Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'battleships'.



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
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
  • 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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 24 results

  1. I like that they are putting in ships like West Virginia, however I would love to see either alternate, and or options to be able to get or work up to having the ship in the 1944 rebuilt construction version. I like playing Colorado and dont mind her to much in her configuration as she was refit with single 5 inch guns in her last condition. Dont get me wrong I dont think that it would make Wee Vee have to climb a tier but it would be a much better AA platform that how she is in the game now. I just think that she hit her epitome in the last build. I was somewhat impressed at how much time and money were spent on rebuilding, rearming, and modernizing the old Battleships during that time, and just went to show the slow understanding and appreciation of the aircraft carriers. I also know that there were 4 classes of standard type U.S. Battleships that came before Colorado consisting of 9 Battleships starting with Nevada. that means that World of Warships could model at the minimum of 5 and the maximum of 13 battleships, or choices of therein. Of course there are already 4 of these ships with 3 of the classes now in the game. We all no this is not likely to happen and at this point would be a nonsensible request. I have thought that they could have the option of choosing ship names, IE like lets say on Arizona you could choose Pennsylvania. Especially because they were basically Identical ships for the most part. Now, again I am happy to see New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and now West Virginia in the game, and it might get tedious or what some people would consider ridiculous to have a battleship from all 5 standard type classes. With there already being 3 represented in the game though they would only need to put either Nevada or Oklahoma in for that class along with the choices of Tennessee or California for their class. Yes I know that a Tennessee with 12-14 inch guns would be redundant to New Mexico and would be the same tier I'm Sure along with Arizona, but for the love of money and keeping us History Channel buffs pumping more of our pay checks that direction I believe it would be worth it to them. And Yes, once again I would love to be able to play them in the original build and the last refit build also. Oh I almost forgot to mention the first South Dakota class. The six Battleships that were axed due to the Naval Treaty. BB's 49 through 54. They were going to be slightly larger Colorado's with 12-16 inch guns. (Yea, You heard me right) Twelve 406mm 50 caliber mark 2 guns. The same guns that were on the Colorado's. Just 4 more of them. They would have been considered that last Standard Type U.S. Navy Battleships. I think one of these babies could be a tier 8 easy, and or possibly a tier 9 depending on the aa suite. The speed I think would be their worst attribute at a planned 23 knots. Anyway, let me know what you think. Would you like to see some of these ships with the most modern builds on them? would you like to see the option of using different names on the ships that are/were basically Identical? would having multiple Battleships in the U.S. Line just gum up the works, or make it more versatile with slightly different play styles like they have done with Alabama and Massachusetts? I think over time it would make the game more interesting and diverse. USS West Virginia 1944 USS Tennessee 1945 1st South Dakota Class BB Model USS Nevada 1945
  2. Fair warning/Disclaimer: This post is rather long, but it is so for a reason. This is a very important topic and nothing about the discussion about the problems around the proposed changes can be left out without properly portraying every failure and flaw in its current situation Although Giulio Cesare was arguably too strong at tier V, (Okt Rev, Texas, and the ARP Kongo clones were about the same level as her performance wise let's be honest, especially the ARP Clones since if we're to judge things based on other ships stats of the same tier the ARP ships global average stats are practically the same.) but that isn't exactly the fault of the GC directly, think about it: what's the main thing that makes the GC tend to perform better than her contemporaries? Her accuracy. GC by far has the best accuracy of all the other battleships at her tier, and for most of the tech tree BB's at her tier their accuracy is downright atrociously bad (looking at you Texas/New York, König, and Bretange). So of course If you're more likely to actually land more shells on target, even though they're smaller, you're going to be doing more damage as a result. Again this isn't at fault of the GC for most of the other TV BB's just being mediocre at best, if anything they should be getting some tweaks to bring them more in line with the rest. But that's just a fraction of what's wrong at Tier B currently, which I'm planning to make a post on later today covering that in-depth, this is on the TVI problems so I'll get back to that. There are currently a lucritave amount of issues with her being at tier VI. So let's start off with a simple one: None of her stats have been buffed, aside from a pointless armor buff (since every cruiser and destroyer you're going to be facing can pen your bow with IFHE anyway it doesn't matter. Plus the fact that even some of your new Tier VI counterparts like the Warspite, QE, and Bayern can just lol-pen your bow anyway it again means your armor doesn't matter, which is beyond infuriating for a ship that is supposed to rely on its armor.), and a slight HP increase nothing has been done to make her even be able to be mediocre at her tier at best. Tier VIII and VI carriers will be able to strike you with impunity, Notser has even shown off