Jump to content

Lord_Bedford

Members
  • Content Сount

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4985
  • Clan

    [WOWS2]

Community Reputation

28 Neutral

About Lord_Bedford

  1. Lord_Bedford

    History and the Homing Torps

    I agree, I do have sources that go into naval weapons technology in more depth. I limited my initial contribution to what Crokodone's sources, flawed as they may be provided. A lesson in why "wiki" is not a reliable source. I do not know of he was trying to further refute the absence of homing torpedoes or just pointing out that there were some in use, only he can say. In either case the sources provided could not be said to provide valid evidence to support their use "in game". I do see that your source has homing torpedoes launched in March and June 45,... again reinforcing the 'late war' introduction/use of the weapons. Thanks for that.
  2. This discussion was brought up elsewhere but the thread was closed before the discussion could properly be developed. This thread will hopefully remain a mature discussion of the topic. In order to ensure reader is not left with misleading information on the prevalence of homing torpedoes I have begun this thread. Crokodone responded thus: , I'm just going to leave these here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G7e_torpedo#G7e https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_mine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_27_torpedo Meanwhile, March 1943 is midwar and towards the end of the Happy Times. Even USN and RN CVs are supposed to be dropping homing torps; Perhaps WG can make this an optional feature for +mid tier USN and RN CVs. I'll begin by stating that "Wiki" is hardly a valid source to use in discussing historical accuracy as it can be modified by just about anyone. Nevertheless, we'll refer to the sources provided. One quickly sees that even the wiki pages provided do not support the idea that homing torpedoes "were a thing" in WWII. I'll keep this brief to save space but the US, Canadian and Royal Navy archives can be plunged for more information if one is more interested. *1943/44 may be considered "mid-war" by Americans (entering on the eve of 1942) but the Chinese, Poles, the British Empire/Commonwealth, French, Belgian, Dutch, Greeks, Yugoslavs, etc., etc., etc., would definitely put the deployment in the "late war" category. *only 304 Mk 24 torpedoes were actually launched, the Germans launched only ~600 of their own versions. It goes without saying that this is an infinitesimally small percentage of torpedoes used in WWII (let's say Tier VI-X). * the sources provided note that the US torpedoes were all aerial launched and not used by submarines, yet in the game they are used exclusively by submarines at all tiers. German torpedo use by submarines was also limited with effective torpedoes only being deploy in late 1943. * the Mk 24 had a success rate (success being defined as a kill) of just 18%. Compare that to the game torpedoes and you can see the problem. *the speed of these torpedoes was incredibly slow,.... the US Mk 24 having a speed of just 12 knots (although faster than a submerged sub) and a range of just 4 km. The German T5b used by submarine only came into service in late 43 (Sep) and 44 had a speed of 22 knots with a range of 8 km. *homing torps could use a circling search pattern at low speed at dpeths of ~ 45m to avoid attacking nearby surface ships. In summary, if submarines are to be included the then the torps need to have some connection to reality lest they be denounced as ridiculous. That wargaming has taken the route they have to try and make submarines 'playable' only show how much the submarine does not fit in the game. The logical gymnastics undertaken to make subs 'work' is more than a minor disconnect from reality. The torpedoes presented in the game are, in fact, complete fabrications even for a primarily arcade style game. Cheers.
  3. This and your other posts are so true in regards to Coop. There is little point in bringing BBs (and some CAs) to say nothing about CVs into Coop as the AI bots are so hopelessly stupid that battles seldom last more than 5-6 minutes. I tried subs in Coop a few months back and found I was bleeding credits so they went out the window. With 'forever' torps on DDs the bots are all dead before slower BBs even get into line of sight, much less action. This dull, dreary, pedestrian game mode has become so boring as to not be worth the effort with anything larger than a destroyer farming the six daily missions.
  4. This is fair. I have abandoned high tier games unless up tiered from Tier VII-VIII as I do not find them interesting. I ground out the Tier IX Mogador only because it has been a favourite ship of mine since first reading about back in the 80s. I doubt I will grind many more Tier VIIIs at all. TBH I have more fun in a Random battle with a Tier IV Orion or Tier V Bretagne than I did with the super battleships a few months back. I find plenty of good games there as there are many highly experienced players who come down to farm some xp and credits. My own PR has declined from mid-50s to mid-40s in the past couple of months as I see more and more 'experts' showing up in Tier V - VII games. I'm fine with that. With time my own skills will improve.
  5. Lord_Bedford

    And It Begins

    Or subs should have been dropped,... months ago. If you have twist them into fluffy pink stuffed toys they don't belong in the game.
  6. Lord_Bedford

    And It Begins

    But the game is no longer fun for both camps,...just the one. Those who want a 'wargame' based on surface warships are no longer being catered to,... just unicorns and kids games.
  7. Lord_Bedford

    And It Begins

    Nope,... at least not till very late and they were slow and prone to failure. they did not move at 90 knots and zoom in like missles. The in-game torps are shyte.
  8. Lord_Bedford

    Real Ships Only?

