Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Destroyers'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Contributor Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 37 results

  1. I've been testing the hill, and it has very poor hull armor, if you're attacked by rockets, you're fried .. projectiles from other DD do you a lot of damage, and it's been checked and the hull of the hill is basically the hull B of the FARRAGUT, they are exact with the difference that the farragut has better armor than the HILL, also if we compare it the NICHOLAS has better armor and HP than the HILL, it would be good to rejust the armor and Hp of the HILL. from rest the boat is good. compare armoreds DD: vampire T3 10mm as armor hill T5 o farragut T6 brothers hill 16mm nicholas T5 15mm hill t5 with amor T3 10mm clemson T4 13mm NICHOLAS GUNS & CONCEALMENT IS TOTAL BETTER NINJA HILL BOTTOM IS ALMOST EVERYTHING all DD lower Tier has Better armored thah HILL. please Wg UP armored hill... the torps are useless very slower & short range
  2. rafael_azuaje

    OKHOTNIK - DOUBTS about your HP

    hello to all. I have some doubts about the low HP of Okhotnik, if we see is a long and heavy destroyer of 2100 standard tons, there is where you get the hp, this should have 15000 max in stock. It is a very similar destroyer in displacement to the French AIGLE with 2441 tons, it is a question of WG review the OKhotnik. and improve that. in spite of the okhotnik being from 1917 it could be said that he was going to see a super destroyer of the time because of its size and displacement and armaments. https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Okhotnik https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Aigle
  3. Was just in a game with a DD player that decided they wanted to spot two enemy DDs at the very start of the battle. Our team only had 3 BBs for support in the area. Naturally, with no support, our DD got destroyed really quickly and then turned to the chat to rant about how bad we were. As a BB main, I see this a lot. Eager DDs charge in, trusting that the friendly BBs can help take out the enemies. Meanwhile, the BBs are 10-15km away from the targets they are supposed to be shooting at. Why do DD players think that BBs are the "destroy everything" ships? They aren't designed for taking on DDs. Hitting a DD at range with a BB is too hard because they can dodge quite easily and the reload speed means you can't lob enough shells at them. Getting into a range where you would actually be likely to hit a DD is too risky because the poor maneuvering of a BB makes it difficult to dodge the inevitable torpedoes. I cannot understand by DD players don't understand this. If you want to kill a DD, you need cruiser support.
  4. Comte_deGrasse


    July 4th's gaming was a very unpleasant experience. The ADD kids with their DDs flinging torpedoes in all directions, not quite caring where they went, after the third torp hit from friendlies I turned the game off for the night. One lunatic rammed me, 2 minutes later torped me, after which he nuzzled up against a BB that I was brawling with at reasonably close quarters and I got the finger wagging for firing on allies. Stay the hell out of my line of fire, [edited]! You don't have too sink everything. Impulse control, ok?! But what really turned me off was how quickly the co-op games were fought and ended. I was playing Tiers IV through VI. BBs and CVs barely got their engines revved up before half the opposing team was gone. In two battles I fired less than 4 shells. I might as well have gone into the kitchen and made a sandwich for all the good I did. Gun-ships and carriers weren't needed, and were effectively excluded from play; tits on a bull. Frustrating and infuriating. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun. It wasn't. A review of the team stats in game after game showed torp-flingers in DDs repeatedly in the tops spots, with 2x and 3x the XP of gun ships. A review of some of the worst cases' profiles showed players with hundreds to 1,000 standard games and double that for co-ops. I suppose this is the 'seal clubbing' that I've heard about. I'm sure that it gives some more experienced players jollies and a rub, but it is disappointing and a turn-off for those of us climbing through the lower and mid-tiers. I've been of the opinion that DDs are disproportionately powerful in the game for some time, but this was wratcheting it up a notch even further. It's not worth playing anything but DD in many matches. And for what it's worth, It's historically inaccurate. DDs were highly inaccurate in their top spreads during both wars, failing more often than not. Yes, I'm [edited], but I do believe that my point has some merit. I expect to catch flak for this post (or should I say torps?), but if you're going to take issue with me, please be civil and point out how I may be wrong. Don't just call me an idiot or whatnot. I welcome constructive criticism.
  5. Now, I know what most will think; probably a prank to get a quick laugh. But sometimes crazy events actually happen in real life. Coca Cola and Pepsi in general were big competitors in the Soviet Union as well, with Pepsi having an almost complete monopoly at that time. Their competition is even nicknamed "Cola wars" This is how Pepsi in 1989 found itself being a significant naval power (17 submarines, 1 frigate, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser). Granted, they were obsolete; the subs were of the diesel electric variety, not nuclear ones, but Pepsi got the whole package for the bargain price of 3 billion dollars. Sadly I was unable to find the exact types. However, based on timing, a Sverdlov class cruiser, Aleksandr Nevsky and Whiskey Class submarines could fit the bill. Of course, this fleet was never really used, it was merely a valuable source of scrap with which a by then failing USSR closed a big deal with Pepsi. Still, found out literally out of nowhere, thought it's a pretty interesting and funny story. The head of Pepsi at the time, Donald M. Kendall even said to President Bush (Senior) that Anyway, with the introduction done, here's the original digitised article: https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/10/opinion/foreign-affairs-soviets-buy-american.html And a meme pic I found: SS "Fizzy", flagship of the glorious Pepsian fleet .
  6. Mad_Mandolorian

    Are Gun DDs better than CLs?

