Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'DD'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 107 results

  1. Like many solo-players who are tired of the salt and statistically-improbable consistency of utterly lop-sided teams in Randoms, I've taken to Co-Op for the peace and to grind missions in a happier (albeit slower) way. That said, I was just wondering if any other dedicated BB players (in Co-Op) are sick of no-Cap, no-Kill, Low-Damage, Low-Credit/XP matches because they are at best 1 of 3 ships on the board (often the only) with no torps and a speed at or under 30kts. Lately I've had countless matches where literally everything is Capped/Torped/DPM'd by teams 80%+ comprised of CL's/DD's/Subs and a CV or 2... it's not fun. Perhaps WG could balance the Co-Op MM ship-type distribution to ensure at least 3 BB's were on the map (even bots) so a decent earning match is possible for a BB player. Also, this would ensure at least a minimal enemy HP pool to make the match worth it for everyone. Thus far, Randoms continues to have some modicum of ship-type (if not Skill-Level) balance.
  2. The addition of subs is an interesting dynamic. However, as currently designed, subs have too much power against most DDs, at least in the mid-tier where I play, and this needs to be rebalanced before wide introduction. I'm sure this has been debated internally by your dev teams and throughout development in your test base. Let me throw my hat in the ring on the side of reducing the power of homing torpedoes. Subs are given homing torpedoes by default with effectively limitless ability to home. This is not only historically inaccurate, it is too powerful and is becoming worse as sub captains gain skill. One torpedo salvo of 2 is sufficient to take out even high HP DDs. There are few techniques that mitigate homing from a middle distance, even among the most agile DDs. No known ship-born counter exists. By analogy, DDs can smoke to counter visual detection and maneuver (accel/decel/turn) to counter ballistic weapons or "dumb" torpedoes and can prioritize sectors to improve AA effectiveness. Subs have very small detection radii when surfaced or submerged but can ping and home from quite a distance. Mid-tier DDs have no stock ability to spot subs when submerged until well within the homing kill radius. This adds to the imbalance. I suggest the following: Make homing torpedoes an option similar to AP and HE shells with the appropriate time penalty for switching torpedo types. Reduce the HP power of homing torpedoes by 25-40% from that of standard "dumb" torpedoes, similar to the way AP and HE act differently. Perhaps they cannot cause a detonation or they do less HP damage but have a high probability to cause flooding. Homing torpedoes should have some penalty to counter their accuracy Alternatively, make homing a consumable like radar or hydro search Give DDs some level of hydro search or ping triangulation by default. This is, of course, far more historically accurate than homing torpedoes. I suggest that the ping marking be much brighter and include a momentary "tail" pointing in the general direction of origin. I think this has been attempted by marking one side of the ship vs the other, but it misses the mark in terms of communicating useful information Alternatively, give DDs some skill or equipment option to mitigate homing torpedo effectiveness
  3. HeavenlyWind_

    Neustrashimy cost...

    Simple question post out of curiosity: Why does the Neustrashimy, a IX DD, have the highest coal cost compared to other armory coal ships when the other ships consist of IX and X DDs, Cruisers, BBs and CVs? This actually slightly bothers me.
  4. WHY DOES THE ITALIAN DD "Leone", (A Premium DD) LACK any Depth Charges? Apparently WG dropped the ball yet again and failed to provide it's Premium DD's with means of defeating submarines. I am getting seriously dissatisfied with the lack of clear oversight routinely exhibited by WG in terms of how they do and develop stuff. The biases are clearly obvious, as is WG's contempt for it's customer base. Apparently they have a routine habit of breaking their promises, (Such as the famous "No Submarines" Pledge.) and also of continuously nerfng their premium ships. This is getting ridiculous. No wonder people are leaving the game.
  5. Here is a line I have made to get some unique US dds in the game and most notably the porter class also, compared to the normal line its a more aa and gun focused line with them being able to use defensive aa fire in a separate slot from engine boost and they also have access to short range hydroacoustic search but must trade it with engine boost like British destroyers but unlike British destroyers their smoke is standard American long duration smoke and they do not have British improved acceleration Features of the line 2 Quadruple centerline torpedo launchers with less damage and but reload better than their quintuple tube siblings Engine boost can be swapped for short range hydro Defensive AA fire in a separate slot akin to american light cruisers Better guns than their same tier counterpart in terms of number or reload Will have better hitpoints than their counterpart at the cost of a higher detection range for most ships Tier 7: USS Cassin A Mahan Class destroyer damaged at Pearl Harbour, the ship was rebuilt with Increased AA defenses and reduced armament to decrease topweight. Specs Survivability Stock 11800 uprgraded 14200 Guns 127 mm/38 Mk.12 on a Mk.21 mod.0 mount 4 х 1 pcs. Rate of Fire18.18 shots/min. Reload Time3.3 sec. Rotation Speed15 deg./sec. 180 Degree Turn Time12 sec. Firing Range10.61 km. Maximum Dispersion102 m. HE Shell127 mm HE Mk32 Maximum HE Shell Damage1,800 Chance of Fire on Target Caused by HE Shell5 % Initial HE Shell Velocity792 m./s. HE Shell Weight24.5 kg. AP Shell127 mm AP/SC Mk38 Maximum AP Shell Damage2,100 Initial AP Shell Velocity792 m./s. AP Shell Weight25 kg. Torpedo Tubes 533 mm Quad 2 х 4 pcs. Rate of Fire0.68 shots/min. Reload Time 88 sec. Rotation Speed25 deg./sec. 180 Degree Turn Time7.2 sec. TorpedoMk15 mod. 0 Maximum Damage11,733 Torpedo Speed64 knot Torpedo Range 9.2 km. AA Defense 127 mm/38 Mk.12 on a Mk.21 mod.0 mount 2х 1 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second9.6 . . . Firing Range5.01 km. 127 mm/38 Mk.12 on a Mk.21 mod.1 mount2 х 1 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second6.4 . . . Firing Range5.01 km. 40 mm Bofors on a Mk.1 mount 2 х 2 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second33.9 . . . Firing Range3.51 km. Stock 12.7 mm Browning on a single mount 6 х 1 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second15.2 . . . Firing Range1.2 km. Upgraded Hull 20 mm Oerlikon on a Mk.4 mount 6х 1 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second32.4 . . . Firing Range2.01 km. Maneuverability Maximum Speed 37 knot Turning Circle Radius 620 m. Rudder Shift Time 4 sec. Concealment Surface Detectability Range7.44 km. Air Detectability Range 2.56 km. Notes compared to the other ships in the line and at the tier she certainly lacks in firepower but makes up for it in utility and detection range due to her lower profile than her sister she sits at a respectable 7.4km detection stock in between mahan and sims in terms of detection range her guns on the other hand are worse than mahans due to the loss of a turret she takes 4 bofors guns as aa instead which gives her better aa than sims and mahan and due to being rebuilt her health is better than both albiet slightly and she sits at a weird middleground beween mahan and sims and also suffers from having more speed than mahan with a bigger turning circle at 620 m which makes her clumsier than sims who is faster and more nimble Tier 8 : USS Clark A Porter Class Destroyer Leader that was partially refit during the war with increased AA defenses Specs Survivability Stock 13700 uprgraded 16700 Main Battery Stock 127 mm/38 Mk.12 on a Mk.22 mount 3 х 2 pcs. Rate of Fire12 shots/min. Reload Time 4.5 sec. Upgraded 127 mm/38 Mk38 3 х 2 pcs. Rate of Fire12 shots/min. Reload Time 4 sec Rotation Speed14.7 deg./sec. / 20.7 deg./sec 180 Degree Turn Time 12.24 sec. / 9 sec. Firing Range10.72 km. stock 12.2 km upgraded Maximum Dispersion102 m. HE Shell127 mm HE Mk32 Maximum HE Shell Damage1,800 Chance of Fire on Target Caused by HE Shell5 % Initial HE Shell Velocity792 m./s. HE Shell Weight24.5 kg. AP Shell127 mm AP/SC Mk38 Maximum AP Shell Damage2,100 Initial AP Shell Velocity792 m./s. AP Shell Weight25 kg. Torpedo Tubes 533 mm Quad 2 х 4 pcs. Reload Time 78 sec. Rotation Speed25 deg./sec. 180 Degree Turn Time7.2 sec. Torpedo Mk 15 Maximum Damage 12,900 Torpedo Speed 55 knot Torpedo Range 9.15 km. AA Defense 127 mm/38 Mk.12 on a Mk.38 mount 3х 2 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second9.6 . . . Firing Range5.01 km. 40 mm Bofors on a Mk.1 mount 2x4 pcs. 2 х 2 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second33.9 . . . Firing Range3.51 km. Stock 12.7 mm Browning on a single mount 6 х 1 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second15.2 . . . Firing Range1.2 km. Upgraded Hull 20 mm Oerlikon on a Mk.4 mount 6х 1 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second32.4 . . . Firing Range2.01 km. Maneuverability Maximum Speed 35.6 knot Turning Circle Radius 630 m. Rudder Shift Time 3.9 sec. Concealment Surface Detectability Range 7.68 km. Air Detectability Range 3.42 km. Notes Unlike same tier American and American built destroyers Clark has the highest detection radius and hitpoints of all them in order to have AA comparable to Kidd who has one more bofors than Clark. the guns are enclosed in twin turrets similar to Somers with the same reload but however has the option to use the same guns as gearing albeit with slower reload at just 5 seconds which brings up her aa rating as her guns are not dual purpose like the rest of the destroyers until upgrading them. its also noticeably slower and clumsier than Cassin but makes up for it with harder hitting guns and the torpedoes which are the same ones as Bensons stock torpedoes reload faster and hit harder Tier 9: USS Davis A Somers Class Destroyer Leader , Which was fully refitted during the war with dual purpose Guns to decrease topweight and improve the antiaircraft armament Survivability Stock 14700 uprgraded 17200 Main Battery Stock 127 mm/38 Mk.12 on a Mk.22 mount 2 х 2 1x1 pcs. Rate of Fire12 shots/min. Reload Time 4 sec. Upgraded 127 mm/38 Mk38 2 х 2 1x1pcs. Rate of Fire 20 shots/min. Reload Time 3 sec Rotation Speed14.7 deg./sec. / 20.7 deg./sec 180 Degree Turn Time 12.24 sec. / 9 sec. Firing Range11.92 km. stock 13 .1 upgraded Maximum Dispersion102 m. HE Shell127 mm HE Mk32 Maximum HE Shell Damage1,800 Chance of Fire on Target Caused by HE Shell5 % Initial HE Shell Velocity792 m./s. HE Shell Weight24.5 kg. AP Shell127 mm AP/SC Mk38 Maximum AP Shell Damage2,100 Initial AP Shell Velocity792 m./s. AP Shell Weight25 kg. Torpedo Tubes 533 mm Quad 2 х 4 pcs. Reload Time 88 sec. Rotation Speed25 deg./sec. 180 Degree Turn Time7.2 sec. Torpedo Mk 16 Maximum Damage 17,900 Torpedo Speed 65 knot Torpedo Range 10.15 km. AA Defense 127 mm/38 Mk.12 on a Mk.38 mount 3х 2 1x1pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second9.6 . . . Firing Range5.01 km. 40 mm Bofors on a Mk.1 mount pcs. 3 х 2 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second37.9 . . . Firing Range3.51 km. Stock 12.7 mm Browning on a single mount 6 х 1 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second15.2 . . . Firing Range1.2 km. Upgraded Hull 20 mm Oerlikon on a Mk.4 mount 6х 1 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second32.4 . . . Firing Range2.01 km. Maneuverability Maximum Speed 38.6 knot Turning Circle Radius 610 m. Rudder Shift Time 3.9 sec. Concealment Surface Detectability Range 7. 48 km. Air Detectability Range 3.22 km. Notes: Compared to her lower tier near sister Clark, Davis has a bit more health and detection range due to her lower profile and she trades a gun for worse turret placement but better reload at 4.5 seconds stock and the single mount gun is at first an open mount but becomes enclosed with the gun upgrade to dual purpose mounts which share the same reload as gearing and she generally behaves like a fletcher that reloads faster and fires more accurately at the cost of two torpedoes Tier 10: Porter The lead ship of her class, the ship has a high number of guns compared to her peers and was designed to lead destroyer squadrons to combat special type destroyers (the ship is actually Moffett in its 1944 outfit before it lost a turret since porter sank in 1942) Survivability 19 700 Main Battery Stock 127 mm/38 Mk.12 on a Mk.22 mount 4 х 2 pcs. Rate of Fire12 shots/min. Reload Time 4.5 sec. Upgraded 127 mm/38 Mk38 4 х 2 pcs. Rate of Fire 20 shots/min. Reload Time 3.5 sec Rotation Speed14.7 deg./sec. / 20.7 deg./sec 180 Degree Turn Time 12.24 sec. / 9 sec. Firing Range11.92 km. stock 13 .1 upgraded Maximum Dispersion102 m. HE Shell127 mm HE Mk32 Maximum HE Shell Damage1,700 Chance of Fire on Target Caused by HE Shell5 % Initial HE Shell Velocity792 m./s. HE Shell Weight24.5 kg. AP Shell127 mm AP/SC Mk38 Maximum AP Shell Damage2,100 Initial AP Shell Velocity792 m./s. AP Shell Weight25 kg. Torpedo Tubes 533 mm Quad 2 х 4 pcs. Reload Time 88 sec. Rotation Speed25 deg./sec. 180 Degree Turn Time7.2 sec. Torpedo Mk 16 Maximum Damage 17,900 Torpedo Speed 65 knot Torpedo Range 10.15 km. Torpedo Mk 17 Maximum Damage 16,900 Torpedo Speed 65 knot Torpedo Range 16.55 km. AA Defense 127 mm/38 Mk.12 on a Mk.38 mount 4х 2 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second9.6 . . . Firing Range5.01 km. 40 mm Bofors on a Mk.1 mount pcs. 3 х 2 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second37.9 . . . Firing Range3.51 km. 20 mm Oerlikon on a Mk.4 mount 6х 1 pcs. . . . Average Damage per Second32.4 . . . Firing Range2.01 km. Maneuverability Maximum Speed 35.6 knot Turning Circle Radius 640 m. Rudder Shift Time 6.8 sec. Concealment Surface Detectability Range 7. 78 km. Air Detectability Range 3.42 km. Notes Porter albeit having the same guns as Somers, has faster reload at the cost of a torpedo launcher and detection range . porter can also use dual purpose guns with gearings 3 second reload also as an upgrade which puts it as a more gun focused destroyer compared to Somers torpedo focus and gearings middleground utility Overall I tried to keep them in the static middleground american dds hold while still venturing away from the general gameplay of the current line and I tried to use unique ships without putting in any more 1500 ton ships from the gridleys or bagleys as it would trump benhams uniqueness and also avoiding the gleaveses as there are already enough benson clones ingame already leave feedback below
  6. The_Potato_Smasher

