Meatshield_No13

Members
  • Content count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6424

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Meatshield_No13

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

55 profile views
  1. None of the contextual things I mentioned require anymore time than the time needed for a player to determine said Fuso is 3km and broadside. A number of them a player would know before the situation occurred, thus there is no time wasting. You are correct that I should have specified extremity armour when mentioning shooting AP, instead of assuming that was a given. It's a Fuso, at 3km, broadside on and the other ship is a Farragut, accuracy is not an issue, the forward pagoda structure is plenty big at that range. Quoting myself, where in my generic answer I mention AP. My failure was to specify to the point of saying extremity armour. This is why I pointed out the lack of context as an issue, a generic question gets a generic answer. Contextually speaking 3km is close enough to hit and go for a fire on even a Fuso, if in the context of the situation that is the best course of action. For example with context, the Fuso has a damaged saturated bow, that nullifies the "shoot AP at bow" answer. For example, Fuso has 20k HP left, has DamaConned 30 secs ago, you have 1500 HP left, both are you are in your base cap, any friendly ships still alive are 2 New Mexicos way up North chasing a planeless Ryujo. The Fuso's guns are pointing at you, he fired (that's what ripped you down to 1.5k, the next salvo is going to kill (You do not know if he has AR). Torps wont be up and smoke isn't available. Best option? I would put forth: Use HE try for a fire as you ram him (DamaConn is on CD and immunity has expired), ram damage plus flooding dot and possible HE dot. A context specific situation to be sure but that was the entire point of my issue with the original question. You can have gripes with my generic answers, but generic answers are what is going to happen when you put forth generic questions. Context is important, especially in the example of this thread, context is part of the equation that allows a player to perform better, recognizing when the "generic answer" is not contextually suitable is important for overcoming tricky situations. That is going to be important here, because that is an obstacle in the way of player's progressing, the goal of this thread is to help players, teaching the importance of the game situation is part of that so that they have ideas/answers, a laundry list of generic answers wont help anyone.
  2. This question is severely lacking context. - Which way are the Fuso's main guns pointed? - How much HP does the Fuso have left? - Why did I end up 3km away with reloading torps? - Is there any cover nearby, status of smoke? - Is it suffering from fire or flooding? - Has the Fuso DamaConned recently? - How much HP does my Farragut have? - Condition of Fuso's secondaries? - Based on my observations in game so far how do I rate this player? - What's the condition of both teams and map situation? - Other friendly ships, are they likely to eliminate him due to his positioning? - Or can I get him to expose broadside to friendlies? I can't confidently answer without some context. Generic answers: If you think it has a better pay-off shoot HE at the superstructure for a Fire(s). Otherwise broadside at 3km, AP can work. But those answers are contingent on other factors, if he has low HP AP will probably kill him quicker, HE might be better if I believe I'm going to die in the next salvo, he has nearly full HP and I know he has DamaConned recently.
  3. This is one I have issues with to, my DD play is weak. I recognize that a significant factor is that I play them the least (working on that), but yeah reading the enemy ships and map locations for good torpedo spreads is something I haven't gotten a handle on yet.
  4. If I recall correctly WG has stated that it is a limitation of the game engine as to why radar and hydro see through islands. Radar and hydro increase assured acquisition range (normally 2km) out to the appropriate range for the duration of the consumable. That's why it goes through them, from my ignorant understanding they can't alter this without screwing up assured acquisition as a whole. So asking a completely ignorant question, rather than looking at the issue from the end of radar and hydro could they look at it from the end of islands? Islands clearly do factor into LoS calculations, wouldn't it be possible to add something in that end of the equation (just islands, not smoke) that acts as an absolute negation to vision? I am woefully ignorant about coding and game engines so this probably is silly but if they can't alter it on the radar side can they alter on the island side? Maybe make islands subtract acquisition range? They could even reduce standard assured acquisition to zero and place the old 2km acquisition range on the first module slot items if they need to re-tool it to make it work.
  5. None of my RN CLs have DE...... Not even Belfast.
  6. Wasn't the CSM1 dispersion increase also tied in with a dispersion tightening of select high tier cruisers? Therefore effectively making it a "no actual change" situation for those cruisers? So BBs and DDs has a minor accuracy penalty against everyone running the module. So it was really only a nerf to BB and DD dispersion. Or were DDs also included in the dispersion tweaks?