    I've been playing wows for a while now, (I admit to taking a long break last summer) and have focused mostly on light cruisers. I've noticed that I'm having issues combating Gun focused destroyers, they'll kite to maximum range, dodge my fire and hail down return fire and while I do still land hits they can out dps me meaning they often win the engagement. After one too many deaths it got me thinking, What can a CL do that a DD cant? AA for one, but if a CV wants you dead you're dead regardless of ship, CLs also heave more health but DDs lack citadels, are faster more mobile and smaller targets, CLs tend to have more guns with a slightly larger caliber (although now that some DDs are getting 130+mm that debatable) but DDs have much better rate of fire meaning the shots/sec tend to be in the destroyer's favor. CLs might have longer range but DDs are stealthier and hold a distinct advantage at long range. The CL may win close range gun duals but all DDs have torpedoes and more importantly the speed and stealth to dictate the engagement. so ultimately am I missing some critical flaw in DDs or are CLs relegated to being consumable batteries for BBs, not daring to shoot lest they be spotted and citideled, or burned alive in open water by DDs doing the CL's job better than the CL ever could?
  7. Destroyers versus Carrier Aircraft need help. This proposal in aimed to do exactly that: save the Destroyer from Carriers, but within REASON. Goal of the proposed change: Give all Destroyers a dedicated defensive "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable that remains active for X minutes and respawns destroyed "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" during that time frame. This will enable Destroyers to capture a zone at game start and fully protect themselves from enemy Aircraft Carriers for a limited amount of time. Reason for the proposed change: Destroyers are the ships that normally capture zones and they need special protection to at least enable them to capture ONE zone, especially when their fleet does not protect them from enemy Aircraft. If the Destroyers of a fleet fail to capture a zone at the start of the match due to enemy Aircraft, then that usually also decides the outcome of the match. That is very bad for game play. The proposed Consumable should allow every Destroyer to capture at least one zone even when facing an enemy Aircraft Carrier. This is to be a new and a unique "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable, for Destroyers ONLY, that works very different from the "Fighter Squadron" Consumable that currently exists in the game. The Characteristics of the proposed "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable change: It is a consumable that is only available to all Destroyers at all Tiers that face a Carrier and the Consumable is only available to a Destroyer when they are in a match with enemy Carriers (if not then it is hidden). It can only be used once per match for X amount of minutes. The "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of two parts: one on-map, one off-map. The on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of a single Fighter Patrol Squadron, consisting of X Fighter Aircraft, that flies at low altitude above the Destroyer in a circle pattern (like the existing "Fighter Squadron" Consumable does). The on-map part "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" can be spotted, damaged and destroyed by enemy Aircraft and enemy AA/Flak because they fly at low altitude. The off-map (very high altitude) part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" consists of an unlimited number of Fighter Patrol Squadrons that will replace the on-map (low altitude) Fighter Patrol Squadron if it is destroyed. This replacing takes place X seconds after the on-map Fighter Patrol Squadron is destroyed. The off-map (high altitude) part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable consists of an unlimited number of Fighter Patrol Squadrons that fly at very high altitude above a Destroyer and thus above the range of enemy Anti-Aircraft Artillery/Flak/Fighters. They are not visually represented on the map and mini map, they cannot spot and they cannot be attacked nor can they attack. The "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable has a radius that is 25% LARGER that than of the current best Fighter Squadron in the game. When enemy Aircraft enter the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" circle, the on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" will move in to attack them, like the current "Fighter Squadron" Consumable does. If the on-map Fighter Patrol Squadron of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable is destroyed it will be replaced by a full Hit Point Fighter Patrol Squadron that travels down from very high altitude to low altitude within X seconds after the last on-map Fighter Patrol aircraft was destroyed. The on-map and off-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable cannot spot. That simulates that there is no direct communication between the Destroyer and the Fighter Patrol Squadrons, like usually was the case in real life in WW2. The on-map part of the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable can spot only for itself, but cannot share data on what it spots with the Destroyer and the fleet. It is advisable to combine this "Fighter Patrol Squadron Consumable proposal" with the "AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft proposal for Tier 8-10" that is described in another topic.
  8. (Keep in mind I'm not a DD main) No matter what ship main you are you cant deny that DDs are in a rather bad spot right now between common CVs and Radar. So, I've thought of some ideas that can help the DDs out a bit (these may not be the best but they are better then nothing and Far better then just removing CVs bla bla blah) 1: Give Destroyers the Fighter consumable. This may seem odd to some but this will make a DD have Far better odds of survival when being attacked by Carriers, Some will argue that it makes no sense for a Destroyer to have the fighter consumable when it has no catapults. but to that I would argue that it would work the same way as the Fighter consumable for Planes where they call them in from the Carrier. After all Bombers don't have catapults. This also has the benefit of making it WG doesn't need to make so many Blanket Buffs and Nerfs to AA and planes to try to solve the issue. 2: Give all Higher tier Destroyers a Heal like Cruisers, I'm thinking around USS Kidd Level. This will make it that if a Destroyer gets attacked by aircraft or Radared it can at least get some HP back. Though of course the Destroyers like Khab that are based around their Heal will just have a stronger one. 3: (This is more of a change to all ships then just Destroyers) Manual Control of Large caliber Flak. (flack shells for Destroyers) So this is how i would do it: make it that the AA stays the way it currently is But for most ships there is a "4" Button that makes you take Manual control of the flak AA on the ship you are using. for battleships and cruisers this would be their secondaries. but for destroyers these would be their main guns so they would be a little different. While larger ships will just have control of their secondaries etc the destroyers would need to load "Flak shells" in loading these it would change the camera angle to be better suited for following aircraft and would allow you to lock onto planes like you would a ship, then a Aiming recital would appear (similar to the [edited] SPAA or World of Warplanes recital.) and then you fire Flak shells at the aircraft with lead and all Just like you would shoot a ship. this will Drastically improve AA performance but you would need to actually use your guns so this wont be a good idea when enemy ships are close. the AA would perform the same as it does now if you don't use the flack shells. While the last one is Unlikely i would Strongly advise the other two. If you can think of other things they can do for CVs Let me know of that and your thoughts on these ideas below.
  9. Avenge_December_7

    Destroyer AP Against Other Destroyers?

