Jump to content
  • Content count

    336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7737

Community Reputation

46 Neutral

About AhosChaos

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Profile on the website AhosChaos

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

341 profile views
  1. That was fun. Not quite as fun as the time where you would just see your ship sail off into the distance leaving your behind, or when everything on the screen froze except chat, although these might have been on the PTS.
  2. That's what I'm thinking, something similar to the "ghost" pens you get. I forget which video it was, but someone was demonstrating how IFHE works and splashing torpedo bulges with HE. The game was showing he was getting pens, but in reality he was doing zero damage. Penning the torpedo belt is not the same as penning the actual hull. Does that apply to torpedoes, probably not exactly like shells. First of all torpedoes have no penetration values, so there is no such thing as penning the torpedo bulge but failing to pen the hull. At the same time though, the torpedo basically hit tangent to the hull of the ship grazing the torpedo bulge. I feel like it might be something where the torpedo "continues" on past the torpedo bulge to see the exact section of the ship hit. What I mean by this is that if a torpedo is coming in at an extremely sharp angle, the torpedo could hit the torpedo bulge that covers the midsection of the ship, but cross the border between the midsection and bow. If it did this, then the torpedo hit should count as it if were on the bow. In this case if the torpedo bulge had not been there, I don't think the torpedo would have hit, so no actual damage was applied because the torpedo technically never hit the hull. This idea could probably be tested using a Smith and like firing torpedoes at extremely acute angles at something with a large torpedo belt. Low tier US BB's have angles where you could possibly hit the torpedo belt and not hit the ship, or at least that's how they look.
  3. Citadel through the bow?

    I can't watch the replay now, but there as some freaky angles that could lead to a citadel. At close range, if you hit a shot normal (perpendicular to the tangent line) to the bow, the shot will go through. This is assuming the shot hits at a relatively shallow angle and hits the very tip of the bow. There are also some oddities with the way the ship is angled from the bow to the main belt. This partly plays into individual angles of the turrets that fired. If a ship is crossing your T and broadside on with their back turrets lining up with your bow, there might be a significant enough angle to cause the shells to not be autobounced. If none of those match what happened, then it was probably a freak bounce that sent the shell down through the deck into the citadel. Possibly hitting the conning tower at the wrong angle could send the shell down. Hitting the side of a turret or barbette
  4. Ijn/US fighter tier gap

    At the same time, the limiting factor of AS Essex was the lack of TB's and therefore the inability to stack DOTs. The limiting factor of Essex Strike was the fact that the IJN could strafe in and out and dominate. That said even though the Essex Strike was at a disadvantage because it could be juggled, it was still far superior than the two IJN fighters in a fight. If you had your Essex fighter with your bombers, you could strafe the incoming IJN fighter outright kill the squadron. If the squadron wasn't killed, it would be so weak that a strafe on your bombers would only kill 1 or 2 bombers. If you could strafe an IJN fighter, even just for one tick, you would have the fighter advantage. A 3 plane and 5 plane squadron lose to the Essex's 7 planes, and a even if you strafe in with the 5 plane squadron, you would only swat 3 or 4 of the Essex fighters and would be guaranteed to lose at least 1(on the strafe out) plane in the 3 plane squadron if the squadron was not already dead from the dogfight. The Essex fighters would win a 3 vs 5 against the Taiho, and if not drain the majority of the fighter's ammo especially since they strafed once already. Granted that is a big if relying on that initial strafe, and if you botched that then RIP that fighter squadron and any pressure for four minutes. Now with the squadron being tier 8 a single Essex squadron can almost do the same thing with DFE, but now there are 2 fighter squadrons. Leaving the squadrons being tier 9 would have let the Essex just fighter lock and sweep as they will still shred Taiho fighters and now have more ammo for strafes. Against AS Taiho's, the Essex is not nearly at as bad of a disadvantage as it seems. If we assume the Taiho fighter locks with a 2v1 and a 1v1, the Essex will outright win the 1v1 and still pick a few off the 2v1. The the situation is again similar to the old Strike Essex against Strike Taiho, now the only difference is that instead the fight will probably be closer to 5 Essex fighters vs 5 and 3 Taiho fighters. It is unlikely the Essex will win the exchange, but the Taiho is now unable to press the fighter advantage onto your bombers. If we assume that the Taiho plays the 2v1 "correctly" strafes out to prevent his squadron from being friendly fired, then the Essex still should have picked a few planes off while waiting for the other squadron to come in. This is assuming that the Essex didn't pick a fight with the Taiho fighters close to the second squadron. Even then, the Essex has the opportunity to strafe out and strafe towards the incoming squadron.
  5. Once an area is on fire, it is on fire. Hitting that area will not start another fire in another place nor reset the fire duration. Firing sequentially aiming each turret and shifting your aim after you set a fire with a turret in theory has a benefit. If we assume that shells have no dispersion and only hit the section we are aiming at, and use the Mogami as an example then yes there is a benefit as long as a fire is set before you fire the last turret. By setting a fire with your 1-4 turrets, you then get an opportunity to set a fire with your 5 turret which means you have the possibility of setting two zones on fire rather than one with a full salvo. With a salvo the first shell may cause a fire, or the tenth shell might, it makes no difference. This does not translate into game though. The biggest reasons are shell travel times and dispersion. In a normal game, a Mogami will usually fire from relatively far away and have a shell travel time of more than 8 seconds. So this would mean that you would be waiting 8 seconds to see if the shell sets a fire before firing again. Then dispersion kicks in. Firing from 13km will not net you 100% accuracy. You can't guarantee that a shell won't drift and hit an area that's already on fire. Your per shell fire chance may realize a higher fire chance compared to a full salvo, as you are less like to hit the same area, but in reality you will be netting less fires because you are shooting far less. In one cycle of the guns, you might set more fires, but as a whole, waiting for a shell to land to see if it sets a fire before firing the next shot to avoid hitting the same area will net less fires over the course of a game. This is similar to why the DM is the better fire starter over the Zao despite the Zao having more guns and a higher fire chance, overall number of shells. Holding down LMB is no different than firing a full salvo. All LMB does is change when the shell is fired, but that does not matter because the game tracks a moving ship for you. If the ship you are aiming at is target locked, then the each shell you fire will have the same lead no matter when the shell is fired. This is very apparent against ships that are stationary and that are travelling in a straight line.
  6. As cool as it was to get a Graf Spee for free, the campaign kinda sucked. Granted I don't remember the exact missions, but I remember it being extremely grindy. It was also moderately annoying how everything was timelocked and if you didn't buy the ship you basically had a week to earn a crazy amount base xp -or something similar- to get all of the other camos. Free stuff is free stuff so I can't complain too much. It would be nice if they make it something in between Shinonome campaign and Yamamoto campaign in terms of difficulty.
  7. The Billion credit club

