Jump to content
Forum Shutdown - July 28, 2023 Read more... ×
Forum Shutdown - July 28, 2023 Read more... ×


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About Firefinder_12

  • Rank
    Seaman Recruit
  • Insignia
  1. Firefinder_12

    Continuous AA DPS Explained

    TO be fair to wargaming there were two general quarters for the US at least in WW2. Surface and air attacks. The reason for this was because big guns have large concussive force that will knock you out. You can see the problem for open mounts like the 20mms, Bofors, and the like. BUT! It only effected the Mounts around the big guns, 6 inch or more. Like the Bofor mount on the Iowa third turret? That will not be man in a battleship or shore bombardment fight. The guns in full turrets or midships Will be Man, Locked and Load with the Safeties off. Waiting for any plane to get close, which did happen several times. So I see a simple fix. Remove this dumb near borderling bug "Feature" for destroyers and ships with dual purpose main mounts like Atlanta and the Minotaur. Those ships were literally design to go straight from surface attack to AA mode in moments, most of the time the crew of the Atlanta would not know they switch targets. Then for the rest of the ships input a Half the rated DPS rating for the first second or so as they cross the line. Basically half of you mounts will be able to fire immediately while the other gun crews who were hiding from the blasts of the main run to mount and load the other mounts. Should be simple effective and make the game far more balance then it is.
  2. Firefinder_12

    USS Georgia Preview - 18” Guns on an Iowa Body

    Why? They did shot them. Heck, the Iowa's Mark 7 was originally design for Mark 5 2240 AP projectile with the famous Mark 7 2700 only coming later. The only other way to balance it is to give it Massachusetts accuracy. Which while fine I doubt the stigma of the inaccurate Iowa will make anyone happy, so Colorado shells which does good damage as is and will actually give it a flat arc, for the US.
  3. Firefinder_12

    USS Georgia Preview - 18” Guns on an Iowa Body

    Honestly despite its problems that a good buff will fix I like that Wargaming went with this design over the BB62/64. Cause those two ships will being either the Iowa 2.0 (New Jersey) or the Missouri 2.0 (Wisconsin) Gimmick Boogalo since cause of the armor differences of the Iowa/New Jersey and the Missouri/Wisconsin. A whole four inchs inches of the bow plating. Which is BORING. If we got another actual Iowa class I would prefer it being one of the two never finish ones over those two. Why? Because the USS Kentucky and Illinois fixed the several problems of the Iowa class that the navy had with them. First was that the Iowas poorly design Torpedo protection system was fix and upped rated by 16% OVER the Iowa original design rating of 770 lbs, which was derate to 640lbs when they actually tested it, to almost 1000 lbs of high explosive. SO in game the Illinois (HOMESTATE) will have a 43 percent Torpedeo damage reduction over the Iowa's and Missouri's 27% if Wargaming decides to add that one for one. Another Fix was that the Deck Armor of the main protection deck was increase to a whole 6.5 inches over 5.5. Probably be the same difference in game play as the armor difference in the Iowa and Missouri now, not that much... The two ships also would have gotten the same bow armor of the Moe/Wisky. The Final major fix was the re-organizing of the secondary gun placement. Instead of having a 2/3 set up with two 5 turrets low and 3 high it was switch to 3 low and 2 high to give better angles in both surface and aerial engagements. And the guns were consider to be uprated to the Montanas twin 5"/54s instead of the 5"/38s. Also the engines were tweaked to give slightly more power to keep the speed the same. So call it 32.5 knots. (Note this^ is all basically taken from Freidmans US Battleship book) That to me is the makings of a true Brawling Iowa class. Give her 10km secondaries and maybe a different shell, say the Colorados 2240lb shell, to keep the Iowa famous accuracy but with less pen at range for balancing...
  4. First time posting here after years of lurking cause this is the first time I caught a active thread I wanted to add my two cents. Doing this on my phone. I see what WG is trying to do, fix the passive BB meta. We all either seen the High Teir BB at the back be useless or been it. And this is just going to add to the reason. Players want to survive long enough to at least break even. To do that you need to either get all the caps, or do your ships HP in damage. Now the changes may let farming enough damage become easier. And the more aggressive you are the more damage you get. Which I expect wargaming wants. The sounds nice on paper. But I fully expect people to become even more damage taken shy. Especially the smaller ships like cruisers. Staying back, trying to hoard their HP to stay in long as possible. Island hugging or just by being at the border. Cause now it easier for them to lose it. So i see this as a attempt to fix the symptoms but isn't touching the source. Armor and distance. This gameplay is far too compress for how many of the later battleships, read pass T7. Which is where we see the most of the nose meta. Pre T7 the ranges are more how those ships were design to fight. But since post 1920 designs battleships are design for long range snipe fests they do poorly at close range. And even then they did better then the game has them. Look at Bismarck fights, the South Dakota/Washington vs Kirishma night brawl. Many of them were sub 14k. And their armor held up well. Better then want there game versions did. The Bismarck ate everything thrown at her before being scuttled. South Dakota soak up all the hits given to her by Kirishma. While Washington had to unload several salvos into the IJN ship. At a broadside, at nearly sub 8k. The Scharnhorst VS Duke of York battle had a range of no greater then 15k, which was considered extreme range. Sure Warspite has the famous 24k shot but that was literally 1 hit out of 100 shells fired. Scharnhorst equally long shot was similer. Even the modern fire control of the Iowa class considered the best of the war was given about a 37 percent hit rate on a ship the size of the Bismarck at 18k away. On her broadside. Yes i understand that this game isn't a historical simulation. So Why are you using historical values for armors and weapons? So my suggestion is this. Nerf dispersion and penetration values past say... 16k? Buff armor or health or modification of the layout below that so you wouldn't get deleted. How much will need need alot of testing. Make it infeasible to stay snipping at long range. To the point where if you want to actually earn anything you get in close and fight. Cause honestly right now theres no upside to getting close. But there are many downsides. Too many for healthly game play.