    So during my month-long pre-college vacation, I've been watching various youtubers play high-tier destroyers, and something I notice is that a lot of them seem to to use AP against other enemy destroyers. How effective is using destroyer AP against other destroyers? Should it be done and, if it should, when should one switch between firing HE and AP when fighting enemy destroyers?
  10. Here's Zoup's commentary calling for DDs to get the fighter consumable: So ofc this is totally ridiculous for a whole host of reasons on its face, which does not require detailing in any way, but is a great idea for a starting point to initiate a discussion: @NoZoupForYou idea is slightly off: What you do is you introduce a NEW consumable - one that CALLS IN a CV Automated Fighter (Radio-In Close Air Support), that is not in exchange for any existing consumable, but is baked in so it becomes permanent (some what similar to Atlanta's Permanent DAA - which is also an option for all destroyers: give them perma-DAA), you just adjust the cool-down time to limit the number of potential uses during a match, so it has to be used tactically and can't just be spammed by the DD player. CVs already have Automated Damage Control and an Automated Defensive Fighter; it shouldn't be beyond imagination for the same CV to auto scramble a fighter squadron just like the "T" Key Defensive Fighter Consumable, from the CV that can assist the DD when they realize they are getting primaried by the CV. And the way to offset abuse of this, is to have these assisting fighters have to come from either A) The existing CV's in flight Defensive Fighters, leaving it vulnerable, and introducing a cost if a team member calls it and reduces the survivability of their CV (which would be a bit unfair to CV player); or B) Any Defensive Fighters have to be called from the Carrier Deck, but are not part of the CV players limited squadrons, but are also not limitless either. Or if not this then give all DDs the option of fitting DAA but have it be permanent like the Atlanta perma-DAA, and don't keep nerfing CV performance; just adjust the efficacy of DAA on DDs commensurate with they're type and number of AA emplacements, and historical reference (yes I know the dirty words we dare never speak in this game: historically accurate - not accurate in this case just as a basis for development, and adjust for game conditions. Were some DDs really competent in their later AA designs during WWII or were some Nations exceedingly slow to retrofit if at all DDs for AA?, etc.) Anyway, I think this opens a good discussion, because imo not every solution needs to be a nerf; some solutions can be a counter 'buff' to another class that balances out the game play of how players are actually playing vs 'shoe horning' a class into the meta via a nerf. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Anyway, that's my 'two cents' to add to this interesting discussion. Please get in on the conversation and share what you think of this, or any other ideas to WGing, that would level out DD vs CV game play (if anything at all)? *(Oh and @NoZoupForYou - KAGA! :P )
  11. One of the often-overlooked changes in the recent-ish patches was the addition of a 6s a relay delay to radar, where anything spotted on radar takes 6s to be lit up to allies to shoot it. Meanwhile, one of the big common complaints with CVs is their ability to spot things easily and effectively, particularly DDs, which rely on stealth instead of health (CV complaint threads are easily more common than the next several most common threads, combined). The extension of this spotting delay to anything planes spot seems to be a logical step. As far as gameplay is concerned, this would give ships more time to react to being spotted, perhaps hiding a citadel a bit better, getting a chance to smoke up, or finding cover before fire starts pouring in. It would also mean the window for firing on targets during the opening spotting run will be less usable, since the CV would actually have to stay for a bit to get spotting damage. Any thoughts?
  12. FineousFingers