how over the course of being constantly hounded by a carrier he never shot own a single attack aircraft. That's a pretty damn big problem. Then there's the fact that although her armor's been "improved" it hasn't actually made it better, let alone be enough to withstand shots at tier VI like she used to at Tier V, since this is a whole new ballpark of ships to face. Since beforehand when you fought Tier VII BB's you actually had a chance of fighting back with your armor and guns if you played your cards right. But when facing Tier VIII BB's you have zero chance of even having so little as a hope of being capable of fighting back, since your gun caliber is so low for its tier (beating out the previous Champ Dunkerque with its 330mm guns with GC's 320mm guns), imcombination of its short range for its tier now (that even most cruisers at tier VI can outrage her now, let alone higher tier ones,) with the addition of the fact that your armor doesn't stand up like it used to against your highest tier possible opponents, as literally every single tier VIII BB will be able to just rip you apart no matter how you angle, as they all overmatch your bow, allowing them to do massive damage to you while you won't be able to do even moderate damage in return unless they're presenting practically a perfect broadside. Which isn't something that can be corrected to no longer make it the case without completely overhauling every other Tier VI BB, and at that point it'd make more sense to just leave her at tier V. Then there's the issue that the reload is now appalling given its new tier placement, given how ships like Dunkerque with its 2x4 330mm guns has a full 4 second faster reload, that's with 4 guns packed into two turrets and being 10mm larger yet still reloading faster than the GC. Then there's the Fuso: she has 6x2 356mm guns that reload in 28 seconds, while the GC has two less guns, again of a lower caliber, that still bafflingly manage to reload a full 2 seconds slower. Then there's the problem of her now having Tier VI MM, which not only is a far more aggressive MM tier than Tier V as you're far more likely to be bottom tier at tier VI than Tier V. Then there's the issue with that MM not being what those who bought the Giulio Cesare bought into: they bought a Tier V battleship because they wanted to play a battleship at tier V with that specific MM, if they wanted to play a BB at tier VI with tier VI MM they would have bought something else like the Warspite or Dunkerque. Which that same new MM placement also completely ruins the enjoyability of the ship due to you now running into so many tier VIII ships that are entirely designed around killing BB's: the Asashio (which I detest that monstrosity), the Akizuiki/HSF harakazae (with the Akizuiki gun turret hull) due to their ludicrous fire rates and being able to IFHE the entirety of the GC at tier VI, every single tier VI and VIII carrier (they can maul you but good luck shooting down a single plane), and again every Tier VIII BB can just lol-pen your bow and Godspeed trying to do anything to them in return unless they're broadside and even then you'll barely do any substantial damage to them. So unless you can make it not face Tier VIII's it will never be a comfortable fit at that tier like it was at Tier VI. Since it can't stand a chance of holding its ground like it could bottom tier at tier V like it would have to now at tier VI. Not to mention there's no role or job the Cesare can currently fill that another battleship doesn't do it massively better than the GC, which leads to there being no point to ever own or play her, as there's just a better ship for every role that does that job but better than the GC in its current state. Warspite does the accuracy and devastating salvo job better thanks to its 2.1 Sigma and 15" guns, that hit more often and hit harder Arizona also fills that same Accurate BB sniper role better as it is Dunkerque fills the same fast flanker role, but with a much faster reload, it is actually faster, and has all its guns in the front P E F already claims the Secondary/Brawler spot  The West V 1941 has better damage potential by far with the same reload speed.  There's just nothing it can do that any other Tier VI already does but better And this is without bringing up the issues of invalidating prior business agreements by changing a product in this manner after it was sold under the assertion that it would never be changed, nerfed, or made worse farther down the line. (Which wouldn't that technically be an invalidation of their previous EULA/TOS promises during the time it was being sold? As wasn't it advertised that it would never be tampered with later down the line?). That's not even mentioning the legal repercussions an action like this could entail, and am legitimately and rather unfortunately finding myself considering if they don't handle this properly. And finally to the argument of "Premium ships ahould be able to have their stats nerfed or made worse after their sold" I have this to say: alright, I'll take that moving forward from here on out only, but you still can't change those that have been already sold, as they were sold with the promise and contract that they wouldn't be changed or modified later down the line. As that's where I draw the line. Which is another reason every fiber of my being is against this change. In conclusion: what exactly am I wanting to happen? WG to cancel the move to teir VI and instead roll-back the buffs given to the GC over the period of time that she's been on sale, that way she's able to be toned down a notch, without it no longer being what people purchased to begin with. The buffs to her were unnecessary and were done after she was for sale, and would be enough of a change to make her no longer OP to the degree she's at; making the ones for the change happy as she's no longer as strong, and those that own her happy as they keep her at tier V, and not have her trashed by having to fight as a tier VI.