    The Weekly Review: Fletcher

    Before I begin, I would like to make a quick disclaimer about this. No one provided this ship for me actually to playtest or the like. I ground through the ship and unlocked her modules and upgrades the same as most other people have. This review is a combination of my personal playthrough and her actual baseline statistics. I once again extend my courtesies to @0_STAR_0 for the photography and @LittleWhiteMouse for the Turning Radius Graphic. Now then, let's get down to business. Fletcher Fletcher Fletcher, my darling~ So yeah, about not doing reviews regularly… It turns out I’m just not giving myself the time to actually do the review, as I keep playing the game instead of actually sitting and typing things out. So I’ve decided to do just that, actually write a review. This week, the review will be on Fletcher. This is a ship I have very fond memories of through and through. Between the combination of rapid-firing guns for close quarters duels, fast reloading and hard-hitting torpedoes, and small size and good concealment, I found her to be vastly more efficient in combat than the Gearing that follows her, as much as some people will disagree with me on that. This is the one ship that has found a place as being special in the game..by being totally normal. She’s the one Destroyer at Tier IX that doesn’t have any gimmicks like a Hydroacoustic Search or a Main Battery Reload Booster consumable. She’s just a regular old Destroyer, through and through. She’s got guts and guns, she’s got torpedoes, she’s got Engine Boost, and she’s got smoke; what more could you ask for? ( Okay, yes, she has Defensive AA Fire, but you usually run Engine Boost because it’s better ) Well, that’s enough of that. Let’s actually get down into the meat of it. Build This is your good old build that I would recommend for Fletcher, as it is how I played her, and it’s the most effective build for her, given her outstanding torpedo armament. A gun build is viable, but it’s better saved for her sister ship, the Black. Armor Destroyer armor is easy to write for. Fletcher has 19mm plating all around with 13mm superstructure plating. HP Pool: 13,900 Base, 17,100 Upgraded, 20,250 w/ SE Upgraded Torpedo Reduction: 0% Base Fire Reduction Coefficient: 43.3 percent Armor values: 13mm-19mm Fletcher is nothing special when it comes to her armor. She has a roughly average HP pool of 17,100 hitpoints when fully upgraded and 20,250 hitpoints with Survivability Expert. Now, this doesn’t sound like much of a problem, and it really isn’t if you play this ship right. The real problems start when you run into much heavier and meatier gunships like Kitakaze, Mogador, Udaloi, and Tashkent, all of which have more hitpoints and/or some way to mitigate damage dealt, with Mogador having her unique French Saturation and the Udaloi and Tashkent both having a Repair Party consumable. In addition, only a few ships have equal or fewer hitpoints than the Fletcher, with only the Yugumo, Benham, Ostergotland, and ZF-6 having fewer hitpoints, and even the Ostergotland has a Repair Party. The Black, her sister ship, shares her hull and thus her HP values, and all other Tier IX Destroyers have more hitpoints, with even the relatively squishy Friesland having 500 extra hit points over the Fletcher. All of this means that any trades taken in the Fletcher must be measured carefully and cautiously, especially if you run into the megachonkers at Tier IX ( yes, even the Felix Schultz, that thing has some mean AP ) Verdict: It’s enough for her, but she needs more hitpoints or some other buff to remain competitive against her peers. Armaments Your good ol’ American 127mm Destroyer Guns. I love these things Layout: AB-P-XY ( Three centerline turrets with two superfiring turrets ) Range: 11.8km stock, 12.9km upgraded Reload: 3.34 seconds base / 17.96 RPM Turret Traverse Speed: 34 degrees per second Ammunition HE Shell: 1,800 Alpha, 21mm HE Penetration, 5.0% Fire Chance, 792 m/s velocity AP Shell: 2,100 Alpha, 8mm Overmatch, 21mm Threshold, 0.010 second Fuse, 792 m/s velocity Sigma: 2.0 Dispersion: Standard Destroyer Fletcher's guns are, again, nothing extraordinary compared to her peers. She doesn’t have boosted HE Penetration like the Z-46 or the Kitakaze, nor has she improved AP shells like Jutland or the ZF-6. Her base DPM of 162k HE and 189k AP is respectable, but when something like Kitakaze has 192k base HE DPM, things don’t really look as promising as they could. Compounding this problem are the rather mediocre ballistics of American 127mm guns, which start relatively fast, with a decent muzzle velocity of 792 meters per second, but quickly drop off after 7 or 8 kilometers. That’s not to say that Fletcher has bad artillery firepower or anything, however. If given a chance to sit and farm from her smoke ( which is extremely good, by the way, more on that later ), she can quite comfortably whittle down enemy destroyers that stray too close to her guns, as well as rake the superstructures of enemy cruisers and Battleships with constant High Explosive and Armor Piercing fire. She also has rather comfortable firing arcs on her guns, and a very rapid turret traverse only matched by her American Destroyer peers. That all said, it’s not her guns that are the star of the show... More peedz! These are well ranged and hit quite hard, as well as being fast. And yes, I know it says Mark 17. I meant to write Mark 16 Mod.1, but I was playing Gearing beforehand, so eh. Layout: 2 x 5 Centerline Reload: 122 seconds, upgrade to 106 seconds Traverse Speed: 25.0 degrees per second Torpedo: Mark 15 Mod.3, upgrade to Mark 16 Mod.1 Range: 9.15km, upgrade to 10.50km Speed: 55 knots, upgrade to 66 knots Alpha: 16,633, upgrade to 19,033 Detection / Reaction Time: 1.1 km / 7.7 seconds, upgrade to 1.4km / 8.2 seconds Flood Chance: 279%, upgrade to 323% Fletcher’s torpedo armament is the star of the show. Her stock torpedo armament consists of the same Mark 15 Mod.3 torpedoes found on a fully upgraded Benson, with their relatively low top speed of 55 knots and a decent range of 9.2 kilometers. However, once upgraded, Fletcher switches over to the Mark 16 Mod. 1 torpedo. This torpedo armament gains an extra 1.3 kilometers of range over the stock torpedoes, but more importantly, they also gain an extra 11 knots of speed, turning the American Torpedoes from sea mines into actual torpedoes, with the high speed of the fish allowing the Fletcher to easily target and eliminate even rapidly moving targets like cruisers and Fast battleships, as well as making lower tier Battleships even easier targets than before. In addition to the bonuses of range and speed, with an extra 2.5k Alpha damage over the previous torpedoes. Still, more importantly, they reload 16 seconds faster than the stock torpedoes, meaning that the Fletcher can launch fish at more regular intervals, which gives her fairly good torpedo damage output if she can land multiple fish per game, and trust me, you will land multiple fish per game with this ship. The Mark 16 torpedoes do have some competition at this tier, however. There are torpedo boats like the Yugumo and Benham that have incredible torpedo power to speak of, with Yugumo having longer-ranged, slightly faster-moving, and harder-hitting Japanese torpedoes. At the same time, the Benham throws out so many torpedoes, it’s just plain hilarious. Ignore those two, however, and Fletcher has some of the best Torpedo Power of any Tier IX Destroyer, far outstripping most others with regards to their capacity. Verdict: Her Artillery isn’t what it used to be, but her torpedoes still shine for being versatile, fast loading, hard-hitting, and long-ranged. AA Defenses Fletcher’s AA Power is decent enough for a Tier IX DD, but it’s not enough to help her fend off against enemy CV strikes. Long Range AA: 5 x 1 127mm/38 Mk.21 Mod.0 Range: 5.8km DPS: 77.0 Flak: 3+1 with 1,540 damage apiece Mid Range AA: 5 x 2 40mm Bofors Range: 3.5km DPS: 112.0 Flak: 0 Short Range AA: 7 x 2 20mm Oerlikion Range: 2.0km DPS: 101.5 Flak: 0 Access to Defensive AA Fire: Yes, it can be swapped with Engine Boost Fletcher’s AA Defenses are solid for a Tier IX DD, but truthfully speaking, they don’t win any prizes for being remarkable. They have long-range and fairly good damage against Tier VIII Aircraft ( and will even shred the occasionally misfortuned Tier VI CV that happens to fail division into a Tier IX Game ). That being said, her overall DPS is quite low, and that combined with her obvious fragility for a Destroyer makes her a choice target for High Explosive Dive Bombers from American Aircraft Carriers, as well as a target for rocket attack aircraft if the Carrier Player knows what they are doing and the Fletcher captain leaves his AA Defenses on ( Hopefully, no one actually does that...that would be embarrassing ) Verdict: It’s there, and it’s good if added on to other Air Defenses, but it’s still AA, so it’s pointless like most Destroyer AA outside of the Halland and a few others Maneuverability Thank you once again, Miss Mouse Top Speed: 36.5 knots / 38.3 knots w/ Sierra Mike Turning Radius: 560 Meters Rudder Shift: 3.0 seconds Turning Speed: 30 knots Fletcher’s handling is some of the best in the game for a Destroyer and a Tier IX Destroyer at that. Yes, some Destroyers move faster, and that would certainly help them turn, but they’re saddled to 600 meter plus size turning radii, and that really doesn’t help when you have to throw your ship around in tight situations. On the other hand, Fletcher has a 560-meter turning radius, and that combined with a 3-second rudder shift makes her the second most agile Destroyer at Tier IX, only behind the Benham. ( Why the Benham turns at 8.6 degrees per second compared to the Fletcher and the Black’s 8.4 degrees per second is something I will never understand as long as I live ) The only true downside to Fletcher is that her top speed is only 36.5 knots. While she has an Engine Boost consumable, most other Destroyers at this tier boast a higher top speed. The only ones truly lagging being Jutland, Felix Schultz, and Ostergotland are slower. Only the Ostergotland getting an Engine Boost. Still, she’s decently quick, and her agility isn’t affected by her low top speed, thanks to her tight turning radius and her fast rudder shift. Verdict: It’s great. She doesn’t even need an extra half knot of speed or something to keep up as long as she’s still a twirly whirly compared to other Tier IX Destroyers. Stealth Base / Minimum Surface Concealment: 7.16km / 5.80km Base / Minimum Aerial Concealment: 3.24km / 2.62km Assured Detection Range: 2.0km Smoke Firing Penalty: 2.75km When it comes to Stealth, Fletcher is towards the top of the pack at Tier IX. Her minimum concealment rating of 5.8km is only 300 meters behind the Yugumo, only 200 meters behind the Neustrashimy, only 100 meters behind the Chung Mu, and on par with her sister ship, the USS Black, with all others having either 100m extra or worse concealment over her, with some ships even losing a whole kilometer or more in terms of stealth, such as the Paolo Emilio, Udaloi, Tashkent, and Mogador, which all have over 7-kilometer detection radii even when fully built for concealment. Verdict: Great, just plain great. Fletcher is special because she isn’t special. You’re probably wondering what that means...I’ll explain. In short, Fletcher is special because of what I stated at the start: she isn’t saddled with any strange gimmicks or built-in bonuses that make her play differently from other Destroyers at this tier. She’s a vanilla-flavored lolibote that’s good at everything and can specialize in anything without sacrificing much in the other direction, whether it be for her guns or her torpedoes. She doesn’t need a Hydroacoustic Search consumable to work well when brawling other Destroyers, nor does she need any special long-range super-fast torpedoes to be a good torpedo boat, and nor does she need any special High Explosive Penetration to deal with Battleships and Cruisers. She’s just a good ship, and for that, I love her to bits, and for that, she gets my Gudbote Stamp. That will be all for now, folks. Next week will be the French Tier X Destroyer, the Kleber. Potato, out!
  7. Impitoyable_5929_x