    Sighting change idea

    I’ve only been playing this game for about 5 months, and only started following forums recently, so this may have been suggested long ago and dismissed as unworkable. I haven’t put too much thought into what effect this would have on balance. Change sighting so that in order to be able to see an opposing ship/squadron, you have to actually be in range to see it. No having forward units do your spotting for you. Instead, if an allied ship/squadron can see a unit, it appears on the mini maps of your allies. You know that it’s there, but not precisely enough to use targeted fire. I would apply this to hydro acoustic search and radar as well. This would simulate that one ship can see another and tell their allies where it is, but not precisely enough to target. This would hopefully take some heat off destroyers where carrier planes are concerned. I’m a CV main, and I often feel bad for hanging a squadron over a DD until my teammates delete it. But I do it anyway. What balance issues do you all see with this idea?
  13. Destroyers; Steel, Paper, or Fiction? This is just like my "Steel, Paper, or Fiction?" posts for Cruisers and Battleships, Only now for Destroyers! The description and purpose is the same as always, so I'll leave it below: Basically, what it's for is to keep track of the ships we have in WoWs, and just how 'real' they are. I'm only doing line ships, as premiums kinda exist for the 'wow-that's-cool-but-probably-not-gonna-fit-in-a-line' ships(mostly). I would like to note, while unlike my cruiser and battleship charts, this one has no holes, this one is far more speculative. It isn't easy to find info on German Destroyers, for example, as well as the fact that, more than others, the French and Germans had a habit of arming some early Destroyers/Torpedo boats with little not nothing in terms of guns(I'm talking 2x 88mm guns here, even a Japanese DD will have that for lunch!) Some nations are just difficult because of the variety of ships available, so I kinda tried to put it together in a way that would fit some semblance of linear playstyle for the whole line. So, keep in mind, any country with that red around their name, just like my other threads, is nothing official, and purely guesswork (well, not purely. There's plenty of research). This was certainly more difficult than doing the Battleships or Cruisers! I have four categories at the moment; Green = Ships that were built and saw service Violet = Ships that were partially constructed, but were destroyed/scrapped before completion Blue = Paper ships in the purest sense, existing only as blueprints, but never constructed. Orange = I dunno. No, really, i don't know. These are the ships I can find nothing on, and as far as I know are pure fiction constructed by WG to fill tree gaps, which, I guess, if it's necessary, it's necessary. I'm not going to blame them for it if they couldn't find anything, so long as the fictional ship doesn't take the place of a real one. USN, IJN, & VMF are all the ships were currently that are confirmed and in. The RN, RM, MN, & KM lines(Indicated by the reddish color) we don't know, and are just based off of community speculation. A lot of the destroyers have weird names... well, that's because the classes have weird names, but it's easier to identify if I just use the class. When WG adds them and assigns names, then they'll change. Just keep in mind, the speculative ones are just that, though I don't mind constructive criticism to improve the accuracy of the placements. All in all, as I've said in my other threads; anything under a red box, take with a grain of salt! Add pepper for flavor. Important: This chart is open to edits! If you guys have anything to add or to fix, then do comment, and I'll edit it! For example, plenty of ship blueprints were in fact laid down, but then scrapped because of cost or wartime consideration, and It's not always easy to find. As I mentioned in the cruiser thread, I know there were loads of Soviet ships that got laid down but were never completed. If that's any of the classes I have listed as purely blueprints, well, fire away! My other "Steel, Paper, or Fiction?" Threads: Aircraft Carriers Battleships Cruisers Destroyers Edit log: Edit 1: Kiev changed from blue to purple. She was in fact laid down and launched, but never completed. Her hull was sunk as target practice in the '50s. Credit to Samurai_TwoSeven for this one. Edit 2: Wargaming announcement! IJN destroyer line updated for new split line, all the new ships are from classes that were built and served, so they're all green. Edit 3: Nothing major, just shuffled around some German DD placement Edit 4: Wargaming announcement! (kinda) Kreigsmarine destroyers have been... kind of released, and I've identify them all by this point and was able to update this thread! It basically required me to totally overhaul my prediction of German DDs, as I wasn't quite there... I mean, at least I guessed the Elbing right? Anyways, most of them are green, with the exception of 4 types that weren't completed and are purple (tiers IV, VI, IX, and X). Edit 4: Changed Ernst Gaede to blue. I incorrectly identified the design, but Lord_Magus stated that it has been idenfited by Sub_Octavian on reddit. Edit 5: Wargaming announcement! The Soviet Destroyer split has happened, adding three new ships into their DD line. The new ships includes what appears to be a prototype Gnevny or Leningrad at tier V, and an new tier ten, which is a Projekt 40N, and as both are blueprints, they're blue. The new tier VII is a real ship, commissioned and served, and thus is green. Edit 6: Fixed error in which Kiev and Tashkent were reversed in position Edit 7: Wargaming announcement & Pictures Fixed! This is a two-fold update, both issue with the thread's pictures repaired, and the Pan-Asian destroyer release included, a line (like most destroyer lines) that is mostly green as all ships were competed and served. Only two ships existed in blueprints only. Edit 8: Wargaming announcement Another double-dose, this time for the addition of British destroyers and the top tiers of Japanese gun-boat destroyers. The British destroyer line joins the ranks of one of the few lines to be made purely of completed and serving ships, while the Japanese line adds one paper and one fictional ship. Also, I'm changing Khabarovsk's status to Orange, for reasons explained in the update. Edit 8: Wargaming announcement This time, French Destroyers have been announced, with a mostly green line - save for tier III and X, a paper design and a big question mark respectively.
  14. Warships; Steel, Paper, or Fiction? Greetings, Earthlings Fellow Forumers! So, as some of you may have noticed, I've started, and completed as far as I could, a little series known as "Steel, Paper, or Fiction?" The purpose of these threads, and the charts that accompany them, is to keep an easily accessible record of all the tech tree ships in World of Warships, and just how 'real' they are. As you're all aware, people tend to throw around the slur (or at least treat it as such) 'paper ships,' usually accompanied by the statement we only want real ships, or something like that. Heck, I'm guilty of it. Well, some ships we have are 'paper' ships, but certainly not fake. We do a few actually fake ships. The vast majority of ships in the game, thankfully, are real, were commissioned, and saw service. That will probably always be the case, looking at what's available. These threads already exist, each in the relevant subforum in "Discussions about Warships," but that'd kind of out of the way, so I decided to make this one as a compilation, where all 4 charts could be seen, and the other 4 threads easily found. So, in these threads, I've catalogued all 4 types of ship, first cruisers, then battleships, next destroyers, and finally carriers, into these four categories: Green = Ships that were built and saw service Violet = Ships that were partially constructed, but were destroyed/scrapped before completion Blue = Paper ships in the purest sense, existing only as blueprints, but never constructed. Orange = I dunno. No, really, i don't know. These are the ships I can find nothing on, and as far as I know are pure fiction constructed by WG to fill tree gaps, which, I guess, if it's necessary, it's necessary. I'm not going to blame them for it if they couldn't find anything, so long as the fictional ship doesn't take the place of a real one. Also, any nation with a red box for their name box means the tree, and the placements within it, for that ships type, are purely speculation as to the ship placements. As soon as WG releases the details for what ships are when in those lines, they'll be corrected where needed, of course. As this is the case, if the name box above is in red, take the placements with a grain of salt, and add pepper for flavor. Particularly on the carriers, since that's by far the most paper-intensive of all ship types. Important: This chart is open to edits! If you guys have anything to add or to fix, then do comment, and I'll edit it! For example, I think I've seen someone mention the Orlan as actually being a design, but I can't find anything on it so for now I've put it as fiction, not a blueprint. Additionally, I know there were loads of Soviet ships that got laid down, but were never completed, so if that's any of the classes I have listed as purely blueprints, fire away! Also Important: IF you want to comment on ships placement for the speculative threads, please take a look at the thread for that ship's type, which I will link, as they contained more detailed descriptions of the the thread usually. They will also contain the edit logs. You can mention any edits that need to be made in this thread, but I would appreciate it if you would also suggest it in the relevant thread to that ship type, as that makes it much easier to keep track of and organize. Even if you're from another server, don't be afraid to shoot a message, I've already had one from the EU server, for example. So, without further a-due, and me running my mouth(fingers?) more, here they are; Aircraft Carriers: Thread here NOTE - Pending CV Rework for Further Updates Battleships: Thread here Cruisers: Thread here Destroyers: Thread here Edit log: All Edits will be kept track of in the Edit log for the appropriate thread. This thread is merely a compilation of sorts, where it's easier to find. Exception 21-1-2018: All threads repaired from photobucket shenanigans. Also, for those unfamiliar with the names of various navies; United States Navy = United States Navy (pretty self explanatory) Royal Navy = British Royal Navy Dai-Nippon Teikoku Kaigun = Imperial Japanese Navy Regia Marina = Italian Royal Navy (literally, 'Royal Navy') Marine Nationale = French Navy (literally, 'National Navy') Voyenno-morskoy Flot = Soviet Navy (Literally, Military Maritime Fleet) Kriegsmarine = German Navy (Literally, War Navy?) Keep in mind, some of the countries had multiple iterations of their navies' names across the timeframe of the game. The Russian Navy starts out as the Imperial Russian Navy, and later becomes the VMF after the Soviet Union is formed (tier 4 to 5 is the transition). The German navy was originally the Kaiserliche Marine, or the Imperial Germany Navy up to the end of WWI. Inter-war it was known as the Reichsmarine, aka Navy of the Realm, until 1935 where it became the Kriegsmarine. In game this depends on the line you go down. For German battleships, you go from the IGN to KM at the tier 6 to 7 transition, while for cruisers it's tier 4 to 5. My other "Steel, Paper, or Fiction?" Threads: Aircraft Carriers Battleships Cruisers Destroyers
  15. So I'm sure there is some more specific section for this topic but hey its general so let the forum admin move it. The CV rework is out for some time now and some patches have been done to address a few issues, I'm sure more will come as I'm not sure they have really addressed the core issue of strike squads being able to just plow through AA as if it doesn't exist and the decline of destroyers being played. In my opinion one of the fundamental issues that still hasn't been addressed with CVs since day one and in my opinion is now actually worse with unlimited planes is the CV is really not at risk itself while being able to repeatedly strike and provide intel for it's team. if we look at most other ships in the game, they have to assume some risk to their actually ship when providing spotting intel to their team, they have to move within a range to actually spot with their ship, CV players can do this with segregates that never put the CV in danger. While I know WoWs is not a realistic sim game, it is based on some realist aspects of naval warfare so my suggestion will reference some. First, CV plane spotting should not be immediately available to the CV's team, there should be a delay in that info being provided. For that matter, this should apply with all spotting regardless of what is spotting in my opinion. Lets talk about a new consumable for AA oriented destroyers first. Advanced warning air radar. This was a real thing, though not a consumable just turned on and off. Fletchers, Gearings, Sumners, upgraded Benson/Gleaves, most later WW2 era UK destroyers had this and they were used as picket ships well ahead of a fleet providing early warning of air strikes incoming. I'm proposing a consumable for certain tier 8 to 10 destroyers that is basically a radar for air only. Range would be 12-15km depending on tier and nation line. Duration could be say 30 to 40 seconds, again depending on tier and nation line. Should be able to be enhanced by the radar upgrade. Next, lets talk long range AA. So in game, long range AA seems to be around 6km give or take and is provided in most cases by dual purpose main guns or secondary guns. So looking at this from a realistic standpoint a 127mm gun should be able to shoot as far at a surface target as it should a target in the air. The AA fire control on the above mentioned destroyers was excellent by late WW2. There are documented incidents of USN Destroyers bullseye hitting IJN planes out of the air at 10,000+ meters. I'm proposing a rework to long range AA (Flak) that allows "MOST" long range AA guns to start shooting planes, if spotted, at about the same range as they could start shooting surface targets, maybe slightly less. For example a Fletchers long range AA (127mm guns) could start shooting planes at say 11km if they are spotted. Battleship, cruiser and aircraft carrier long range AA (most often dual purpose secondary guns) would perhaps get a buff to say 9km to 10km. So obviously with things like the USN and UK light cruiser lines having dual purpose main batteries, spamming 152mm shells at planes 18km to 19km away would be a bit over powered. This would require some long range AA range caps by Wargaming. Next, lets talk spotting ranges of ships on the surface by planes in the sky. So the current mechanic, a ship shoots planes, unless in smoke it is generally spotted or able to be spotted by the planes. This isn't really realistic for WW2 era planes at long ranges mentioned above. Planes would often start taking flak fire and not be able to determine what was shooting at them until they were much closer. So I would propose keeping the same spotting ranges that currently exist. Basically surface ships could stealth fire on planes at certain ranges. Keep in mind we are talking about flak bursts here so the CV player with some skill can avoid much of the incoming flak.
  16. poeticmotion

