5 km (with the spotter plane). The Konig (with three fewer barrels) reloads in 24 seconds, as opposed to the Cavour’s 33. With the awkward dreadnought turret arrangement the two ships share, I would take reload over number of guns any day. Bearing in mind that a lot of factors go into “balance” I recommend: Bringing the performance of the Italian 305 mm AP closer to that of the Konig. I would like the Cavour to be able to penetrate the Konig’s main belt at 10 km or so. (The Konig’s guns would still be better, penetrating 350 mm at about 11 km.) Reduce the Cavour’s reload to 30 seconds. The Konig still maintains an advantage in reload and power to compensate for her 3-barrel deficit. (Plus the Konig can set fires.) I also think Cavour’s SAP needs a penetration buff, but numbers are hard to find.
  14. Old_Guard

    ST 0.10.0, changes to new skill system

    In recent weeks I have noticed a resurgence of aircraft carriers and would recommend some changes to the commander skills based on that experience. Having my Giulio Cesare fried in about a minute and a half in a game with multiple Tier VI carriers on each side was a memorable experience. In particular, Tier V battleships need some help with fire prevention/control and AA. Two reasons: Low tier players are less likely to have 10+ point commanders The “Damage Control Mod. 1” upgrade is not available until Tier VI The existing commander skills seem useful, but I would move them down in the hierarchy: Anti-Aircraft: Move “AA Gunner” down to a 1-point skill, probably in place of “Pyrotechnician” (which is not as useful a skill for battleships as it is for other classes.) Move “Expert AA Marksman” down to a 2-point skill, filling the slot vacated by “AA Gunner” (I would also enable flak for ships which have actual flak guns under the present 88mm caliber limit. But I cover this in more detail under the Italian Battleships thread.) Fire prevention control: Move “Basics of Survivability” down to a 2-point skill. I would just eliminate “Consumables Enhancements” – hydro, radar, smoke and engine boost are rare in battleships and not worth a commander skill. Move “Fire Prevention Expert” down to a 3-point skill.
  15. Old_Guard

    ST 0.10.0, changes to new skill system

    My optimism that the powers-what-be will make any changes (not to mention significant changes) is fast running out. Another test server is open, another patch coming soon, and absolute dead silence. Back when I was young and foolish (i.e. age 69 or so rather than my present 74) I might have quit. But now I just adapt. Still having fun with the game despite some unfortunate choices with the commander skills. My default used to be Tier VIII, with a fair number of games at Tier IX or X. I have just moved it down about a notch and a half - no higher than Tier VII. The "Dead Eye" executioners I can deal with, but one game with Tier X carriers ruins my day. Since about half the players in my games are ranked, many with a star of some color, I think a lot of people are making the same choice. Implications: I have about 5 or 6 Tier IX ships unlocked, and was close to unlocking the Gearing at Tier X. Rather than buying these ships I am re-buying lower tier ships I had sold. Saving me a lot of Credits and Doubloons. An example is British lower-tier heavy cruisers. "Eye in the Sky" plus torpedo acceleration (whatever cutesy name they are calling that now) makes them viable, even when up-tiered. (Which is three games out of four. For the most part, "seal clubbing" is mostly a dead art form. You hang around Tier VI or VII to stomp the noobs and you can get stomped, because there are experienced players on the other side also. From my perspective there are three games in one here, and attracting different kinds of gamer may actually make sense: Full-on Nintendo-style arcade. Tier X carriers, but applies to a certain extent to Tier VIII and VI. The performance is surreal. Arcade. Tier XI and X, selected ships. 40 knot battleships, insane turret traverse and sometimes impossible accuracy. Somewhat realistic. Tier VIII and below. Since the higher tier ships are expensive to buy and play, the dyed-in-the-wool W-A-S-D gamer types are providing a lot of support which allows those of us that actually like ships and like a certain amount of realism within the confines of the game style can play lower tiers for a lot less money. It would not be my choice, but as said I can make it work/
×