    The number of DDs in a match

    At first, I am open to criticizing opinions. Does anyone think there should be a restriction of DD numbers in a single match (such as that of CV)? I've recently gone through so many games that end very fast or are totally irreversible just because of the rapid evaporation of DDs at the beginning, where most other ships can't have that much fun and that many credits they may have. It seems that the more the difference in DDs' performance in the game, the more likely it is to end in 10 minutes, while short and sleepy games should not be the essence of WOWS. Landslide victories aren't interesting at all. As cruisers (of all types) are still relatively rare due to Dead Eye's influence, causing DDs to emerge, however, it's inevitable DDs decide the direction of the whole game, similar to CV's role. Since the number of CVs are restricted, IMHO there is thus supposed to be some restrictions on DDs as well (e.g., ≤ 3 DDs in T8+ matches of dominance; ≤ 2 DDs in standard T8+ matches).
  8. Currently there are 3 ~ 4.5 Italian DDs in the game. ( depending on how pedantic one is ) Tier 3 Pan EU - Romulus / Spica class Tier 6 Italian - Leone / Leone class ( more of a "light cruiser" ) Tier 9 Italian - Paolo Emilio / Capitani Romani class ( is a light cruiser, technically ) Tier 9 Soviet* - Tashkent ( Italian in mostly all but armament ) Tier 6 Soviet** - Gnevny / Project 7 ( built by USSR with Italian assistance) So here comes the speculative part: Tier 2 ~ 4 , armed with 76 mm, 100 mm or 102 mm guns and 450mm torpedoes Tier 4 ~ 7 armed with 120 mm guns and 533 mm torpedoes Tier 7 ~ 10 armed with 135 mm and 533 mm torpedoes Updated List: Tier 2 Rosolino Pilo / Generali class ( "full speed smoke" + "standard speed boost" +8% up to tier 5 ) Tier 3 Curatone class Tier 4 Sella class Tier 5 Sauro / Turbine class ( Euro think of the memes and "torpedo beats"... ) Tier 6 Freccia / Folgore class ( starting tier 6, will need +30% engine boost for ~60 sec. and "full speed smoke" ) Tier 7 Maestrale / Oriani / Soldati class ( will have to be Soldati "2nd batch"/ 5 gun armed ones ) Tier 8 Comendate Medaglie d'Oro class ( 2nd batch of 5 gun armed ships or "fictional" torpedo armament or both ) Tier 9 Impetuoso class with "fictional armament" or d'Oro derived design ( fictional in a sense of DP 135mm guns ) Tier 10 Impetuoso class with "fictional armament" or d'Oro derived design ( fictional in a sense of DP 135mm guns ) Original Tier List Disclaimer: All of the information above is pure speculation, based on publicly available information and is NOT a "financial advice". Please read this "with a giant grain freighter load of salt".
  9. warheart1992

    Z-31 first impressions

    So, I got this week my hands on Z-31 and decided to run it through it's paces to see whether all the hate by many was warranted. Here's a very small sample, 10 battles. It's nowhere near a completely objective indicator on whether the ship is bad but I believe it would be a decent basis for some first impressions. The stats: Note the 71% accuracy on main battery and 2% on torpedoes. The Commander (10 points): First of all let's get the matchmaking I got out of the way. 4 tier IX battles, 3 tier VII, 3 tier VIII. Not particularly good, but you gotta learn to make do. The good: sizable HP. a part of the midsection is 25mm, shattering some DD HE, though this is a double edged knife when it comes to CA AP. Built in IFHE means you can penetrate with HE any ship on your MM bracket. improved ricochet angles are always welcome in AP. the accuracy is impressive. If you have Katori or Yubari with the special Upgrade it comes pretty close. You can pretty much pick which section of a ship you want to hit. The bad: Relatively bad reload time on main battery. Relatively bad reload time on torpedoes Torpedoes do mediocre damage. Ship is somewhat clumsy and slow. Okayish concealment, nothing too good but not unworkable. The oh so very ugly: Horrendous HE. Horrendous torpedo speed. Horrendous smoke duration. ONLY DAMAGE CONTROL AND SMOKE. NO ENGINE BOOST FOR YOU. What AA? So, is the ship a good one? Hell no. Is it bad? Damn right. Is it part of an effort to get you to spend some FXP to get the next, hopefully better tier? Most likely. Is it warranted all the hate it gets from absolutely everyone, including former and current CCs? Nope. The ship is bad but workable. The AP can help pad your damage numbers when you get some broadsides or nice juicy BB superstructures. You are horribly outmatched by pretty much any DD, but the silver lining is if you know how to play with AP and angles you can get penetrations which hurt and can dissuade them from pursuing you. Other than that you are free meat. The torpedoes exist just to launch in the hopes of getting any random hit. But the worst issue with the ship is how to get the most out of it you sacrifice your role as a DD to a large extent. The greatest danger to a DD is most of the time another DD, and Z-31 simply can't do anything to influence decisively these encounters. Other ships sacrifice their role as DDs too, like the French or Soviet open water gunboats. But they can still play support to a friendly DD and help secure caps or lock down flanks. The problem I see is that I am a relatively good DD player and had to put quite a bit of effort to get Z-31 to work respectably. Z-31 and am afraid the line in general in the hands of the average player will simply feel like a horrible joke played by WG. Possible improvements: Though obviously I doubt the ship will be touched as it looks like a gatekeeper along with G.J Maerker for the decent tier IX and X ones, aside from an obvious buff to reload time, maybe they could get a choice between the long range slow torpedoes, and fast with lower range that they had initially. At least that could give a tool in close encounters with DDs or allow you to drop them at a smokescreen and hope of actually hitting something. Thanks for reading, and hey, maybe give Z-31 another shot with a different mindset, it might make the experience less bad. Tl;dr What Wargaming did was add the niche gameplay equivalent of something like Neustrashimy or Friesland on a tech tree line. The concept is pretty alien to most and it takes experience to get some results out of it.
  10. Adding a visual to @vikingno2 thread here... Here I present a double CV match (REPLAY) in where I am playing DD... Everything was great, exciting, and everyone is having fun like before the current (0.8.0 patch) CV... At the beginning of the 8 min mark (Yes I am giving you timestamps but not much details)... The match just changes to the WOWS version of WOWP... From that case on... We were treated to the exact reason CVs are just adding to the relationship strain with the other surface ship... The replay... 20210504_221327_PJSD025-True-Kamikaze_41_Conquest.wowsreplay If I were to put my narrative on the situation... From the 8th min on down, it was worse then seeing two BBs looking like old grandpas throwing stones at each other's yard... This descriptor, best describes the narrative I live ATM compared to the start of the match, up to the 8 min mark. It complete halted every feel good emotion everyone felt... Oh I forgot the cherry on top... CV driver "entitlement." expressed by near the end of the game in chat... After I reviewed the replay, I have to disagree with you final analysis... Enjoy WG's creation boys... The concept is getting expanded to other surface ships... I still ask myself the basic human question allowed in the forums in my behalf.... WHY? Full Disclosure; I am not against the inclusion of CVs... I do believe they belong in the game in some way shape or form.. I disagree with the current manifestation, monstrosity creation of the CV class in the game currently... It is causing a rift in the relationship with other vessels in a given match.
  11. Nightlock_