    Aigle fan club thread

    Anyone who has ever divved with me, talked WoWS with me, or even has heard of me knows about my over-the-top love for the Farragut. Well, Farragut is now my side chick, and I only have eyes for the new tier 6 love of my life. Behold the DD that made me shelve my Farragut (at least for a while)...my sweet Aigle. Aigle is amazing (for my playstyle.) I absolutely understand why she gets a bad rap from some people...this isn't a ship that will work for everyone. For me, she's gudbote and maybe even overpowered, but I cant argue with LWM that she's a mehbote overall. And I doubt I'll continue to do *quite* as well in her as I did in my first 8 games, but I can tell she's going to be a go-to boat for me from now on...especially considering I did as well as I did today with only a 10-point captain and she really needs a 16-point captain to excel (I have PT, LS, SE, and CE per Littlewhitemouse's recommendations, will be adding EM and IFHE as I get the points for them.) She just works for me. She's like the bastard stepchild of a Farragut and a Khabarovsk, feel-wise if not quite stat-wise. Her handling is a bit clumsy, as was pointed out by others, and her shell arcs are...weird. I struggled to get hits in the first few games with guns; I can make the high shell arcs of Farragut work for me, but trying to adjust to Aigle's arcs was tough. I was having to walk my fire onto even broadside BBs. But she's incredibly fast, can take a beating, and her torps hit HARD. And she can straight up bully other DDs out of cap circles. She gives you the speed to fly across the map, the guns to demolish DDs or HE spam anything else, and her torps are few in number but they make up for it in power. I was having a blast laying torp ambushes around islands or using my speed to flank and torp BBs as they meandered across the "safe" back area. And she's a pretty good cap control boat, if you're experienced enough at knife fighting to anticipate torps and evade them. Your handling sucks; you need to plan ahead and anticipate as you can't just dart through a torp spread with the twitch of a hand on a keyboard like the maneuverable Farragut; but with speed boost is on she's a bit more nimble than I thought she'd be. She's not going to work for everyone. But for skilled gunboat DD captains, she's a beauty. I <3 you, Aigle. My first 8 games in her: 6 wins, 2 losses, 42k average dmg (was consistently doing 50k except for one game where my team just collapsed so quick I couldnt do much and another where the enemy Saipan dedicated his game to keeping me spotted and then finally sunk me...another weakness, Aigle's AA is terribad. Just turn it off. Seriously. ) Here are the games I played today in my new beloved Aigle (in the spoiler tab)
  17. Riikishay