    Feel free to donate some credits to me. Barely managing a million because of buying and outfitting ships.
  8. Sighting Aircraft from ship

    For CV planes it's 8km. It used to be like 6km for catapult planes but they might have changed it.
  9. A lot of my issues with the Edin seem to stem from the size. It's clumsier in turns and stopping seems to be a problem.
  10. Pan-Asia DD radar

    Yes and no. Radar is a strong counter, but you are left defenseless without smoke. DW torpedoes are basically better US torps but can't hit DDs. Hitting DD's may not be a big deal to some players who never torp smoke, but it's huge to those who do. If you play IJN DD's with the sole intent of torping BB's, then it is somewhat of a powercreep. As a whole, I think the line will be fine. More radar is not something I necessarily wanted to see, but without smoke I'm somewhat fine with it.
  11. Assuming the drop pattern doesn't change, 2 TB's seems terrifying for DD's. At the same time the tier 8 TB's suck, like a lot. 136 knot TB's vs 180+ knot Fighters from either the Hak or Midway seems miserable. As it is already, you can't run your empty TB's away from Shokaku fighters. This really makes me wonder what the damage is on the DB's. IIRC there was some leaked testing stat that showed 15k damage bombs or something to that magnitude when the E was first coming out. That's potential to one shot a BB especially a German one. We also don't know their penetration so maybe they could have extremely high pen to be effective against all BB's or they could have a wide range(similar to the GZ?) making them effective against both CA's and BB's. From what I've seen is that we are going to get more balanced loadouts for better or for worse. I wish that they might open up some flexibility in the loadout by providing a 3/1/2 or a 2/1/3 for the Midway. The TB's seem like they will be highly ineffective so why not allow a shift away from TB's to DB's or fighters through a loadout upgrade.
  12. While they are all US DDs for the highest tiers, wouldn't it be weird if they weren't? Imagine having to go from the Kagero(ie Yukikaze) to the Fletcher. The gameplay is completely different. The majority of players don't want to spend doubloons for respeccing a captain nor do they have the time to train a completely new captain. It would also be very confusing for newer players, granted that a large portion of player have experience with both IJN and US DD's, for newer players who haven't reached far down either line, it would be very strange. They definitely are not something crazy new, but they still are an option. From what I read on the wiki, the reaction for the torps at tier 10 is just over 4.5 seconds, which can be reduced to 4.2 seconds with TE. When you consider that most T10 CA's will have their concealment floating around 8-10 seconds, the reaction time even for them is quite low. Losing the ability to hit DD's is quite big, but at the same time hitting 2 torps instead of 1 on a CA is a big deal. 1 from the Gearing equates to about 1 cit and a pen, not life threatening or crippling, but definitely nothing to scoff at, add a second hit and all of a sudden the CA is at around 12k health. They are definitely not British DD's, but they do open new doors especially with radar.
  13. As much as I want 1959 Akizuki, I feel like it would be doomed to tier 8. 3 guns, 2k ton displacement, 1 torpedo tube, it doesn't have it. I kinda wanted to see this instead of the Harekaze, giving it US torps with TRB, and maybe Hydro to reflect all of the ASW equipment it has, but it would be hilarious if they did fit in three Akizuki's into one line. I'm always open to the 2010 Akizuki with missiles and radar though
  14. Japanese DD tech tree problem?

    I miss when it worked like that.
  15. That's not necessarily true. In a match with 2 Strike Lex's, both players are always inclined to attack the BB's because they provide more damage. While there is nothing but ship's to shoot down their planes, they are not allocating their planes correctly in order to win. Striking DD's helps win matches more than doing 30k DOT damage to a BB, but because there are no enemy fighters, most CV's will pass over the DD for more damage on a BB. If there is potential pressure from the other CV in the form of fighters, suddenly that DD is the most appealing target. AS players like to hover their planes near BB's, so if the planes are by the BB, then strike the DD. As a side note, after playing many games CV games and even more games with CV's, the average xp for AS vs Strike is not lower than a Strike v Strike matchup. I've had more high damage games against Strike CV's for sure, but I've had more high xp games against AS CV's.
×