Jump to content

Ranari

Members
  • Content Сount

    1,497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4854
  • Clan

    [UN1]

Community Reputation

757 Excellent

2 Followers

About Ranari

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

6,369 profile views
  1. Ranari

    DevBlog 288 - Changes to Test Ships — Closed Testing

    The range sucks, but that SAP alpha is going to absolutely shred enemy DD's. Keep in mind, too, that the smoke generator for Italian DD's is fast reloading just like British smoke is (80s reload vs 140s reload on Paolo Emilio's smoke). There's a lot of operational flexibility in these.
  2. It's a fair question, and you're not going to like me asking it, but this is how WG is going to react to a question like this. How is interacting with Soviet CV's when you're taking the Enhanced Reactions skill? If it works well, WG is just going to respond by stating that there are tools available to respond to these things, and point out that you're not taking them. And maybe you are taking them, but it's still a valid question.
  3. Ranari

    Secondary Dispersion List

    In my years of parsing, I've never seen anything to suggest vertical dispersion changing with range having any effect on the accuracy percentages for secondary batteries. All my T8+ battleships that are on the same dispersion table have the same accuracy percentage. The Mass is the same as the Georgia. The Bismarck/Tirpitz/FDG/GK have all the same accuracy. Alsace and Republique have the same accuracy. The in-game performance improvement with higher tier brawlers has more to do with them generally having much better secondary firing angles, save for the American brawlers cause they're all superb to start with. Here's the kicker, Oklahoma and Mass have the same accuracy percentage. Something is off with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and those two ships are about 10% less accurate than anything else German. Now, I haven't parsed them in over a year, and a few of the bugs I've called out over the years have slowly been fixed, but it's always, always, always because WG releases a new ship and they took the base model from something else in the game: The bug with Alsace's secondaries weren't fixed until the release of Flandre. The bug with Bismarck's secondaries weren't fixed until the release of Brandenburg. Oddly, Tirpitz didn't have the same bug as Bismarck. Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, you can tell, drew from the same ship model, so it's no surprise to me that they both have the same secondary dispersion bug. EDIT - That isn't to say that vertical dispersion with range doesn't affect the accuracy of higher tier secondary batteries. If it does, it just doesn't show up in my numbers. I've never seen anything to suggest higher tier battleships having superior accuracy due to their range advantage. Perhaps longer parses would show that, but that's not a capability I have.
  4. ROFL! If they were that mad, they could have at least spelled correctly. I hate to be the grammar nazi, but geez, that's like listening to 1st graders insult each other.
  5. Just so you guys are aware, when WG releases unique premium ships with differing characteristics compared to the rest of the line, it's sometimes a precursor/testbed to an upcoming tech tree. For instance, FDR --> Soviet Carriers Carnot --> French Cruiser split Paola Emilio --> Italian DD's Incomparable --> British Battlecruisers Canarias --> Future upcoming European/Spanish cruiser branch Superships --> Test beds for future gimmicks. Also an economic dumping ground. Agir --> Future German large cruiser tree (this'll differ from their German battlecruiser counterparts by not being secondary focused) Forest Sherman --> Future USN DD split You can't predict them all, and it's not a sure predictive method (I could be wrong on some of these), but there's enough history to support the theory.
  6. Ranari

    Tier IX matchmaking

    This. But with more superships on the way, not for long!
  7. Ranari

    IFHE for a secondary build?

    Having parsed the actual numbers on this, the answer is; it's complicated. Reaching that 32mm pen level is a huge sweet spot for any secondaries, so the value of IFHE on German battleships is substantial. Against targets where that pen can be fully realized (like an Amagi, which is covered in 32mm plating), the effect is that it doubles your secondary damage output at a minimal cost in fires. For the Bismarck it goes from about 8k DPM to 16k DPM against an Amagi. The actual cost in fire damage is almost negligible since The volume of shells in a secondary battery is substantial and you'll start fires simply on the basis of the raw shell count In a live environment, you're competing with other ships for those fires. The actual fire damage in my parses is about 10k per minute (against an Amagi) for pretty much all secondary brawlers regardless of whether IFHE is taken or not Bismarck, FdG, and Preussen are better played in a standard survival build due to their low main battery shell count. In short, taking IFHE for any German brawler is a superbly valuable 2pt skill.
  8. This is an armor penetration simulation of a Yamato shell hitting Iowa's armor. Location of armor shown in video, but keep in mind the author didn't realize that the spot he chose was below the waterline. Still interesting nontheless: You can see the tumbling action even on an enormous 18" shell against Iowa's armor, even though let's be real here, that Yamato shell is doing horrific damage to the Iowa.
  9. Ranari

    Incompareable is freaking Awesome. Thanks WG!