    Best Torp Botes

    Hey Guys, I'm a relatively new DD player and i like being a torpedo boat, so naturally i tried IJN, im up to the Isokaze, and its great, I love it. I really like the line but i hear from every single person that the IJN dds are shiz after the nerfs to torp stealth and the guns, and tell me that ijn dds in general are crap, They say that shima is worst T10 dd in the game, and now i dont know if i really want to play through the IJN line anymore. I honestly dont care about guns, (i don't know how to use them without being nuked ;) because i dont use them that often, so what would you guys say?. Also how effective is the akizuki line at knife fighting and how is the manuevrability and concealment on them??
  12. 4 months ago 2 ships which were the first steel ships went up for coal as announced 6 months before that (Nuet and Flint). Flint got nerfed to the ground in the captain reboot so they might as well as put it up for credits but that is besides the question. What happened to the T9 DD Black? I spent the better part of 2020 saving up coal for these ships and only 2 of them were delivered. Did I miss an official statement about the Black somewhere?
  13. Cossack is a stealthy British gunship destroyer armed with eight 120mm/45 naval rifles and a single bank of four, high-tier torpedoes. She is defined by her good concealment values and awkward firing arcs. Cossack also has access to the Engine Boost consumable while maintaining improved British acceleration and energy preservation. Game play wise, Cossack is very similar to Lightning with an overlap in consumables and commander skill choices. Wargaming has set her price tag at 9,600 doubloons. This is the second Tribal-class destroyer introduced into World of Warships following the release of HMCS Haida earlier this year. She is less remarkable than her sister-ship but that's largely owing to the unforgiving environment in which she plays. Cossack contends with being up-tiered more often than her Canadian counterpart and higher tiered matches are far more radar intensive. Moreover, at tier VII Haida has a defined role -- she's a lolibote-molester. This role is generally lacking among the other tin-cans at tier VII which makes Haida stand out. Cossack doesn't share this same kind of defined specialty. She's more of a generalist scout or gunship -- roles that are replicated by other destroyers at her tier. Thus, Cossack is a workhorse, one gunship among many. She gets the job done in a tough environment which is worth noting, though she is not deserving of any acclaim in this regard. PROS Good DPM performance on her guns and excellent chance at starting fires. Powerful torpedoes for a gunship which may launched individually. Improved engine performance with increased acceleration and energy preservation in a turn while also having access to the Engine Boost consumable. Ridiculous rate of turn, throwing herself about at almost 9.0º/s! Good concealment with a surface detection as low as 5.48km. Access to a long-lasting British Hydroacoustic Search consumable. CONS Poor fire angles on all weapons. Terrible gun ballistics -- worse than American 127mm/38s. Limited to a single torpedo launcher. Her anti-aircraft firepower is effectively non-existent. Poor quality Smoke Generator consumable with short emission time and duration. Overview Skill Floor: Simple / Casual / Challenging / Difficult Skill Ceiling: Low / Moderate / High / Extreme Cossack is not a forgiving ship to play. For a novice player, she has many strikes against her. She struggles to do damage, hamstrung with restrictive fire sectors on all of her weapons and poor performing guns. A deep skill build is necessary to allow her to do direct damage with her artillery against larger opponents and the range of targets she can engage is limited. Having a single torpedo launcher does her no favours either. She is at her best at what amounts to point-blank ranges. At high tiers this is a range where you will get killed in short order for making a mistake. Cossack has the speed, stealth and agility enough to make her attractive to a veteran but her engagement range, optimized for short-distances and limited attack power are a severe mark against her carry potential. Still, she has a diverse toolkit that will earn her some devoted supporters. – One of, if not the worst at its tier. This is a pronounced weakness. – Middle of the pack at its tier. Not terrible, but not terribly good either. – Has a significant advantage over her tier mates. A solid, competitive performer. – No other ship at its tier does this as well as this ship. Cossack's damage output and durability are best described as average. While she does have her strong points, a combination of drawbacks with her guns keeps Cossac from outperforming her peers. Her low hit point total similarly holds her back. She gets a rating in both categories. Her anti aircraft firepower is virtually non-existent and she earns a evaluation as a result. It's arguably worse than the IJN torpedo boats which is saying something. Where Cossack stands apart truly is her agility and stealth. She takes primacy from Lightning in terms of flexibility and speed. It's a closer contest for Vision Control, but she wins out against Loyang. She's the in both categories among tier VIII destroyers. Options Cossack's options are almost all standard for a British destroyer. Cossack like (new) British destroyers cannot make use of the Propulsion Modification 2 upgrade as she already has an improved version built in. Consumables Cossack's Damage Control Party is standard for a destroyer. It has unlimited charges, a 60s/40s reset timer and a 5s active period. Cossack uses a British destroyer Smoke Generator. This has 5 charges base and a 90s/70s reset timer (it's not just you, that number is stupid-weird). It emits smoke for 10s and each cloud lasts for 40s. Unlike other (new) British destroyers, Cossack has access to Engine Boost. This is a standard destroyer-version of the consumable providing an 8% speed increase with 2 charges base, an 180s/120s reset timer and a 120s active period. Cossack uses a British destroyer Hydroacoustic Search. This has 2 charges base, a 180s/120s reset timer and a 180s active period. It detects torpedoes and ships at a range of 3.00km. Upgrades Cossack should equip Magazine Modification 1 into its first upgrade slot. If you like to live dangerously, then Main Armaments Modification 1 is fine. In your second slot, the special upgrade, Hydroacoustic Search Modification 1 is optimal. If you do not have access to it, then the next upgrade you should reach for is the special upgrade Engine Boost Modification 1. If you're lacking that, then default to Propulsion Modification 1. Aiming System Modification 1 is optimal for slot 3. The only reasonable choice in your fourth slot is Steering Gears Modification 2. Similarly, the only reasonable choice in your fifth slot is Concealment Modification 1. Camouflage Cossack comes with Type 10 Camouflage. For 2,000 doubloons you may purchase Royal Navy - Cossack as a cosmetic swap. Both camouflages provide: 50% bonus experience gains 10% reduction to maintenance costs 3% reduction in surface detection 4% reduction in enemy accuracy. Cossack comes with Type 10 Camouflage in mottled grey. I personally think she looks prettier in Royal Navy - Cossack in green, black and grey, but that's only for players with deep pockets. Firepower Main Battery: Eight 120mm/45 guns in 4x2 turrets in an A-B-X-Y superfiring configuration. Torpedoes: Four torpedo tubes in a 1×4 launcher mounted amidships. The 120mm/45s that Cossack uses for her main batteries have a lot of problems at tier VIII. While perfectly serviceable at tier VII with ships like Jervis and Gadjah Mada, against the upgraded opposition faced at higher tiers they're nowhere near as competitive on a per-gun basis. This is largely owing to penetration issues due to gun caliber but there are other things to remark. They have a modest rate of fire, damage per shell and poor ballistics. The mountings on HMS Cossack are poorly situated with limited fire arcs and a lackluster traverse rate. Their only real strength is a high fire chance per shell. Her saving grace is that she has a lot of guns -- quantity has quality all of its own. However, the competition is fierce at tier VIII and even armed with eight rifles Cossack struggles finding the edge she needs. Destroyer AP shells are highly circumstantial in their utility. Most simply do not have the penetration or damage output to make them worth chancing the risk of a bounce using except in specific circumstances. Still, when a broadside is offered, switching to AP provides a much improved damage increase -- especially if your target is already burning from fires set. HMS Cossack's poor penetration values limit the range at which she can make these exchanges successfully, with her ability to citadel enemy cruisers falling off at 4km and her ability to reliably penetrate the extremities of battleships dropping off between 9km and 11km.1 Cossack's HE damage potential looks impressive, though it's important to cross reference it with her penetration values. The chart on the right shows the armour value the respective guns can best while the extremity armour on the bottom lists the prevalence of different armour types for the bow and stern. The number in brackets is the (current as of 0.7.9) number of ships with these armour values. There is a long list of targets she is incapable of damaging directly which will necessitate her making the attempt with AP shells instead. The arcs of fire on A and Y turret are terrible, contrasting the excellent arcs on B and X. On top of this, B-turret may rotate 360º which facilitates keeping it engaged even while Cossack manoeuvres. It's thus very easy to keep six guns on target most of the time but especially difficult to keep all eight firing. Bringing all eight guns to bear makes her an easy and predictable target due to the limited fields of fire on her foremost and rearmost turrets. Sacrificing a turret makes Cossack's gunnery no better than a tier VII destroyer. Cossack doesn't have the DPM advantage to be able to best contemporary gunship destroyers. The race is very close. Once you factor in the hit point totals and detection consumables, the margins get even smaller. Against anything higher tier, Cossack comes out the worse for it. This said, Cossack does have the muscle to bully anything smaller than herself short of HMCS Haida. She can play the role of a destroyer hunter provided she can ensure the detection, hit point and DPM advantage, but she has nowhere near the primacy in these categories at her tier. Against larger vessels, Cossack's guns are a mixed bag. Her ability to deal direct damage is compromised with her poor penetration values but she's an excellent fire starter. Note that this is largely owing to volume and accuracy of fire -- Cossack must be cycling all eight of her guns onto a target and landing with most of her hits to be a credible threat this way. Where Cossack truly excels is her potential to set fires. This is especially true of she eschews the use of IFHE in her commander skill build and elects to just focus on Demolition Expert instead. While this is unlikely to ever give a hale and healthy cruiser pause, it is very effective against battleships. Note, in practice these values are approximately halved when striking ships and represent only the raw fire starting potential. Thus, against a Montana, Cossack with a DE build could expect to set about 4 to 5 fires per minute. Be warned, though, the efficiency of focusing on fires leaves a lot to RNG. Cossack's performance will not be consistent. The final issue facing Cossack's gunnery is one of range and detection. She has adequate reach but she suffers from horrible ballistics. British 120mm/45 guns have worse shell arcs than American 127mm/38s. Cossack has similar gunnery challenges to Loyang, Hsienyang, Kidd and Benson without their fast rate of fire to facilitate aim correction. Cossack is greatly endangered by the prevalence of Surveillance Radar within her matchmaking tier where her short engagement range is more likely to bring her within reach of this consumable. Furthermore, her Smoke Generator does not allow for long bouts of gunnery within the safety of concealment. Cossack must contend with much of her gunnery being done while she is vulnerable to return fire if she cannot make use of island cover. Thus, Cossack