    Z-52 needs a buff

    Plain and simple, the Z-52 is in a very akward state in the game as of right now. With the addition of the Daring, the Z-52 has no unique trait besides fast loading torps. And with the new flooding mechanic, those torps got HEAVILY nerfed. Even though they reload fast, they are close to the worst torps in the game. Concealment is mediocre, guns are mediocre, speed is mediocre, large size...etc. I mean where does this ship really stand out? Hydro? That's very situational and almost useless with all the radar ships. Fast torp reload? its a total of 8 torps that do very little damage? The Z-52 is a tier 9 ship in its current state. What are all your thoughts??? The fact it has the lowest damage of all DD's with the fastest torp reload is proof enough wargaming needs to examine and buff the Z-52
  18. I don't know if this has been addressed in any Q&A lately and I haven't seen the newest YouTube Q&A nor have I seen this suggested on the forums yet but I haven't seen every post So I apologies if this has been suggested before. Suggestion 1 So I have been thinking about the problem with Destroyers being over spotted with the new rework and was also thinking about how aircraft spotting most often worked during the time these aircraft existed. Most of the time the Aircraft relied on visually acquiring there target before they could make an attacking run. Sometimes this also resulted in the aircraft sometimes spotting a target and then losing sight of it and also resulted in not being fully sure where the target was while still knowing it was close until they got much closer. Now I don't want it to be that complicated in game but I think there is a simpler solution. So I suggest that while the destroyer has its AA turned off its spotting range by aircraft is almost 0km. I also suggest that this be based on the current spotting ranges of each destroyer so a shima will have a spotting range of say 0.1km and the Khaba would have a range that is closer to 0.6km while their AA is switched off (or any values that make them almost if not invisible to Aircraft flying directly over them). However, when their AA is switched on and is firing that range should bloom out to at least the current aircraft spotting ranges of these ships. When in smoke the system should work the same as it does now which is already fine. Despite not spotting the destroyer and making it visible I feel it should still have the week signal system used where the outline of the ship is shown on the map even though it isn't visually acquired (I don't mind if this isn't included for simplicity sake). This should change when the destroyer comes into its gun range or torpedo range of the carrier. At this point the planes would be assisted in spotting by the hull of the carrier which should mean that the planes spot the target and the hull confirms where they are and makes them visible. But basically it just means that once in gun or torpedo range then their aircraft spotting range become the size of their max main guns range so destroyers like shima can still get in close if not found by the aircraft squadron to launch their torps at the carrier hull. This is so the carrier can have a chance of defending itself from the destroyer if it manages to find it with the planes. A similar system for cruisers could also be employed so ships like Zao and others are harder to spot if balance needs it to be. Suggestion 2 The next part I am suggesting here is to do with the quick spotting Carriers can do at the beginning of the game making destroyers and cruisers lose a lot of experience and rewards from not being able to be the first ship to spot a target which is taking away from their role as scouts. This suggestion may be harder to implement but I feel it is the best solution. This solution should also not effect the previous suggestion I have made in this post. The aircraft squadrons spotting ability should be based on the range it is from the aircraft carrier. With this the aircraft should be able to spot and make visible the ships it encounters just as it does currently when it is within 15km (or any more balanced value) of the Carrier Hull. When it is outside this range it should spot the enemy ships the same way but the ships it spots should only be made visible to the aircraft squadron alone. To the rest of your fleet the enemy ships possible location is all that shows up on the map. Basically this would work the same way it does when a storm is happening and your visual range is reduced to 8km when an enemy ship is within 8km of your team mates ship but is not within your 8km range so it shows up as not filled in on the map and is not visible but still records last know location. This would result in the Carrier providing good intel to the team but not taking away from the direct spotting of destroyers and cruisers that are meant to act as scouts. This action of gathering intel by the carrier squadron should receive some rewards to encourage the carrier to do it but maybe only half what you would get for directly and fully spotting a target. Both of these suggestion should solve the problems of over spotting the carrier can currently do and the impact the carrier has on the ability of other ships roles. Thank you for reading to this point I know it was a wall of text I would like to know others thoughts on these suggestions and what else could be done to help the situation that does not include "delete CVs" or other silly suggestion.
  19. I am a very good destroyer player but I have noticed that playing destroyers are nearly unplayable, I have given them an honest try and played very carefully but planes spot you all game or push you out of smoke with plane torpedoes, then you get shot by multiple ships, the game just started and a lot of your health is missing you cant heal back. I hope they fix this because I have noticed a lack of dd's recently
  20. Hello fellow captains and Wargaming! So, with this new update I purchased the Tier VI U.S.A. Destroyer, the USS Farragut. Everything seems to be working fine... except for the fact it has now gained a very ugly looking red-and-black permanent camo in port. However, I soon realized that this wasn't some generous free bonus on Wargaming's part for the Lunar New Year event. For whatever reason, most of the ship's textures are missing, and when I go into a battle with it, 95% the ship's model is not rendered or displayed. The only things that are rendered and maintain their textures are the torpedo tubes, main guns, two of the away craft/life boats. In battle, the only part of the ship's model visible is the untextured bow. It seems the the Farragut's files got exposed to a bit of radioactive Fubarite. Everything else works fine, the hit-boxes are there, I can control my ship and fire weapons. I play the Windows version of WoWs, so I don't know if anyone else is running into this glitch on other versions of the game. This is also my first real glitch with the game, though I am a fairly new player. If anyone else has run into this bug recently, let me know! I have attached two photos below for verification, and upon request I will send more. I am mostly surprised by this bug more than anything else. More or less, I'd like to fail in the Farragut with an actual boat on screen, thank you very much! Is this some hidden easter-egg referencing the Philadelphia Experiment? If so, all that's missing are sailors melded with the ship! Jokes aside, hopefully this glitch can be resolved. It is jarring, and breaks the otherwise rock-solid immersion of the game. Good luck and fair seas, all! Cloaking mechanic confirmed for next update? : New permanent camo for USS Farragut? My suggestion for a name is "Philadelphia Experiment: Phase 2" : .
  21. The_Black_Death_Whale


    DD's need the ability to switch off Radio/Spotting similar to AA For the love of god , if you play in a BB or a CA PAY ATTENTION Stop shooting vessels that have [edited]dozen torps CLEARLY about to hit!! I am so sick of getting kill after kill stolen away from greedy savages shooting at ships that will be dead in <10 seconds There are SOOOOOOOOOOO many other ships to shoot at PLEASE STOP SHOOTING AT ONES THAT ARE ALREADY DEAD Radar is bad enough and this is yet another contributing factor as to why such few will play DD at high Tier WHY is this so hard to understand?????
  22. Imperialist_Loli