  3. I like using my battleship from a range of about 10-13 km away from the enemy ship which is about mid-long range. I also like using AP shells I don't mind HE either. I look for accuracy and power of the turret as well. I like going alone. Will the French or British battleships be better suited for this type of playstyle?
  4. I understand this is a contentious issue, but battleships seem to me to be far too agile, able to stop on a dime, accelerate as though at a drag race, twist and twirl at will, and dodge perfectly honest and carefully thought out torpedo spreads. This seeming immunity of bbs to torpedo attacks, means that destroyers and carriers are being deprived of their deserved successful hits. While it is accepted that WOWS is not a simulation, it is important to retain elements that increase player immersion, and a semblance of intuitive gameplay. What does intuitive mean in this case? Making sure that physics in WOWS follow a logic which we respect and live by in the real world. Now how did battleships gain speed in real life? Assuming the warships oil fired boilers are partly heated, that the battleship is lying ahull (no power to shafts), and assuming the battleship captain knew several hours in advance, that torpedos were incoming on the starboard bow; it would take a modern ww2 era battleship 3+ hours to increase team pressure sufficiently, to then increase speed. Well you may ask, who needs speed, to turn and dodge the torpedos? All ships do, without water flow around the rudders, they cannot bite, or deflect, a slow ship turns, slowly (if at all). I am not suggesting that WOWS reflect real life, quite so precisely, but I do think, an increased initial delay between "full ahead" order and actual acceleration would be an enjoyable addition to the game, if that [insert value] delay were communicated in a clear and comprehensible manner in game. In the interest of fairness, this might be applied proportionately to all ship classes, dds, cruisers and battleships. Thankyou to @Alabamastan for suggesting this topic. edit : many interesting and informed replies, hot link directory of most recent (these guys seem to know what they are talking about ) : https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/184986-battleships-are-far-too-manouvreable/?do=findComment&comment=4344391 @Ares1967 https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/184986-battleships-are-far-too-manouvreable/?do=findComment&comment=4344401 @hipcanuck https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/184986-battleships-are-far-too-manouvreable/?do=findComment&comment=4344453 @So_It_Goes https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/184986-battleships-are-far-too-manouvreable/?do=findComment&comment=4345030 @LT_Rusty_SWO
  5. I'm quite honestly a bit disappointed that when it comes to the Pennsylvania class we got the Arizona and nothing on Pennsylvania at first this shattered any hope I had of ever playing my favorite battleship from history but it's actually not necessarily a lost hope. I was equally disappointed when I saw they didn't add in West Virginia (though they eventually did, even if it wasn't how we wanted it...yet), Maryland, Oklahoma, Nevada, Tennessee, or California. Where were these iconic ships? Though I must say my biggest problem was the absence of Nevada and Pennsylvania. That being said I realized that generally these ships (as they were at Pearl Harbor) all would've hovered around tiers 5-6 anyway but then I realized they all (the ones that survived anyway) faced severe modernizations and upgrades. Nevada was near unrecognizable