  7. I have so far fired AP exclusively with the Hood, by aiming higher on BBs it does work. I cannot provide a picture right now but feel free to look up my stats. My average damage so far over 58 games is: 78,580
  8. For me it shows the Atlanta PayPal offer and Hood Ultimate, and I bought the Hood Ultimate on release of the bundle, so I have made a recent purchase (Ship purchase to). Actually over the past 2 months I have consistently checked the premium store and that Atlanta PayPal offer when I was logged in was always there.
  9. My current Hood build (I haven't tried any other setups though). Modules: MBM1 AA mod 2 Damage Con mod 1 & 2 Captain: Preventative Maintenance Expert Marksman (concession for flexibility to place in Warspite, I don't think Hood really needs it) Adrenaline Rush Basics of Survivability Superintendent Fire Prevention Advanced Firing Training Fire that only burn for 30secs are a joy to have on such a long ship plus only one superstructure fire, I have had a number of times where Cruisers repeatedly hammer my midsection after setting me alight for little gain. The hybridisation into AFT means as weak as they are my secondaries have some reach, which can have impact in kiting fights, especially with her speed. The AA is also strong enough to take chunks out of planes and by equipping as such the CV if they are paying enough attention to ranges will typically assume a full AA spec which means I tend to be left alone by planes.
  10. CE easily, IFHE as the second. CE gives you more play to sneak around, it increases the options for setup of your smoke and it gives you greater disengagement leeway. More importantly however if you get detected while running silent you instantly know that it is almost certainly a DD and good map/situation knowledge can allow you to eliminate huge vectors as to where you a spotted from. Finally is the fact that you are 99% guaranteed to light up the offending spotter with radar and can spoil their plans/attack/flanking. 8.7km detect is nearly DD levels of prowling, it is fantastic for making plays.
  11. Nice write up. I have found her very tanky to, allows you to persist and keep chipping away. Although I haven't actually employed her HE yet at all as I have found her AP to be meeting my needs so far. She has actually exceeded my expectations as far as damage output goes now that I have a handle on her guns. Do you employ HE just against angled BBs? Or all angled targets? I haven't had an issue with my AP against angled Cruisers assuming I hit. Out of curiosity how have people found her AP versus angled cruisers? With her altered ricochet angles I seem to still score big hits on them. Or am I incorrectly associating the special angles with normal 15" overmatch mechanics?
  12. 6 games in the Hood only, so the following is very early impressions and I am still learning the ship. I put my 17pt Warspite captain in with the following setup: Preventative Maintenance Adrenaline Rush Basics of Survivability Superintendent Fire Prevention Advanced Firing Training Modules: MBM 1 AA mod 2 Damage Con Mod 1 and 2 With proper positioning and angling (like any other BB) the Hood is tanky, she may not be better armoured (25mm bow though like all T7's is a thing) as such but I do notice the HP pool size. The size I feel has allowed me to pull through in a couple of situations that I normally wouldn't have (ancedotal), it has also allowed me to in one case trade HP to secure another goal (I deliberately ate 3 Budyonny torps to finish off a Colorado, I think they were expecting me to target the Budyonny). Important to note that this has no advantage against fires, which is why I have the captain built as such, in addition to mounting the heal boost signal and the shorter fire signal. She dies horribly like any other BB if you get caught broadside though, I got caught broadside to an Izumo I lost track of due to smoke and lost 25k HP in 1 salvo. I can't comment on the AA as I have not been attacked by CVs yet, the one time I may have had the chance to kill planes returning I was distracted and didn't pick up on it. Speed is great, I like the speed, I have noticed a lot of shots trailing or impacting my stern (ancedotal), I figure enemies will get more accurate as they also learn about the Hood and this will drop off. Rudder, I opted for Damage Con over Rudder Mod and I haven't felt hamstrung by this (ancedotal). I haven't had to attempt any serious torpedo beats yet, I'm playing more cautiously than I probably should. Guns, yes I feel this is her weakness. Over 6 games I have performed from 40k to 80k in the damage department, nothing special by any stretch, rather low in my opinion. However I must admit I don't quite have them figured out yet, I think the damage will improve as I work out the guns. Another probable aspect is that I believe I am playing a little too far back due to not being confident with the ship. This doesn't help her guns that much playing like that I feel. The current early play style that I am leaning towards trying is circling in and out of the melee so to speak. Drive in using her speed to get in there at about 12km and shoot things, then duck out (using a suitable terrain element to mask the turn). Then using the speed to build distance quickly. Once out, lick my wounds and re-assess then dart back in and repeat. Unlike say how with my New Mex and Arizona I would tend to just inexorably grind forward. So so far she feels solid and dependable if a little low on the damage, as I work her out.