    Help with DDs

    I don't know if I am posting this in the right spot or not and I apologize if I am not. I used to really enjoy World Of Warships destroyer play a few years back now. I've been playing since year 1 of the release but lately I feel like I've bitten the bullet with destroyers.. I want to play them and have fun in them but I don't know what I should do. I really miss the teamplay aspects of destroyers and I just feel like with the game being the way it is now I can't do that anymore. I'd really appreciate any advice on the matter on playing DDs and being supportive to the team. I want to be a better DD player and have fun at the same time. If anyone has any advice on how to properly play destroyers in 2018 and what line of DDs would be the best for the more supportive style of gameplay I'd greatly appreciate it.
  23. Des Moines, Cleveland, Baltimore, Buffallo, Missouri, Dm Donskoi, Moskva, Chapayev, Indianapolis, Belfast, Kronshtadt... todos estes navios e muitos outros não citados (para não prolongar a dor que alguns capitães de DDs sentem) tem algo em comum e acho que você sabe muito bem o que é. Seja o "curto" alcance dos 9,9km e intermináveis 50 segundos de radar de um DM com o módulo de radar ou os 11,7km de um cruzador russo que parecem que cobrem metade do mapa, radares são a moda e uma das ferramentas mais letais para caçar e acabar com DDs em qualquer partida. Cruzadores tem radares, e até DDs como o Black ou os Pan-Asiáticos do tier VIII para cima vem com eles usam de radares ou podem equipá-los em troca de gerador de fumaça (eu ia dizer que logo logo surge um CV com radar mas não quero dar mais ideias de navios com radar, vai que né? ). Um mal existente: Sim, eles estão ai. E assim como a AA para os CVs, é algo que um capitão de DD precisa saber lidar para sobreviver aos inóspitos mares dos tiers mais altos. E quero deixar algumas (mas não únicas, se você tiver outras dicas sinta a vontade para favorecer o debate). Antes de entrar em detalhes, quero que você entenda que para saber como mitigar o radar, você antes precisa se colocar no lugar daquele jogador de cruzador, com o dedo a milímetros de apertar o botão de radar caso seja detectado ou uma bandeira começar a virar para a sua equipe. Isso se torna chave para entender o por que e como sobreviver ao radar. Rápida Intro sobre radares: Radares são consumíveis que irão revelar qualquer navio dentro de seu alcance, mesmo que não exista linha de fogo direta entre o navio com radar e seus alvos. Basta estar dentro daquele alcance que você será detectado. Esse efeito funciona também durante ciclones, permitindo que você atire em navios sem ser visto pelo oponente. Eles tem uma duração limitada e diferentemente de busca hidroacústica eles não detectam torpedos, apenas navios. Por conta dessas limitações, geralmente bons jogadores avisam sobre quando vão usar o radar e "spamam" F3 enquanto você estiver detectado. Por conta revelarem imediatamente a posição, radares são usados como forma de evitar que bandeiras sejam tomadas ou para localizar possíveis DDs que estejam tentando lançar ataques furtivos. Conheça teu inimigo: Minha primeira dica ao entrar numa partida com seu DD é apertar o TAB para revelar todos os navios que tem ou podem equipar radar. Isso significa que sim, você TEM que decorar quais são eles, (e também que radares tem) inclusive aqueles que podem ou não equipar radar. Isso se torna importante por que a partir do momento que a partida começa, você poderá ajudar sua equipe a focar eles primeiro, ou mesmo saber se você está ou não ameaçado de ser detectado. Abaixo darei uma guia simplificada de navios com radares (por classe) e os tipos de radares que tem, mas não são os únicos que tem radar, fica como lição de casa você investigar quais estão faltando ;) - também recomendo a leitura da Wiki. Lá vamos nós: Cruzadores leves e pesados USN: Linha comum, todos a partir do Tier VIII. Seu alcance começa em 9km e termina em 9.9 no tier X. Premiums Atlanta e Indianapolis tem radares também. Duração começa em 30 e vai até 40 segundos. Cruzadores soviéticos: Linha comum, todos a partir do Tier VIII. Mesmo alcance de 11,7km e duração de 20 segundos, exceto Moskva com 25. USS Missouri: 9,45km durante 35 segundos. RN Belfast: 8,49km durante 25 segundos. DDs Pan-Asiáticos(trocando fumaça): Todos a partir do tier VIII. Alcance de 7,50km e duração variando de 15 a 20 segundos. Cruzadores RN: Todos a partir do tier VIII: mesmos moldes do radar da USN. Memorizou todos? Espero que sim. Continuando... O Valor do Radar: O valor do radar para a equipe que o tem está em dois possíveis efeitos: Converter o uso do consumível em dano Forçar o DD para fora de uma cap. Logicamente, não é apenas isso, mas são esses os dois maiores valores que se pode tirar de um radar, e considerando que após o uso o player terá que esperar 2 minutos pelo menos para um novo uso, não é atoa que todo mundo atira no pobre DD que está detectado. Então como podemos mitigar isso? Simples, negando ambas as coisas para a equipe adversária. Mais simples dito do que feito, vamos imaginar uma cap. (academia MS Paint de arte). Certo, neste cenário, vindo pelo sul é natural tentar avançar o máximo possível para ajudar sua equipe com reconhecimento. Mas, mal você sabe mas existe um mal oculto por ali. E agora você está detectado por radar. Provavelmente por instinto você irá soltar fumaça (que é inútil), irá ou se abrigar na ilhota (e irá abraçar ela com esperanças de ninguém conseguir te acertar) no meio da cap ou virar as costas com seu Boost de velocidade para correr, você nesse processo já tomou 25% de dano. 45% mas está quase longe o bastante para escapar do radar... e lá vem o salvo do BB a 18 km e... é. Primeira morte para equipe adversária e um jogo mais difícil para sua equipe. O que ocorreu de errado? P-o-s-i-c-i-o-n-a-m-e-n-t-o. Você jogou exatamente da forma como a equipe adversária queria. Fez o que um DD faz. Ir capturar a bandeira. Mas fez isso de forma agressiva demais e sem pensar nas rotas de fuga. E sem querer limitou suas chances de sair vivo. Uma coisa importante que irei colocar aqui e quero que você reflita: Trocar uma bandeira por sua vida NÃO é uma troca válida. Bandeiras podem ser tomadas a qualquer momento, mas se você morrer são pontos para equipe adversária e um navio a menos para a sua. Nada de bom. Com radares, você precisa esperar pelo pior, sabendo que um cruzador de radar está sedento por usar seu consumível premium. Então deixe ele usar, mas faça que seja um desperdício. Vou apresentar uma alternativa de posicionamento, e quero que você pense nela por um momento. Esta posição parece mais segura. Nela você tem uma ilha gigante para correr caso você comece a ser focado e rapidamente irá sair da linha de fogo da equipe adversária. Você irá em partes ceder temporariamente a cap, mas como disse antes, você pode tentar retomar ela, caso tenha sido capturada pelo oponente assim que o radar acabar. Nessa posição, você negou o dano e a kill do radar. Como disse, este é um exemplo de posicionamento mais defensivo. A experiência nos mapas irá dizer onde isso é ou não possível (mapas como Okinawa, por exemplo, tem pouca cobertura, o que torna mais complicado abusar do terreno). Outro ponto importante que vale aqui explicar é: para virar uma cap você não precisa navegar até o meio da mesma, só deixar ao menos metade do seu navio do lado de dentro já basta ;). Assim, uma técnica válida (e usada por jogadores mais experientes) é estacionar ou mesmo se mover vagarosamente na borda da cap, com o navio apontando para fora, assim você estará pronto para abandonar a cap assim que precisar, minimizando o tempo dentro do alcance do radar. (edit) Divisões: Aqui gostaria de dividir em duas breves explicações de como se portar quando estiver em divisão com cruzadores/BBs e com outros DDs. Com outros DDs, ao estiverem numa partida modo dominação com mais de um radar, tentem dividir esforços em ao menos duas bases. O motivo disso é simples: dividir riscos, pois na base que vocês optarem por ir estiver uma equipe inimiga sedenta por kills, você e seu amigo de divisão estarão em alto risco e caso acabem por serem afundados irão causar um prejuízo maior ainda para sua equipe (sempre quando vocês dois não estejam em bandeiras separadas mas ambas dentro do alcance de radar, como no mapa Norte/Luzes do Norte (vulgo "Norte com neve"). Em divisão com Cruzadores e BBs: Primeiro ponto ao capitães de BBs e CAs: ouçam seus DDs. Lembre-se que são eles que irão tentar dar a vantagem inicial a sua equipe, então ajudar a tornar a vida deles mais fácil sempre é fundamental. Geralmente um DD consegue deduzir se o cruzador com radar tem ou não linha de tiro direta. Caso você seja detectado por radar ao iniciar a captura e não havia detectado nenhum navio, é muito provável que o cruzador tomou uma posição defensiva para minimizar dano sofrido. Neste caso, como explicado acima, a decisão sensata é abandonar a bandeira até o radar passar. Caso você esteja em divisão com um navio equipado com radar (altamente recomendado), peça que ele aguarde o radar passar, enquanto toma posição, e assim que a bandeira virar para a outra equipe, imediatamente chame pelo radar para expor o DD adversário. Também é importante chamar fogo ao cruzador adversário com radar assim que for detectado para forçar o mesmo para fora da posição ou (idealmente) tirar ele permanentemente da partida. Outro ponto importante é que BBs também deve focar esforços no DD e cruzador adversário, enquanto você como DD pode adentrar na cap para começar a contestar e tomar a base para sua equipe. Bem, estas foram algumas dicas para lidar com radar em seu DD, como sempre o debate é bem vindo, sendo a ideia tornar este um guia de referência atualizado na melhor forma possível (preciso fazer o mesmo com o guia para DDs). E queria sugerir, que outros tópicos desejam que eu aborde num futuro próximo? Obrigado e bons mares a todos!
  24. y_vonne