after her refit and Pennsylvania did too. I would suggest that in this state they would be placed like this. Oklahoma at tier 5 (no refit because she was too damaged to be repaired). Nevada at tier 6. Pennsylvania at tier 7. Nevada would have a firepower disadvantage against the likes of NM and AZ but her aa would chew through planes like paper (if they ever get around to making that system less infuriating). Pennsylvania would also suffer in main battery firepower among her peers but would have respectable secondaries, beastly armor, and a terrifying aa bubble that would make equal tier and maybe even a tier higher carriers cry. If you want to give me a reason against these ships appearing don't give me the "21 knots are painfully slow and nobody wants another slow ship" because yeah, i know. Not many people want a ship that does less than 25kts-26kts nowadays but hey I deal with it because I love the ships and 21kts is hardly a heavy price to pay for touching history and being at the helm of one of my favorite ships. Besides that feel free to tell me what you think. I'd love to see these ships but as the years have gone by I feel like WG has just neglected these ships. I found hope in their addition of West Virginia but I could see them turning around and stopping right there I hope this won't be the case and I hope to see these ships in the future as I would love to see Pennsylvanias, Tennessees, and Nevadas sailing around in matchmaking. I know it would make a lot of people happy to be able to sail their favorite ships from history and it would make me, a absolute battleship nerd, happy beyond expression, thanks for your time readers, and I apologize for the giant word block.
  6. Let me start with, you can't truly rank ships. These are all stats and you can have your own opinions about it. https://www.gamersdecide.com/articles/world-of-warships-best-ships https://www.gamersdecide.com/articles/world-of-warships-best-destroyer-lines https://www.gamersdecide.com/articles/world-of-warships-best-battleships https://www.gamersdecide.com/articles/world-of-warships-best-cruiser-lines These are articles I wrote, ranking ships for whatever use it may bring you! Maybe assist you in searching for a ship to play, though I sound like a broken record, it's all stats. So the French in "Best Cruiser lines" don't have such a good spot, due to little information on them, not many people playing them since they're so new. Do enjoy!
  7. As the title says. My mind just drifts into these places all the time. If you are not interested feel free to carry on whit your life, if not here they are. Because I know that someone will bring it up here are some rules. Scouting forces aren't involved in the main battleship engagement (Like in Dogger Bank) There is enough space to maneuver, and visibility is good. Both sides engage for enough time to do significant damage to each other. No context in any particular historical campaign or battle, this is just theoretical. The year is meant to give an idea of configuration, tactics, crew training and things like that Whit that out of the way lets continue. Battleship Division 1 (USS Arizona, USS Nevada, USS Oklahoma) VS 3rd Battleship Division (Hiei, Kirishima) (1941) USS Oklahoma Iron Duke class battleship or HMS Canada VS Tegetthoff-class (1916) HMS Emperor of India HMS Canada SMS Prinz Eugen minas Gerais-class VS Helgoland-class (1912) Minas Geraes SMS Thüringen Delaware-class (USS Delaware and USS North Dakota) VS Fuso-Class (Yamashiro and Fuso) (1920) USS North Dakota Fuso And that would be it. Thanks to anyone that responds to any of these.