    It would be great to get rid of the unicorns and fill slots with historical ships. As it is I rarely play above tier VII - VIII because of the unicorns. I have only one Tier IX and two Tier VIII ships (one being the Dutch De 7 Prov). There is still plenty of room to expand and keep variety. - splitting all fleets into DE, DD, CL, CA, BC, BB, CVL and CV line. BCs may be short lines as they were not all that common but they were definitely not BBs - complete the French and Italian - complete the Italian fleet (DDs especially). - more realistic items such as secondaries could be developed for all vessels without being stupidly overpowered. Money could be made by adding various low impact but interesting mods, interesting camo, flags etc. to line vessels, additional game modes, etc. and so on and so on and son and so on.
  9. Lord_Bedford

    Stop placing the Chkalov in Tier 9-10 Games

    I left the game back in June but was convinced to return a few weeks later by friends who wanted to form divisions (mainly coop but more random of late). Since returning I ground my way up to Tier VIII but have mainly Tier V - VII DDs to BBs. I've been learning CVs in meantime and while they have issue they are not as powerful as many think. Anti-aircraft vessels and sailing near other ships are very real counters (but everyone knows this). I'm no expert but the Tier VI CVs I have do ok as long as their are not uptiered more than one level. If facing Tier VIII ships the task is much more difficult and you have to look for your moment to attack but losses will be heavy. That said, with good camo and flags, you can score reasonably good points spotting (spotting damage) and choosing the right moment to advance, even entering a cap. Despite being anti-CV a few months ago, having learned their weaknesses, I am now perfectly fine sailing them,.. or sinking them.
  10. Extremely disappointed by the campaign requirements and WeeGee need to fix it. I don't drive Japanese, Italian or German boats and in this case you *must* have a Japanese line of vessels. This campaign should have allowed a player to use any ships in their ports in the same way regular battles are not divided between allied and axis vessels.
  11. Like random maps that are less cluttered with rocks. If players never know whether the map will be 0% or 12% rocks (of different shapes and sizes) the game immediately becomes one of manoeuvre.
  12. Ah! I see your concern. You think I actually gave WG a note/message making a demand of some sort. That's my fault. No, what I meant was that I gave myself 10 days of game play to see if the game system had evolved since WoT. I'm retired and of independent means so I crunched out 484 games to see what I could do ( a few longgg days, certainly). Most games were Tier V and VI DDs, CAs and BC/BBs. The rest is history. Those who are happy rolling onto the map to a pre-ordained spot behind a rock and gang-banging the approaching enemy think "this is great!" Those of us who want a more immersive experience involving actual naval warfare are grossly disappointed, eventually disgruntled, finally fed up and then gone. A good old fashioned table top wargame is actually more accurate, and more immersive, than WoWS. Wargamer.net's directors/owners are clearly not wargamers, or at least they see the dollars first, which is fine, that's their choice. However, they certainly will not get my money (or recommendation) until they satisfy a good portion of what I am looking in such a game. It's the vendor client relationship. If WG (vendor) is not up to providing what I (client) want, I go elsewhere. That is my choice. I doubt I am alone and I suspect the number who think likewise are growing.
  13. Some restaurants come highly recommended, some come with mixed review and the "see for yourself, you might be surprised" review and some should just be avoided except when faced with famine. I came into WoWS with an open mind and understanding the mechanics from WoT. I watched a large number of videos and heard from others that WoWS was much better than WoT so I though, "Ok,.. let's see what is better'. Great graphics, great investment in the design and capabilities with thoughtful development, some a bit of stretch (PanEurope and Pan-Asia but I get it). I must admit that at first blush it looked pretty amazing but the maps concerned me from the start. The shyte hit the wall and stuck once I was able to 'Random' and then 'Rank'. The same issues as in WoT popped up and yelled - "Painful Repetition"!!! In WoT it's "hide behind three bushes, in WoWS its the rocks,.... same fail. And it goes down hill from there The game proved itself the same broken tool as before. Not to recommended for a wargamer as there is no real intellectual challenge, just park and shoot. The location of this restaurant has a great fascade, the dining room is 1st Class and the menu looks fabulous. Just don't eat here.
  14. I gave WG 10 days to prove to me they had learned the lesson that the catastrophe World of Tanks is from a wargame standpoint. Utter failure on their part. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the science in the ship design and combat is brilliant but they royally bollocked it up with the massive terrain on the map. Its nothing but WoT but with ships. No campaigns, no campaign builder, no scenarios, no scenario builder, no random maps so players can't memorize 'perfect spots'. JUst dry, dry, dry repetitive nonsense that is boring even when you win. Now they are making it impossible to progress without a second mortgage on your home. WG had the tool in hand, the potential to make the most advance naval combat engine seen. Instead they chose the utter stupidity of arcade style clickfest over a computer "Wargame" Wargamer.net are a fraud,... there is nothing 'wargame' in either WoT of WoWS Over and done. Uninstalled and dumped from the trash bin like a soiled diaper. A complete and total waste of my time. Never again.
  15. Lord_Bedford

    Weekly Combat Missions: Dunkirk Evacuation

    Apologies but I don't see this operation on the various battle screens. There's Newport Station, Raptor Rescue, Killer Whale, etc but no Dunkirk. I hovered the mouse over various item to see if there was a link but couldn't find anything. So,... what's the next step?
×