Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'ap'.
Found 4 results
@Sub_Octavian is there a chance we just call it good and “un-buff” the AP bombs? We appreciate the effort to compensate Graf after the speed changes but it’s not working out. I don’t know if a buff has ever been asked to be reverted but the new bomb mechanics seem worse than they were before. The bombs bounce, overpen or completely miss the target most of the time. Coupled with the speed boost “standardization” this CV feels worse in 8.4 overall. Thanks.
I'm looking for more information on this mechanic. I've heard of this occurring but wrote it off. Then while searching on the WOWS wiki for another stat, I located the following piece of information: Armor-Piercing Internal Ricochets An AP shell that ricochets after penetrating armor will cause another instance of penetration damage in the section where the ricochet occurs. Additional ricochets will cause additional instances of penetration damage until the shell exits the ship or explodes from fuse activation. This extra source of damage is most commonly encountered when shooting at "turtleback" armor schemes (common on all German battleships and other nations' dreadnoughts). Plunging fire that is insufficient to penetrate interior decks may also ricochet, causing one or more extra instances of damage.(http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_%26_Armor_Penetration) I'd like to see some discussion and information on this. Here are some of my questions: 1) Does this apply to all AP shells? 2) How does the damage appear in the ribbons and reported in post battle results? 3) What is the damage percentage for the shell ricochet? 4) Layer penetration resulting in a final shatter, overpen or guarantee fuse arm? 5) What is the interaction with modules? Anything helps and I look forward to any comments or answers. Thanks
HMS HOOD REVIEW I'm not going to go into to much detail here because no doubt you've seen a review for this ship before. This is more specifically about Hood's guns which were "Buffed" at 8.0, and alike with most of that update, Hood's AP is right now in a bad place. Do I think that any of the CC's, Developers or anyone else who could make a change will see this review? No. I don't, neither do I think that WG will do anything about it. Frankly, I'm just putting this out there because I'm venting from WarGaming taking my money and making my favourite ship a dumpster fire. So without further ado, if you are ready then grab your metaphoric stick and let's start beating this metaphoric dead horse (BTW So everyone knows, I do not condone violence. This is just a joke so treat it as such. If somehow you are offended by this joke, it wasn't my intention to insult/offend anyone with this light-hearted joke) Hood's AP right now is bad... ok that might be a bit of an understatement, it's AWFUL. Hoods AP is lacking in every way and can't do anything unless you are within 2km and have the flat side of an AFK Musashi to shoot at. Ok, that's a little harsh but it is true that the AP is lacking in comparison with its old shell. I have hit the citadel of an NC, Nelson, Giulio Cesare, New Mexico and New York but all were within 10-2km and all were completely broadside. Which is pathetic, the Gneisenau could citadel an NC from 15km away. However, I'm not going to regale you all with boring stories that you probably haven't seen nor do you care about. I brought numbers to back me up... Yeah, I'm a nerd. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ So these numbers are from when Hood was first released so 1 thing in here is inaccurate "bulletDetonator" is now 0.033 instead of 0.015 but the rest remained the same. What I'd like to bring to your attention is the category "bulletKrupp" Krupp if you are unaware means how much armour a shell can penetrate before shattering. Krupp of Warspite is 2330.0 and the Krupp of Hood is 2190.0 this means that Warspite a T6 remember will pen more than Hood a T7. However, both Hood and Warspite have the same fuse time now 0.033s if you don't see what I am getting at here let me explain. Warspite a T6 will penetrate and detonate within Battleships at all ranges, she will also hit with more of her shells due to her higher sigma value. Warspite will overpenatrate cruisers because of her higher Krupp and fuse time. However, Warspite will not struggle to do damage, the higher sigma, fuse time and Krupp values are perfectly fine against battleships. Hood T7 a tier higher than Warspite will struggle to do any of the things listed above. Her Krupp is low enough that she can't reliably penetrate enemy battleships unless a suicide ranges. Fewer shells will hit the target because of her slightly lower sigma and yet she will still overpenetrate any cruiser she comes across. So THIS is why Hood needs to be looked at. Before the "Buff" Hoods AP shell would penetrate a cruiser and arm inside doing substantial damage. Citadeling a cruiser at 18.6km? No problem. Citadeling a cruiser at point blank range? No problem. But now Citadeling a cruiser at 18.6km? Overpen. Citadeling a cruiser at point blank range? Overpen. The old AP was also good against battleships too. If the Battleship was bow on? Aim at the guns, Hood's shells would hit the superstructure and arm inside of it due to the short fuse time. Battleship broadside on? Aim halfway up the hull, Hood's shells would pen the weak upper armour and arm due to the short fuse time. Now Hood's shells overpen the superstructure richocet of the deck armour and if T8 or higher richochet off the bow armour. Also now if a battleship turns broadside on Hood's AP overpens the weak upper armour and shatters against the belt armour unless it's a New York or Hood's at suicide ranges. Before the "Buff": Now I could go digging through my pictures and find many more but I know someone will say that all of those were nitpicked. To that, I say yes, of course, I chose some of the best games I had with her before the rework but I would commonly, easily do 90k damage a game. Hood's AP wasn't useless or broken it was people not knowing how to use it. I mean it really is that simple, people buying a battlecruiser, expecting it to be a battleship getting frustrated when the AP didn't work the same way it did on other ships and then complaining saying the thing was useless. This is what the current AP looks like: The more observant of you might realize that I died because of ramming, that ram caused 40k damage so in total with only my guns I managed to do 22k damage. Hood just can't do any consistent reliable damage. I WANT MY MONEY BACK. If you were considering getting Hood, don't because before she was usable but different now she is unusable and just a terrible ship. WG even got rid of her special Defensive AA consumable instead of multiplying short-range rockets by 25 it gets the standard +100% to medium long range AA guns. WG you either need to give me compensation for this terrible mess of a ship or put it back to the way it was. I paid $55 for Hood and now you just went in and messed up my purchase. It wouldn't be acceptable if a company went into your house and replaced your wooden table for a picnic bench. I don't like to hate on WG it's hard to make everyone happy but YOU BETTER NOT MESS WITH PEOPLES MONEY!!!!!! Your policy of "Never altering premiums" is great because then you don't end up with situations like this where you tried to help a dying horse and in the process accidentally killed it.
I was messing around in a training room with my Moskva when I noticed that 99% of my AP shells that registered as "penetration" and was aimed at the lower broadside of the French Tier X Republique ship did almost no damage. Even just above the water line by quite a bit it's still the same issue. This only seems to happen in the mid and stern sections of the ship. The bow area doesn't seem effected. Below is a gif of what I noticed. Is the ship designed like this? If it doesn't load: https://i.imgur.com/4kOtUXy.gifv