    You Do You

    I almost exclusively play DD's and everyone, (almost everyone!) has something helpful, (stupid!) to say, or suggest, (demand!) about DD's game play. On more occasions than not during a match, people ([edited]hats!) scream, berate, criticize and whine to and about what destroyer's should or should'nt be doing. The funny thing is, none of them are destroyer captains. As far as "hiding" goes, i never hide. i might dodge behind cover if need be, but hiding's not in my repertoire. Worry about your own strategy and game play (lack of style!) and i'll do me. If anyone should [edited], it should be DD captains for the utter lack of support from CV's and BB's.
  25. Submarines in WOWS--It is an interesting concept. A few points to consider: 1. NEW Game engine--Macwrapper from Code Weavers will have to do a new wrapper for subs. They already are probably working on one for the new CV play. I wonder if the WOWs Halloween game will even play in October 2018 ? 2. Subs of WW2 vintage did around 25 knots on the surface. WW1 did 18 knots on the surface. Speed will drop to 8 knots or so submerged (this may not be an issue with the Oxygen meter). Depending on how long you are underwater, a sub may have to fire quickly before surfacing. There will be no Irwin Allen Seaviews or 1990s vintage SeaQuest DSV subs in the game doing 30 or more knots underwater. The vessels will be SLOW 3. DDs are getting overtaxed as the main sub hunter. CAs had provisions for subs. You can see the equipment on the Tier 3 Aurora. So does (yes) the Tier 1 sloops. Note that they have depth charge deployment devices on them. While any of these ships have a role in sub chasing ? 4. CV aircraft did a fair amount of sub chasing (as well as the Zeppelins of WW2 US Navy). What role would they have ? 5. While the German U-Boats fired fore and aft torpedoes, the American "O" and "S" classes, if memory serves correct, fired only from the BOW in WW1 and later. I will give WOWS credit for thinking of all the Gamers who have asked for submarines. It will be the hardest ship class to put in if they proceed. It would be a programmer's nightmare given all the changes needed to get submarines to work right. Astrosaint