must be opportunistic. Whatever ability she has to bully other destroyers falls away as she faces same or higher tiered opponents. Her guns can terrorize lower tiered vessels, including battleships but they lack the caliber needed when facing higher tiers. Throw in the usual challenges of radar in this matchmaking spread and a pattern emerges: The power and flexibility of Cossack's guns varies considerably upon the hand which she's dealt by Matchmaking. Cossack's torpedo launchers have much better rearward arcs than forward. Like her guns, Cossack is going to have to give up her full broadside to be able to fire her torpedoes at a target. Cossack's torpedoes are decent individually, but she has too few of them and bad firing arcs to boot. Cossack has HMS Daring's torpedoes but at tier VIII instead of tier X, which looks nice on paper but that single launcher holds her back. The saving grace of Cossack's torpedo armament is her ability to fire them one at a time. While getting good accuracy with single-launch torpedoes is locked behind a skill wall, once mastered it helps greatly with making up for the lack tubes. For a gunship, Cossack has better individual torpedoes than those found on the Soviet, American or German destroyers. However, like with her guns, she places a distant second to Akizuki, lacking both striking power and being unable to keep up with her damage output Furthermore, Cossack's individually more powerful torpedoes in no way makes up for having only one launcher. Like Cossack's guns, her torpedoes perform much better when she's top tier than bottom. Their 10km range is fairly standard (and an improvement on the 8km on Lightning's), however as Surveillance Radar becomes more and more prominent in higher tiers, this reach just doesn't provide the same level of safety. Ideally, a player should be able to combine Cossack's torpedoes with her excellent fire setting to stack damage over time effects on a given target. In practice, this is much easier said than done. Their limited arcs makes finding opportunities to use them difficult, especially in a pinch. When the stars align (or skill prevails), Cossack can doom an enemy vessel in short order by overtaxing their Damage Control Party between fires and floods and score herself an easy kill. However, these will be rare events rather than commonplace. As discussed, use of Cossack's gunnery and torpedoes are both steeped in challenges. One of the drawbacks of British torpedoes is their large detection range. While not quite on the same level as Japanese destroyer torpedoes, this does limit their effectiveness. Summary: The potency of her guns varies considerably based on the tier of the target she faces. Her gunnery performance is inconsistent. Her torpedoes are individually excellent but they're difficult to use, locked behind a higher skill wall. Cossack must present a lot of broadside to cycle her weapons which can make her unfortunately predictable. Evaluation: What it would have needed to be : Cossack never quite gets her act together to seriously contest the Japanese gunships for their primacy at this tier. Yeah, I'm as shocked as you are that Japan now dominates the destroyer firepower meta at tier VIII. I always thought it would have been the Soviets, but here we are. Defense Hit Points: 15,200hp Min Bow & Deck Armour: 19mm The Lolibote with a redundant name sure looks OP when you lay out the maximum effective hit point total of the tier VIII destroyers like this. However, making perfect use of all four charges of her Repair Party happens so seldom. Still, she's way tougher than Cossack. Cossack has nothing going for her in this category. She has a downright middling hit point total and no fun quirks to her armour profile. This is a destroyer where you will have to manage any gunfire trades carefully to preserve your health. Her DPM advantage is not so high that she can afford to simply slug away at an enemy lolibote and hope to come out the better. The Survivability Expert skill, which ups her to an even 18,000hp should be considered mandatory lest she fall behind the staying power of other gunships. Veterans who are familiar with the play style of Loyang and Benson will no doubt be able to relate to the need to properly spend their hit points when making gunship attacks. The difference between Cossack and these American-based gunships is her worse Smoke Generator performance which limits her ability to make escapes when things go pear shaped. Cause they will. Evaluation: What it would have needed to be : Cossack is in the bottom half of the vast tier VIII destroyer population. It's going to take a lot to move her up in rank -- namely another 5,000 hit points or a Repair Party consumable. Agility Top Speed: 36.0 knots Port Turning Radius: 610m Rudder Shift: 3.6s Maximum Turn Rate: 8.9º/s There's a lot to cover here. Let's hope I can put it in some semblance of good order without melting the brains of my readers. Your take away should be this: Cossack is far more agile than her in-port stats might otherwise indicate. She comes about quickly. She accelerates fast. She doesn't lose speed in a turn. Stay with me here, this graph isn't as scary as it looks. In purple, we have the sustained 4/4 speed of the tier VIII destroyers with their rudder hard over. This is how fast these destroyers can move while wiggling, dodging and coming about. In green is their nominal maximum speed -- for Cossack and Lightning, that's 36 knots. In blue, we have their engine boost speed. What makes Cossack so remarkable is that her maximum speed and turning speed pretty much overlap AND she access to an Engine Boost. This makes her a much harder target to hit, akin to a fast Soviet destroyer in terms of her forward momentum but with the added bonus that she can change her heading much more quickly. Cossack doesn't have the straight-line speed of some of her contemporaries. However, she's functionally faster than many of them. Like destroyers from the Royal Navy tech tree, Cossack preserves almost all of her speed while under manoeuvres. Most destroyers bleed off between 15% and 18% of their top speed while wiggling and dodging. Cossack loses less than 2%. In addition, Cossack comes about almost as nimbly as USS Sims -- one of the most agile mid-tier destroyers in the game, and at a higher sustained speed. For enemies trying to pick her off at range, Cossack presents the dual challenge of a ridiculously high top speed with an nimble target, giving the best traits of both American and Soviet lolibotes in a single package. It doesn't stop there. From a dead stop, Cossack accelerates as much as 25% faster than a similar destroyer equipped with Propulsion Modification 2. From a dead stop, Cossack is quick to get moving again, helping her avoid sudden threats like incoming torpedoes or being lit by Surveillance Radar. Cossack gets the best of both worlds when it comes to upgrades; she enjoys better acceleration than she would have receive with Propulsion Modification 2 and she gets the improved rudder shift time of Steering Gears Modification 2. Unlike other Royal Navy destroyers, Cossack gets all of this without sacrificing access to Engine Boost. Combined with a Sierra Mike signal, she can get her speed up to 40.8kts for these brief spells while keeping all of the aforementioned bonuses to her handling. While ships like Kiev and the upcoming Le Terrible can outpace her in a straight line, Cossack wins out in overall handling and flexibility in combat situations. She trivializes dodging incoming fire and dancing torpedo beats. Paper stats won't tell the whole story. If you looked at a combination of Cossack's top speed, turning radius and rudder shift time, she'd look deceptively mediocre. The engine power of the Royal Navy destroyers and their energy preservation means that they perform on an entirely different level from the other lolibotes, making Cossack far more nimble than her stats otherwise indicate. Her Engine Boost consumable adds even more flexibility than even Lightning can boast, making Cossack the most agile destroyer at her tier.[/caption] Summary Boosted acceleration. Little to no loss of speed in a turn. Cossack can rocket-butt with Engine Boost unlike other British DDs. Evaluation: What would have to happen to DOWNGRADE to : Loss of her Engine Boost consumable would be enough. This is a closely contested category at tier VIII with Lightning being hot on Cossack's heels with better rate of turn and a smaller turning radius. Anti-Aircraft Defense AA Battery Calibers: 40mm / 12.7mm AA Umbrella Ranges: 2.5km / 1.2km AA DPS per Aura: 12.9 / 4.2 Hahaha, no. Cossack has no large caliber AA guns to speak of. Even cursory HE damage is likely to strip her of all of her remaining defensive weapons. Enemy aircraft carriers should feel completely safe in having their planes loiter over Cossack and friendly carriers should abstain from dragging enemy aircraft near Cossack. She'll be of no help. ... except I did. Evaluation: What it would have needed to be : Cossack only barely ekes out the worst AA rating at tier VIII. Asashio is only marginally better with less DPS but more range. In theory, it wouldn't take much to nudge Cossack up the ladder, but don't ever assume this would make her evaluation passable here. Refrigerator Base Surface Detection Range: 6.97km Air Detection Range: 3.90km Minimum Surface Detection Range: 5.48km Detection Range when Firing from Smoke: 2.48km Main Battery Firing Range: 11.89km Detection Consumables: Smoke Generator / Hydroacoustic Search There's a whole lot of weirdness crammed into Cossack's refrigerator. She is currently the rated tier VIII destroyer in terms of stealth and detection, however this is a title she doesn't claim easily. There are three elements which define her concealment: her surface detection range, her Hydroacoustic Search and her Smoke Generator. Surface Detection Spotting distance delta (in meters) between HMS Cossack and the destroyers within her matchmaking spread when fully upgraded for concealment. This chart is restricted only to those destroyers within +/- 500m spread of Cossack's optimized stealth rating. Note that a distance of at least 200m is necessary to have a plausible chance of a reactionary advantage over an opponent and more is preferable. There are few destroyers that can challenge her concealment rating. Cossack is one of the stealthiest destroyers not only at her tier but also within her matchmaking spread. Only the Kagero-class sisters (Kagero, Asashio, Harekaze) have an improved stealth rating as low as 5.374km to Cossack's 5.476km. In open water with every other match-up, Cossack will detect enemies before she herself is seen. Generally speaking, when Cossack is top tier, she will dominate scouting. It's only when she faces tier IX opponents that things get harried, with detection ranges being close enough that Cossack is likely to trip over an enemy destroyer without enough time to react. Surveillance Radar, always the bane of destroyers (and gunship destroyers especially), is a very real and especially prevalent threat to Cossack's well being. When she's bottom tier, Cossack faces several ships with radar that meet or outstrip their surface detection range. There is very little counterplay she can exercise against ships armed with this consumable short of having advanced knowledge of their approximate location. Keep a wary eye on team rosters and behave accordingly. Hydroacoustic Search HMS Cossack comes with a Royal Navy Destroyer safety blanket -- her Hydroacoustic Search. In the radar-heavy environment in which she plays, this lacks the offensive utility found on HMCS Haida and it's largely reserved for simply sniffing out torpedoes. Still, it is possible for Cossack to unmask ships hiding within smoke screens while using her consumable, however she needs to get even closer than her Canadian counterpart to do it. This tactic is largely inadvisable given Cossack's difficulties in getting away once detected but it can be pulled off in a pinch, especially in late game scenarios where an enemy destroyer lacks support. Exploit that three minute duration -- she can outlast the longer ranged (and easier to use) consumables found on Loyang and German destroyers. Outside of these very specific instances, Cossack's Hydroacoustic Search is better used defensively -- giving her the time necessary to avoid incoming torpedo strikes. In most games, this will largely be its purpose. Vigilance is a helpful skill