    Nah, if people like a ship, you know it's gonna get nerfed. If players are ready to storm WG's corporate headquarters with pitchforks, which is honestly most of the time, then it's probably balanced.
  10. Top Grade Gunner is awesome for any cruiser with high detection. It doesn't require you to actually be seen, just that an enemy ship is in your standard detection range.
  11. Ranari

    Splitting WW1 and WW2

    So, there's actually A LOT of potential with this idea, but it's one of those ideas that's so grand and cool that it wouldn't work. Why? Because it's basically two games. Two very cool games, but it's two games, and that splits the population, doubles the business investment requirements, and keeps the revenue the same (just now split across two games). Pretty cool idea though.
  12. Sorry, one thing to add from my previous post. I made a new post to ensure you see it, cause it's important. The *best* ship of the UK CA line is, without a doubt, the T5 Exeter. Yes it's a premium and you actually have to buy her, but Exeter is really what British CA's should be. Fantastic ship. Sssooo much fun.
  13. French BB's - Alsace is superb and fun to play, and you can still play her full secondary mode. Fantastic BB. UK CA's - This is an average line. There are no, "Wow!" ships in this line that really stand out. Goliath is good, of course, but so are all T10 ships. Drake's armor geometry is better and less prone to random citadels, but Goliath reverts to having poor armor geometry again. Dutch CA's - No opinion, sorry. This line looks boring to me.
  14. Yes. I've had this opinion for a long time, but the reason for the perceived "Russian Bias" in both WoT/WoW is because their design mechanics (strong forward-facing armor profiles, good pen and ballistics) are both reliable and easily reproduceable at a player level. I didn't care for the Vlad, but I thought the Soyuz was, by far, the best ship of the line. If you like the Vlad, try and get your hands on a Lenin. Lenin is an unbelievably gooooooood ship. I also sense that you don't think you're allowed to enjoy Russian battleships, haha. I, personally, think it's great that we get to see what the Russians could have built had they not descended into that demonic ideology called communism.
  15. Yes. I'll chime in here. Brandenburg, Pommern, and Kurfurst all follow the same vein of German battleship methodology having larger number of lower caliber guns, poor penetration, and having more shotgun-like accuracy. This allows them to be spec'd in a full secondary build without the player feeling like it sacrifices from a battleship's ability to contribute in the "Standard Battleship Meta". Very important. TLDR - These ships excel as brawlers Bismarck, FdG, and the new Preussen follow the same vein around having high main battery DPM, high survivability with fast reloading, but poor penetrating guns (except with the Preussen's 18" guns it doesn't matter too much anymore by that point). FDG can be played just fine as a secondary ship, but she shines a lot more as a full survival spec. Tirpitz can be played as both, but understand this is an early, early model, and for the LONGEST time the Bismarck's secondaries were bugged, whereas the Tirpitz's weren't. The reason the Tirpitz was such a better brawler is because the Bismarck's secondaries were bugged and no one realized it. TLDR - These ships excel as survival spec (high dpm, high survivability, forget-your-secondaries) The new German BC's follow a "better" accuracy, high secondary DPM, but low survivability model. Again, they're on BC dispersion tables so that players can outfit them as full secondary builds without feeling like they're unable to contribute in the "Standard Battleship Meta". They're designed to be ultra high DPM glass cannons. TLDR - These ships excel as ultra high damage glass cannons/brawlers Then there is Scharnhorst and Odin models which are designed to be more versatile, better firing angles, and more well-rounded. These ships are more-so designed to allow players to have their cake and eat it to, at the cost of survivability. Not so much for Scharnhorst, obviously, but having great AA, torpedoes, secondaries, AND hydro comes at a cost for Odin. This is the least fleshed out design philosophy and might make for another future battleship tech tree. TLDR - These ships have it all at the cost of survivability. I've been saying for the LONGEST time that the German battleships have lacked a clear design philosophy. It's only very recently that WG has finally been working on this, and it's clearly visible.
×