  13. I believe the part you are missing BURN_Miner in your breakdown is the Krupp value/penetration power over distance. From what I understand while the stats you have listed are accurate the Hood has lower Krupp/Penetration than the Warspite. As in the Warspite can penetrate a thicker armour belt than the Hood at a number of ranges. Thank you mofton I believe that is what people are getting at when they talk about "worse guns than Warspite", simply put (I'm using made up numbers here) at: 12km the Warspite can punch through 300mm of armour assuming no angling. 12km the Hood can punch through 260mm of armour assuming no angling. Now I want to reiterate that my numbers there are made up purely to illustrate, as I can't recall the accurate numbers, but from my understanding at longer ranges the Warpsite has more armour pen than the Hood and they only approach near equal at close in ranges, a distance the Hood would be clumsy/uncomfortable at. That is why people are upset at the guns, turret traverse can be terrible near Warpsite levels as I far as I care, I have and love the Warpsite so I would be ready for that, what I don't like the implication of is guns that have worse armour penetration than the Warspite, a ship a whole Tier lower. Equivalance with the Warspite would have me being a lot less leery about purchasing. All of the above I recall from the 20+ page thread so if I am wrong please feel free to correct me.
  14. The Belfast is superior ship from a pure gameplay perspective, no contest really. However from the perspective of being premium ships a couple of points: 1, Belfast having HE shells means a fully optimised Belfast commander isn't comfortably compatible with RN tech tree cruisers (IFHE is useless on the tech tree ships). The Belfast can perform without IFHE but it is a hit to its top end to not have it. So as a commander trainer for tech tree ships she suffers compatability issues. 2, Indianapolis as a commander trainer is compatible with USN cruisers armed with the 8" guns (203mm IIRC), so the Indianapolis doesn't really suffer from dropping a DM captain into her (maybe minor things but nothing on dropping a Mino captain into a Belfast). 3, Are you actively working up either of the 2 tech tree lines? If so the premium ship can accelerate commander training and is a good ship to use for retraining if you are pulling a single captain through the tiers (penalties don't apply on the premium during retrain period). So consider if any of those points factor into your purchase. Otherwise just looking at it from a singular purchase and wanting the ship on its own merits and with a dedicated commander and no concern to the tech tree line? Belfast, Belfast all the way, by far. Though do remember the Belfast is extra squishy so she cannot stand and fight like other nation cruisers.
  15. Dear WG, we realise the Hood is being introduced with a shiny new AA mount, and you want to upsell that aspect. However the current direction of alterations is showing too much focus on this aspect at the cost of other aspects such as her guns. DF on a BB was enough to upsell that. Please don't compromise such a storied ship with excessive focus on a gimmick that at best has a tangible impact on two enemy ships. The AA gimmick has no tangible impact against the other 10 odd enemy ships, while the main battery is being left in a questionable state. The main battery is something that is being heavily utilised every single game regardless of enemy team lineup. The guns are going to be important to the longetivity of this ship, the name may pull high initial numbers in, but it's going to be factors like the guns that keep selling her. AA gimmicks are not a long term foundation for sale health. So please, redirect some of that focus from her AA onto her main battery. Nerf rudder back if you have to, undo the AA changes, make her AA DF more traditional and more open to conventional CV counterplay tactics. Nerf the autobounce angles back to conventional if needed. The AA isn't going to keep me coming back to the Hood, properties like the guns and durability will (you have the durability right where it needs to be), without the gun performance I don't see myself returning to her like I do with the Warspite. So please focus some attention on long term retention aspects such as the guns.