in this regard for team play purposes if you can afford it. Still, this consumable provides a degree of flexibility to the ship that expert players can exploit and to underestimate or dismiss it would be a mistake. Cossack belongs up on the front lines, projecting vision forward for her team and sniffing out early torpedo threats. Smoke Generator There's a big ol' "but" looming over Cossack's superior vision control. She may have great surface detection. She may have a very handy detection consumable that keeps her safe from torpedoes and can be used offensively in a pinch. Butt, her Smoke Generator stinks. Shackled to the same terrible smoke consumable as the British destroyers in the tech tree, Cossack is held back by its low emission and duration times. She doesn't make many smoke clouds for one. What smoke she does make doesn't last nearly long enough to be comfortable, undermining both Cossack's survivability and her ability to deal damage. When used offensively, Cossack can only park in smoke for 40 seconds at a time. With American battleships boasting up to 20s worth of immunity with their Damage Control Party, Cossack isn't going to seriously contest her opponent's ability to put out fires. This necessitates other tactics to get the most out of the potential damage output of her guns. Borrowing the smoke from another ship is one way such as in a division. She can also take a page from American cruiser and destroyer game play and use island cover to lob her shells at enemies that cannot see her but her lack of reach makes this difficult. Finally she can simply elect to fire from open water and risk trading her hit points. I would hardly call this ideal given her low hit point total. Defensively, her smoke is also found wanting. At top speed in a straight line, Cossack drops all of three (count 'em) smoke clouds. If you install the special upgrade, Smoke Generator Modification 1 you get one more puff. That's it -- hardly worth the coal investment. Cossack's consumable is not so much a smoke screen as a squid's ink-squirt. If Cossack has been firing her guns, she may not being able to create enough smoke to block line of sight to multiple opponents (which will make you wonder why you even bothered). Fortunately, if you cut your speed the moment you activate her consumable, Cossack will come to a stop inside the last cloud. Don't wait on the throttle though -- you need to be decelerating the moment you begin laying down your rings. At least Cossack's smoke reset timer isn't punitive. The delay between dissipating and the availability of her next charge can be as little as 20 seconds with the correct commander and signal combination. With up to seven charges available, Cossack simply needs to hold her fire for brief intervals before setting up for another round of shooting. Patience and careful planning can almost make up for all of her consumable's shortcomings. Closely Contested Cossack is an excellent scout. Few destroyers at tier VIII can sit as comfortably on the front lines, broadcasting back enemy positions for their team as Cossack can. In addition, her forward position helps protect her allies from long range torpedo salvos which become quite commonplace within her matchmaking. This isn't a safe place to be, however, and Cossack lacks reliable smoke from her toolkit to give her a sense of security. Cossack may be one of the stealthiest ships at her tier and one of the best destroyers for controlling vision for her team. However, this is very little room for error. Summary Great open water concealment. Hydroacoustic Search combined with her great acceleration and handling makes enemy torpedoes launched at range a non-threat. Her smoke smells like butts. At least she gets a lot of quick-reloading charges. Evaluation: What would have to happen to DOWNGRADE to : Top spot among the tier VIII destroyers is heavily contested. The Japanese torpedo ships have the best raw concealment values. Loyang has arguably the best combination of detection consumables though her surface detection is too big to take the crown. Cossack wins out on primacy despite the flaw of her Smoke Generator, but not without contention. Keeping Oskar from becoming a Sam Skills rated by their utility in descending order from purple, to blue, to green, to red. For the colourblind, they're also rated by hearts. Cossack's initial skill choices are fairly standard for a gunship. Start with Priority Target. Next take Last Stand at tier 2. Survivability Expert is optimal at tier 3. And finish off your 10th point with Concealment Expert. Basic Fire Training should be a must on anyone's list after that and Adrenaline Rush is also optimal. From there, spend your last four points as you will. Final Evaluation I'm not one to blame matchmaking. However, Cossack's fortunes are more firmly tied to matchmaking than many other ships I've played in recent memory. I think it's largely owing to how Cossack performs when she up-tiers. To be absolutely clear, Cossack is a beast when she's the top of the pile. There are very few opponents she cannot engage comfortably and it's only those vessels at her own tier which give her pause. However, Cossack doesn't feel anywhere near as comfortable when she has to go up against tier IX and X opponents. This isn't a problem unique to Cossack, but it is more pronounced in her case. Her guns have a very limited menu of appetizing targets when she faces same or higher tiered opponents. It's not that she can't deal damage when bottom tier, it's simply more of a challenge than for other destroyers. She reminds me very much of most tier V battleships, where they can feel like real powerhouses in those rare times that matchmaking favours them and victims otherwise. Your mileage in Cossack will vary based upon not only where your placed on the Matchmaking roster but what's on the enemy team. So long as she's facing enemy destroyers and cruisers with soft squishy bits she can pelt with her pew pews, you're going to have a great time regardless of her tier. If you suddenly find yourself facing down tier VIII+ American and German heavy cruisers, a heavy battleship lineup or Japanese ducky-destroyers, life's going to be a lot more difficult. Fortunately, Cossack still has a role when she can't be the big dog. When she's no longer able to deal direct damage easily, she excels at simply putting eyes on targets and pressuring cap circles. It's difficult to dislodge an RNDD that has setup shop around a given cap short of using concerted air power or a constant barrage of radiation from Surveillance Radar to drive them back. Cossack won't come out of said matches with much to show for it other than a win if everything goes right, unfortunately. I do like Cossack, but she doesn't inspire the same kind of awe her sister ship, Haida did for me. There's a lot to enjoy with this ship. Few feels as comfortable as she does when top tier and even in those uptiered matches, she can serve you well provided you meet the right opponents. However, in those games where there's nothing but hard targets, the pickings get mighty slim. I dunno why, but I'm a fan of Cossack's alternative camouflage. I wish it didn't cost 2,000 doubloons to make my ship look pretty, but oh well. Would I Recommend? Cossack was originally made available through the Royal Navy event which ran in the last quarter of 2018. Wargaming assigned her a cost of 50 Guineas with players able to earn up to 48 Guineas over three patches. It's not you -- the math doesn't add up. The assumption is that players will have to pay for the difference with a Guinea setting you back around $1 USD. Otherwise, players may acquire her for the equivalent cost of 9,600 doubloons + the price of a port slot. PVE Battles How well does the ship maintain profitability in Co-Op modes and how does she fare against bots? No. Cossack does alright in Operation Dynamo, but her contribution is very one-sided with being largely limited to engaging the torpedo boats. Her AA power is virtually non-existent. Co-Op isn't kind to gunship destroyers, particularly those with only modest hit point pools and limited torpedo options. Random Battle Grinding: This includes training captains, collecting free experience, earning credits and collecting signal flags from achievements. Yes with a butt. Cossack doesn't play much differently than the other Royal Navy destroyers and her skill choices overlap nicely (especially with captains for Icarus, Jervis, Jutland and Daring). The only issue is that earnings get a might bit slim of matchmaking doesn't love you. For Competitive Gaming: Competitive Gaming includes Ranked Battles and other skill-based tournaments. This also includes stat-padding. No. There are better choices, namely Loyang and Akizuki. For Collectors: If you enjoy ship history or possessing rare ships, this section is for you. Yes. Now you too can own a memento of the ship that predicated the early invasion of Norway! Slap on a Hotel Yankee signal, board some enemies and cause an international incident! For Fun Factor: Bottom line: Is the ship fun to play? Yes. While I'd rather play Haida, that's my own Canadian bias speaking. Cossack is a fun ship though be warned, she is a tier VIII destroyer. That comes with all of the hangups that tier VIII destroyers face. What's the Final Verdict? How would the ship rate on an Angry YouTuber scale of Garbage - Meh - Gud - Overpowered? GARBAGE- The boat is unbalanced, not fun to play and weak. The ship desperately needs some buffs or some quality of life changes. Mehbote - An average ship. Has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't need buffs to be viable however she's not going to be considered optimal. Gudbote - A powerful ship, often one of the best ships at a given role within its tier. Usually considered optimal for a given task. OVERPOWERED - The boat is unbalanced and powerful. Typically she's either horrible to play against or she redefines the meta entirely In Closing Is it over? I think it's over! Cossack (and Haida) have been on books since January of 2018 -- that's over nine months of work that has gone into reviewing her and her sister ship with too many different versions between them. As you can imagine, there was a lot of information to keep track of with her performance changing so regularly. While I'm happy the two ships aren't terrible, I'm very (very) glad to be able to stop worrying about Cossack for a while. I want to thank my readers and fans who helped keep me sane over these months and an especially well deserved thanks to my Patrons on Patreon who helped keep me fed. I won't have to dig her out again until there's another tier VIII destroyer to review for a comparative study. But that won't happen for another ... Aww, sh-- ...!  Appendix (1) Penetration data courtesy of Proships.ru (https://www.proships.ru) and World of Warships AP Calculator (https://mustanghx.github.io/ship_ap_calculator/).
  14. Sooo, just came out of this battle. I believe people will notice something is missing . With that fresh example, this brings up the biggest impact the skill rework had, aka the disruption of the class ecosystem. It isn't just Deadeye; it plays its role in attracting BB players as if it will suddenly make them godlike snipers. It's that cruisers aside from a few lighthouse build exceptions got the short end of the stick and it shows while the other surface classes profited quite a bit. Why bother playing a CA/CL? To be target practice, or to stick to a specific playstyle that's just farming damage without any other impact? What's the point to punish myself in a cruiser when I can mimick a CL in a Kleber with 16.3km range, that goes 55 kts and has no citadel? Damage isn't everything, and in the case of cruisers their consumables can have real, meaningful impact on a battle without even firing a shot. Without them around there are no real hard counters to things like vision control of the DDs, nor DPM that can melt a fragile class. And when there are loads of BBs and almost no cruisers around DD populations surge. At that point the greatest enemy of a DD becomes an enemy DD, something which relies heavily on personal skill, something which the average DD player is lacking. Meanwhile aside from that original announcement there is still no info on the specifics of skill tweaks. But hey, at least I got my pound of flesh from the enemy BBs/DDs so everything is fine, there's absolutely no need for changes nor is the situation slowly turning toxic.
  15. meat2

    Cruiser role.

    There are many topics on the forum that cover cruisers, ATF, battleships hiding, cruiser roles, torpedoes spam, cruisers hiding,aircraft carriers, and teamwork. But the topic of the role of cruisers is one major idea that kind of covers and unites them together. If a forum reader reads through the threads on any of the topics listed above he/she will notice something; in many of these topics a player speaking from the point of view of battleship players will tell the cruiser players that cruisers are a "support" class. So, this question is primary for battleship players, what do you mean by "support"? How do you actually define "support role"? Also take in consideration the play-ability of your definition, enjoyment that cruiser player would have playing by your ideas, and also the take into consideration current game mechanics. P.S. If you are a player that primary plays other classes, or want to speak from the point of view of destroyers, cruisers, or aircraft carriers feel free to speak your own mind on the role of cruisers and the meaning of the idea of "support." Be civil everyone and thank you.
  16. Totenliste

    Possible Italian DD line

    We really need to get some Italian DDs out there to fight the French Destroyers Note: I tried to avoid using another country's unmodified destroyer in this line up. [T2] Curtatone Class DD 1923 https://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_curtatone.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtatone-class_destroyer Type: Destroyer Displacement: · 953 t (standard) ·1214 t (full load) Length: 84.72 m (277 ft 11 in) Beam: 8 m (26 ft 3 in) Draught: 2.46 m (8 ft 1 in) Propulsion: ·2 shaft Zoelly steam turbines ·4 Thornycroft type boilers ·22,000 hp (16,400 kW) Speed: 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph) Range: 1,800 nmi (3,300 km) at 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph) Complement: 117 Armament: ·4 × 102 mm guns (2 × 2) ·2 × 76 mm AA guns (2 × 2) ·6 × 13.2 mm machine guns ·6 × 450 mm (18 in) torpedo tubes (2 × 3) ·16 mines [T3] Quinto Sella Class DD 1929 Refit https://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_sella.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sella-class_destroyer Type: Destroyer Displacement: ·1140 t (standard) ·1,457 t (full load) Length: 84.9 m (278 ft 7 in) Beam: 8.6 m (28 ft 3 in) Draught: 2.7 m (8 ft 10 in) Installed power: ·3 Thornycroft boilers ·36,000 shp (27,000 kW) Propulsion: 2 shafts; 2 geared steam turbines Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h; 38 mph) Range: 3,600 nmi (6,700 km; 4,100 mi) at 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph) Complement: 152 Armament: ·2 × twin 120 mm (4.7 in) guns ·2 × single 40 mm (1.6 in) AA guns ·2 × single 13.2 mm (0.52 in) machine guns ·2 × twin 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes ·32 mines [T4] Turbine Class DD 1927 https://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_turbine.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine-class_destroyer Type: Destroyer Displacement: ·1,220 t (standard) ·1,670 t (full load) Length: 93.2 m (305 ft 9 in) Beam: 9.2 m (30 ft 2 in) Draught: 3 m (9 ft 10 in) Installed power: ·3 Thornycroft boilers ·40,000 shp (30,000 kW) Propulsion: 2 shafts; 2 geared steam turbines Speed: 33 knots (61 km/h; 38 mph) Range: 3,200 nmi (5,900 km; 3,700 mi) at 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph) Complement: 179 Armament: ·2 × twin 120 mm (4.7 in) guns ·2 × single 40 mm (1.6 in) AA guns ·4 × twin 13.2 mm (0.52 in) machine guns ·2 × triple 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes ·52 mines [T5] Soldati Class DD 1941-1942 Version (also known as Camicia Nera Class) https://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_soldati.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldati-class_destroyer Type: Destroyer Displacement: · 1,830 t (standard) · 2,460 t (full load) Length: ·106.7 m (350 ft 1 in) (o/a) ·101.6 m (333 ft 4 in) (pp) Beam: 10.15 m (33 ft 4 in) Draught: 3.15–4.3 m (10 ft 4 in–14 ft 1 in) Installed power: ·3 Yarrow boilers ·48,000 shp (36,000 kW) Propulsion: 2 shafts; 2 geared steam turbines Speed: 33 - 35 knots Range: 2,200 nmi at 20 knots Complement: Electronics: 206 Sonar Armament: ·(2 × 2 + 1 x 1) 120 mm (4.7 in) guns ·(4 × 2) 20 mm AA guns ·2 × triple 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes ·2 × depth charge throwers ·48 mines [T6] Navigatori Class DD 1939-1940 Refit Version (Class built in answer to French Jaguar and Guépard classes) https://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_navigatori.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigatori-class_destroyer Type: Destroyer Displacement: ·2,125 t (standard) ·2,888 t (full load) Length: 109.3 m Beam: 11.2 m Draught: 4.2 m Installed power: ·4 water-tube boilers ·50,000 hp Propulsion: 2 shafts; 2 geared steam turbines Speed: 33 – 35 knots Range: 3,800 nmi (7,000 km; 4,400 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph) Complement: 222–225 (wartime) Armament: ·3 × twin 120 mm (4.7 in) guns ·2 × single 40 mm (1.6 in) AA guns ·8 × twin 13.2 mm (0.52 in) machine guns ·6 × 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes (2 x 3) ·86–104 mines ·2 DCT [T7] Comandanti Medaglie d'Oro Class DD 1942 (Group 1) https://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_comandanti.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandanti_Medaglie_d'Oro-class_destroyer Type: Destroyer Displacement: · 2,067 t (standard) · 2,900 t (full load) Length: 120.7 m (396 ft) (o/a) Beam: 12.3 m (40 ft 4 in) Draught: 3.6 m (11 ft 10 in) Installed power: ·3 three-drum boilers ·60,000 shp (45,000 kW) Propulsion: 2 shafts; 2 geared steam turbines Speed: 35 - 38 knots Range: 3,300 nmi (6,100 km; 3,800 mi) at 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) Complement: 272 Sensors and processing systems: EC-3 ter Gufo search radar Armament: ·4 × single 135 mm (5.3 in) guns ·12 × single 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns ·2 × triple 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes ·52 mines ·2 depth charge throwers, 64 depth charges [T8] Spalato Class DD 1943 (Italian Armament and Machinery in French based Fantasque hull) https://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_spalato.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_destroyer_Split Type: Large destroyer Displacement: · 2,040 t (Standard) · 2,500 t (full load) Length: ·120 m (393 ft 8 in) (o/a) ·114.8 m (376 ft 8 in) (p/p) Beam: 11.3 m (37 ft 1 in) Draft: 3.48 m (11 ft 5 in) Installed power: ·55,000 shp (41,000 kW) ·3 × Yarrow boilers Propulsion: 2 × shafts; 2 × geared steam turbines Speed: Crew: 36 - 38 knots 214 Armament: Electronics: ·5 × single 135 mm (5.3 in) guns ·10 × single 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns ·4 × twin 20 mm AA guns ·2 x triple 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes ·40 mines ·2 depth charge throwers ·2 DCR Sonar, Radar Note this is the completed version that Italy was unable to complete as shortly after getting it launched they scuttled it. As completed by Yugoslavia 1958. Here is a project done by Tzoli called DD Design 1939 I have a feeling this captured hull might have been something similar. Just swap out the quad racks for triples. Also check out Tzoli's other ship projects that never were, they are exceptional. https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Italian-Destroyer-Design-1939-779653886 [T9] Commandante Botti Class DD (Variant twin mount version of Comandanti Medaglie d'Oro 2nd Group) https://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_dd_comandanti.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandanti_Medaglie_d'Oro-class_destroyer Type: Destroyer Displacement: · 2,067 t (standard) · 2,900 t (full load) Length: 120.7 m (396 ft) (o/a) Beam: 12.3 m (40 ft 4 in) Draught: 3.6 m (11 ft 10 in) Installed power: ·3 three-drum boilers ·60,000 shp (45,000 kW) Propulsion: 2 shafts; 2 geared steam turbines Speed: 36 - 38 knots Range: 3,300 nmi (6,100 km; 3,800 mi) at 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) Complement: 272 Sensors and processing systems: Radar Armament: ·4 × double 135 mm (5.3 in) guns ·12 × single 37 mm (1.5 in) AA guns ·2 × triple 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes ·52 mines ·2 depth charge throwers, 64 depth charges [T10] Capitani Romani Class DD/CL 1943 (Built in response to French Fantasque and Mogador classes) [Slightly modified Paolo Emilio] https://www.navypedia.org/ships/italy/it_cr_regolo.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitani_Romani-class_cruiser Type: Destroyer/Light cruiser Displacement: ·3,987 t (standard) ·5,600 t (full load) Length: 142.2 m Beam: 14.4 m Draught: 6.4 m Installed power: ·4 water-tube boilers ·110,000 shp (82,000 kW) Propulsion: 2 shafts; 2 geared steam turbines Speed: 43 knots Range: 4,350 nmi (8,060 km; 5,010 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph) Complement: 494 Sensors and processing systems: Sonar, Radar Armament: ·4 × twin 135 mm (5.3 in) DP guns ·6 × single 65 mm AA guns ·4 × sextuple 20 mm (0.8 in) AA guns ·2 × quadruple 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes ·114-136 × mines ·2 DCR (24) ·2 DCT Armour: ·Turrets: 6–20 mm (0.24–0.79 in) ·Conning tower: 15 mm (0.59 in) Having had the T VI-IX (especially the IX having Emilio there is difficult) done already doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. Notes: Curtatone: brought a number of innovations, concerning armament structure and arrangement. Curtatone class ships became the first Italian destroyers with all armament placed at center line. For the first time in Europe 102mm guns were installed in twin mounts. Besides that, these ships received triple TTs instead of twin. Soldati: Most successful and numerous class of Italian destroyers. Navigatori: Ordered in 1926 as the answer to the new French Jaguar and Guépard classes. New features of "Navigatori" type became machinery arrangement in echelon, that theoretically raised battle immunity. Transition to new 120mm/50 guns became another important innovation on account of the higher firing rate of the new guns "Navigatori" with three twin mounts not only did not yield, but also exceeded previous Leone class DDs with their four twin mounts of the old model. Comandanti Medaglie d'Oro: In one of the design stages 135mm guns took places both in single and twin mounts (my Commandante Botti Class), but in an ultimate variant the preference had been decided to go with four single mounts. Obviously my Commandante Botti Class at T9 can be tinkered to fit in at this level using twin mounts. Capitani Romani: Light cruisers of the Capitani Romani class became the answer to the new French Fantasque and Mogador classes. The ships should have, eight 135mm guns in four turrets, six of the newest 65mm AA guns and 2 quadruple TTs. The latter had original "two-level" construction (two tubes in the level and two in the upper). Because of unavailability of 65mm AA guns it was necessary to replace them with the habitual twin 37mm MGs. Now with the Paolo Emilio having 20-mm L65 Breda machine guns in sextuple mounts it forces my version to have them too. My T10 version has the following differences: Modified as designed add back the intended 65mm guns swapping out the 37mm, change out double 20mm for sextuple 20mm, and add radar/sonar option also slightly larger (difference with Paolo Emilio slightly better AA and radar/sonar option vs + 1 additional 1 x 4 TorpTube). Overall most Italian destroyers are known for instability problems at high speeds especially since they did time trials unloaded for intimidation factor of speed over the French. Most ships using their stable speed compare well to their French counterparts as well as in armament. Special Gimmick: Exhaust smoke generator as seen on Paolo Emilio. Other items up to design team of course.
  17. I understand Fen Yang's tweaks from her sister IJN destroyer Akizuki in regards to gunnery performance. However, Fen Yang's torpedoes currently fill a niche role that ventures into Asashio's territory. For those who don't know what I am referring to, Fen Yang currently has a deepwater variant of Akizuki's upgraded torpedoes, the Type93 mod. 2's, that have longer range (12km instead of 10km), slightly longer reload, and lowered detectability (0.8km instead of 1.7km); but the inability to damage destroyers & cruisers. Fen Yang's torpedoes can only hit battleships and aircraft carriers, similar to Asashio. Fen Yang's torpedoes are in direct conflict with the other Pan-Asian deepwater torps, which possess the ability to hit cruisers. I have a proposed change regarding Fen Yang's torpedoes. Give Fen Yang a deepwater variant of the stock Akizuki torpedoes, the Type92 mod. 1, with the ability to hit cruisers as well as battleships & aircraft carriers. The torpedo alpha would be reduced from the current 20,967 damage down to 17,233, the speed & reload would be reduced slightly, and the range reduced to 10km. Considering that Fen Yang only has one quad torpedo launcher, I don't think this change in torpedo armament would make Fen Yang overpowered in any way. The torpedo stats would be a slight nerf, however the ability for Fen Yang's torpedoes to damage cruisers would bring this destroyer back in line with the various other Pan-Asian destroyer torpedoes, while allowing Asashio to do what she does best: hunting battleships & CVs.
  18. Hi all, Destroyers were always a fun ship type to play. So how about considering a new Tier 10 Premium destroyer for the US navy? Idea - I had this idea since starting from 10.0.2, USS Somers will become unavailable to obtain from the Armory for an undefined period of time. Although it will be replaced by the USS Austin, there will be no Tier 10 Premium Destroyers for US Navy. You might think that we don't even need a Tier 10 Premium destroyer for the US Navy, but in World of Warships, starting from Tier 5 (US), every tier has a premium destroyer: T5 Hill, T6 Monaghan, T7 Sims/ Sim B, T8 Kidd, T9 Benham and Black, and no T10 premium destroyer after 10.0.2 :( USS Allen M. Sumner DD-692. Ship Length - 376 feet Beam - 40 feet Draft - 15 feet Speed - 34 knots Hit Points - between 18,000 - 20,000 Armaments Main guns - Three 130mm double-barrelled guns Rate of Fire - 20 shots/minutes Reload time - 3 seconds Firing Range - between 12 - 13km Maximum HE Shell Damage - 2,200 Maximum AP Shell Damage - 2,600 AA Defence Twelfth 40mm Bofors Average damage per second - between 90 - 130 Firing Range - between 3 - 4km Eleven 20mm Oerlikon Average damage per second - between 45 - 65 Firing Range - between 2 - 3km Torpedoes Two quintuple(5) Torpedo launchers Torpedo Warhead - 533mm Rate of Fire - between 0.85 - 0.66 shots/ minutes Reload Time - between 70 - 90 seconds Firing Range - 16.5km Torpedo Speed - 66 knots Maximum Damage - 20,000 Possible Consumables Damage Control Party Smoke Generator/Hydroacoustic Search Engine Boost/ Enhanced AA Defence
  19. In those German dds where you have a choice, which gun caliber do you chose, the 128 or the 150 mm? The 150 mm are real thumper guns that can punish broadside cruisers with AP, but their ROF is a disadvantage in a close-quarters fight with other dds. I've chosen the 128's in the past as a default but now I'm questioning my choice. Are the different calibers better in different battle modes (Random vs Ranked, vs Scenario, etc.)?
  20. SedatedApe

    I Hate DDs

    Keep seeing so many discussions about CV hate. Fair is fair....lets have one for those that hate DDs and how they have unlimited torps, how some are invisible until the are 8 feet away, and how they don't have muzzle flash while gunning from smoke. Here's the discussion many of you have been waiting for!!! Let the games begin...
  21. I am not going to suggest a solution (that is up for the DEVs), I am going to complain about the zombie planes attacking ships, after the said ship out smarted/sunk the CV driver... Not only CVs are so disproportionate in DMG dealing (against small/medium ships), even when they're sunk by smart plays.. They still find a way with zombie planes to retaliate against the person who sunk them (by hovering over them for what seems like forever, or dropping a consumable to pinpoint the location of the said ship)... IMO, IF a CV is sunk by any ship class.. He shouldn't be able to retaliate against said player... Its over at that point... Replay instructions... Fast forward to the red CV's sinking. Press play and enjoy 20201018_225113_PJSD025-True-Kamikaze_41_Conquest.wowsreplay
  22. There is a wide variety of US destroyer classes that existed but have never been available in WOWS. By creatively splitting the type it would be possible to create two separate lines, a torpedo line and a gun line allowing us to play most of the US classes. The prototypes are available to do it, it’s just a matter of how to divide them up. So, here is my proposed split: Shared Classes: 2 Sampson 3 Wickes Adjustment to the current line which would become the torpedo line: 4 Clemson 5 Nicholas 6 Farragut 7 Mahan 8 Benham- This class gives up one 5” gun from the Mahan in exchange for another torpedo launcher for a total of 16 tubes! Another 200 tons and 2 kts 9 Fletcher 10 Gearing Now the Gun Line 4 Cannon - Actually a destroyer escort, players would be sacrificing a great deal of speed but in exchange would get more hit points, WW2-era rapid fire guns and torpedoes and a massive AA boost that would be helpful against carriers. They couldn’t be played like regular destroyers but would be an asset if used right. Like the Yubari’s, if there’s a carrier in the game it will be very unhappy. 5 Buckley- Another destroyer escort with the advantages of the Cannon class plus 5” guns, even more hit points and more speed. 6 Porter- Designed as destroyer leaders, the Porters are pretty awesome ships on paper. In practice they were overloaded and the turrets were incapable of AA fire. These may have to be nerfed to fit in at 6. 7 Somers - Basically the porters with high angle mounts for the 5” guns. Again, more awesome on paper than in practice. 8 Benson - Stolen so the torpedo line can get a 16 torpedo destroyer. 9 Forrest Sherman- Contemporary of the Udaloy-class DD, these would have rapid fire 5” guns with wicked range and accuracy plus a substantial secondary battery. Few torpedoes but I believe these were guided, so that could make them more likely to hit. 10 Mitscher class- Destroyer leaders, huge ships, I believe there was a four gun design that could be used to give it the firepower WOWs requires instead of an ASW focus. Admittedly there is some shoehorning going on to make this line feasible. The DE’s and postwar destroyers may be challenging, and the line isn’t exactly a smooth transition from one class to the next. But the torpedo line is available for players looking for that smooth progression and the gun line, despite being cats-and-dogs would bring several ships into play that aren’t available right now.
  23. The continuation from the topic thread here In today's feature, I am not the star of the replay... Its the red fleet's DD. You the viewer, as you watch, just keep an eye on our CV... That is it.. Also, like the last post.. This is not a discussion on spotting. This is not a rant against CVs or the drivers who play them. This is meant to show how power creep adds to the toxicity to the in-game experience.Its also meant for us to think, should this meta be allowed in the game? IMO, The disproportional DMG dealt by CVs ( or any other ship class for that matter), creates a lot of the toxicity in a match. Enjoy! 20200826_223115_PASC707-Flint_46_Estuary.wowsreplay *REMEMBER* You can speed up the replay by pressing the INS button.
  24. Have you ever captained a BB and a DD pulls up within 6km of you or it jumps from behind an island point blank? You used to be able to punish them for that mistake but now you can unload a full broadside at them and theyll just shake it off and dump salvo of torps at you and kill you. WG needs to address this. As a BB player since the beta days this is one of the biggest frustrating changes theyve made. DDs need to be punished for travelling too close and revealing their broadside. Even if its not a full citadel, at least half damage or flooding or allow BB secondaries to do the same damage as DD main guns since theyre the same weapon essentially. Its impossible even on arcade physics to honestly allow DDs to shrug off a full broadside by a BB and have 2/3 health remaining. Lets give us BB players an incentive to play again instead of just flooding the server with fake ships and broken pro DD physics
  25. History The 18 Forrest Sherman-class destroyers were the first US post-war destroyers (DD-927 to DD-930 were completed as destroyer leader configurations). Commissioned beginning in 1955, these ships served until the late 1980s. Their weaponry underwent considerable modification during their years of service. Four were converted to guided missile destroyers. This class also served as the basis for the Charles F. Adams-class guided missile destroyer. At the time they entered service, these ships were the largest US destroyers ever built, 418 feet (127 m) long, with a standard displacement of 2,800 tonnes (2,800 long tons). They were originally armed with three 5-inch (127 mm)/54 caliber guns mounted in single turrets (one forward and two aft), 4 3-inch (76 mm)/50 caliber AA guns in twin mounts, as well as hedgehogs and torpedoes for ASW. However, over the years, weaponry was considerably modified. The hedgehogs and 3-inch (76 mm) guns were removed from all ships during the 1960s and 1970s. In addition the fixed torpedo tubes were replaced by two triple 12.75 inches (324 mm) Mark 32 torpedo tube mounts. Eight of the class were modernized to improve their ASW capabilities, becoming the Barry class. These ships were fitted with an eight cell ASROC launcher in place of the No. 2 5-inch (127 mm) gun, and with a variable-depth sonar system. Characteristics Length: 407 ft (124 m) waterline 418 ft (127 m) overall Beam:45 ft (14 m) Draft:22 ft (6.7 m) Propulsion: General Electric steam turbines (Westinghouse in DD-931) 4 × 1,200 psi (8.3 MPa) Foster-Wheeler boilers (Babcock & Wilcox in DD-937, DD-943, DD-944, DD-945, DD-946 and DD-948) 70,000 shp (52 MW), 2 × shafts. Speed:32.5 knots (60.2 km/h; 37.4 mph) Armament 3 × 5 inch (127 mm) 54-calibre Mark 42 single gun mounts 4 × 3 inch (76 mm) 50-caliber Mark 33 guns 2 × Mark 10/11 Hedgehogs 4 × 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes. ( likely ASW torpedoes ) USS Hull History She was commissioned 3 July 1958 and transited the Panama Canal a few months later to begin a long career with the Pacific Fleet.[1] Between April and August 1959 Hull conducted the first of her fifteen deployments to serve with the Seventh Fleet in the Western Pacific. She made three more cruises in that area in 1960, 1961–1962 and 1963-1964. During October and November 1962 the destroyer escorted Pacific-based amphibious forces to the Panama Canal Zone as part of the US Navy's Cuban Missile Crisis operations. Hull's 1965 Seventh Fleet tour was the first of six Vietnam War deployments, during which she fired tens of thousands of five-inch shells in support of forces ashore and helped rescue several downed U.S. aviators. Additionally, Hull served as plane guard for carriers on Yankee Station in the Tonkin Gulf, participated in Operation Sea Dragon operations, and patrolled on search and rescue duties and carried out Naval Gunfire Support missions during the Vietnam War. Hull made her eleventh WestPac cruise in 1973, after the direct U.S. role in the Vietnam War had ended. During her major overhaul in 1974-75, her forward 5 in/54 Mark 42 gun mount was replaced with an 8 in/55 Mark 71 gun mount. This Major Caliber Lightweight Gun ("MCLWG") was the result of a project dating back to the 1960s, when it was realized that heavy gunfire support for amphibious operations would die with the existing force of heavy cruisers unless a big gun could be developed for destroyer-size ships. A prototype gun and mounting had been built and tested ashore during the early 1970s. Hull was its test ship for seagoing trials, after which it was expected that several of these guns would be installed on board destroyers of the new Spruance class. Hull's eight-inch gun began firing tests in April 1975. These lasted into the following year, and were reportedly successful. The ship carried the Mark 71 mounting during her 1976-77 and 1978 deployments to the Western Pacific, and conducted more firing tests during that time. However, the MCLWG project was cancelled in 1978. The prototype gun was removed from Hull during her 1979-80 overhaul and she spent the rest of her days with the three five-inch gun mounts that were typical of her class. Ingame The Forest Sherman's capabilities ingame could be closely relate to that of Friesland's while USS hull's gameplay could possibly be quite unique in that it's 8 inch gun would be the main armament while it's 2 5 inch turrets in the rear of the ship would be counted as secondary mounts. As such it's 5 inch mounts could be adjusted as necessary sense have too main armaments of different calibers,mass,and ROF would be difficult manage in the heat of battle. Forrest Sherman Ingame Survivability: 18,500 HP Main armament: 3 × 5 in (127 mm) 54 calibre dual purpose Mk 42 guns HE Shell ( HC Mark 41 ) HE Shell weight: 31.448 kg HE shell initial velocity: 808 m/s HE shell max damage: 1,800 Reload: 1.8 secs Turret traverse: 7.2 secs Range 11.5 km Anti-Air: 3 × 5 in (127 mm) 54 calibre dual purpose Mk 42 guns 4 × 3 inch (76 mm) 50-caliber Mark 33 guns Manuverability: Speed: 33 knots Turning cirlce radius: 660m Rudder shift: 3.5 secs Concealment: Sea: 7.3km Air: 3.0km USS Hull ingame Survivability: 18,500 HP Main armament: 1 x 8"/55 (20.3 cm) Mark 71 HE shell ( HC Mark 25 ) HE shell weight: 117.8 kg HE shell intial velocity: 808 m/s HE shell max damage: 2800 (same as Des Moines) Reload: 5 secs Turret traverse: 7.2 secs Range: 12.5 km Secondary armament: 2 × 5 in (127 mm) 54 calibre dual purpose Mk 42 guns HE Shell ( HC Mark 41 ) HE Shell weight: 31.448 kg HE shell initial velocity: 808 m/s HE shell max damage: 1,800 Reload: 4 secs Turret traverse: 7.2 secs Range 5-6 km (depends on the modules that could be available) Anti-Air: 2 × 5 in (127 mm) 54 calibre dual purpose Mk 42 guns 4 × 3 inch (76 mm) 50-caliber Mark 33 guns Manuverability: Speed: 33 knots Turning cirlce radius: 660m Rudder shift: 3.5 secs Concealment: Sea: 7.6km Air: 3.4km Consumables ( for Both ) Repair Party Smokescreen Engine Boost Defensive AA The Values of these ships are just ones I've come up with comparing the attributes of these ships and what that may look like ingame compared to the ships we have currently aswell ones as in testing. I also know of the current over saturation of HE ships currently ingame but i"m not asking for these ships tomorrow or even months from now I'm just putting the possible for these ship on the table.
×