  8. Battle of Jutland We will try this on this next coming Friday on Dec 7th 12/7/18. 9:30-11:30PM US Eastern standard time , 8:30-10:30 PM US CENTRAL TIME, 7:30-9:30 PM US MOUNTAIN TIME, 6:30-7:30 PM US PACIFIC TIME , 11:30AM -1:30 PM in Sydney Australia 9:30 AM - 11:30 AM in Perth Australia. This will be in the training room labeled "battle of jutland". search for training rooms by Outwardpanicjoe. if anyone is interested in helping to make new events or suggestions feel free to join the workshop discord https://discord.gg/ygjyP2G the event for this will be in the same discord for voice. TRAILER V General rules for the event: Try to stay in a battle line formation as much as possible. Battleships/battlecruisers will be using AP only. Each team will have 2 commanders of the line one in the lead and one to the rear of each battle line. If one of the commanders is taken out of the battle, the ship next in line takes command as flag ship. Chapter 2 - The Grand Battle UK mission- The battlecruisers are on the retreat intercept the german fleet and engage them from a battle line and surround the german fleet and pumble them into submission. Attempt to sink the rest of the German navy before they can try to escape to the map border. UK ships- 10 battleships and 2 other classes. 3 Queen Elizabeth classes including Warspite, 3 Orion class BBs , 2 Iron Dukes, 2 Bellerophon's, and 2 Other can either be a tier 2 dd or a tier 2 cruiser for spotting and supporting fire and smoke support no torpedos. Kaiserliche Marine Mission- Form a battle line and intercept the Grand Fleet. Try to sink 3-4 ships, or just inflict more casualties than the royal navy has before trying to retreat and avoid getting crossed by the T. Kaiserliche Marine Ships- 9 battleships and 3 other types of ship. 3 Konigs, 3 Kaisers, 3 Nassaus. And 3 other types, being tier 2-3 cruisers and DDs for spotting and artillery support and smoking support Torpedoes may only used in a fleet retreat and is limited to 1 reload. here are some pictures from the last event V
  9. My views... BBs are in a good place, though its taken a bit to get here. WG did the French line right. HE slinging RN BBs has abated a bit and making life more pleasant. Older BBs are not aging well and 5 DD meta can be a bit obnoxious. Interested to hear your thoughts.
  10. Well, it seems that the upcoming armor changes are going to impact all ships with a torpedo belt. Pens on the belt are now guaranteed to do 10% damage regardless of it penning the belt armor. The impacted ships include and are not limited to: https://m.facebook.com/wowsdevblog/posts/2204959589830376 USS Alabama and USS Massachusetts USS Iowa and USS Missouri USS Arizona IJN Yamato and IJN Musashi (Less than others since the belt is below the waterline) Dunkerque Almost all Pre T6 Tech Tree BBs (Exclusions are South Carolina, Turrenne, Courbet, Nassau, Konig, Kawachi, and Myogi) Most ships with a Turtleback armor design (French High Tier BBs) T6+ Japanese Cruisers T8+ German Cruisers T10 Cruiser Henri IV For more info, go see Little White Mouse's post on the topic
  11. TheDgamesD

    The Roma Problem

    This is a forum post to go in-depth about every single issue I have found with the Roma as it stands currently in-game, be it either historical discrepancies, or just all around major flaws with her in her current state, that absolutely require some attention on Wargaming's end. Let's get the easiest thing out of the way first: Her camouflage. As it currently stands in-game it's obvious they based her in-game permanent camouflage on her historical one, and good on them for almost getting it right... Almost. You see they practically nailed it on it's head when it comes to her camouflage and I'm happy to say that the only thing they screwed up.. was her primary turrets. You see, in-game Roma's turrets all have the same design camouflage-wise, when historically this was not the case. In-game all her turrets mimick that of her historical Foremost turret, when it really should have each turrets individual "dazzle" design. For me it wouldn't be as much of an issue if the design's of the turrets camouflage historically weren't so drastically/noticeably different: what I'm saying is for wargaming to fix and correct this error on Roma. Now we move from the Aesthetics into the area of gameplay-vs-history. In-game Roma has by far the worst dispersion/accuracy of every battleship at her tier km for km. As it might not seem that bad at a glance when compared to her counterparts: For example here are two of the most inaccurate tech-tree battleships at tier VIII; Richelieu with a Max Firing Range of 25.27 km. and a Maximum Dispersion of 313 m. and 1.8 Sigma, and Bismarck with a Maximum Firing Range of 21.21 km. and a Maximum Dispersion of 273 m and a Sigma of 1.8, And Roma has a Maximum Firing Range of 18.12 km. and a Maximum Dispersion of 243 m. and a Sigma of 1.8. Although there may be no immediate issue with these numbers keep in mind Maximum dispersion is dispersion at the very extreme/limit of your firing range, and doesn't give us a clear comparison on a Km-by-Km scale. To do so I have to apply some easy math, which results in: Roma has a 13.4105960265m/km dispersion ratio Bismarck has a 12.8712871287m/km dispersion ratio Richelieu has a 12.3862287297m/km dispersion ratio North Carolina has a 11.6509028375m/km dispersion ratio Amagi has a 11.4185110664m/km dispersion ratio Now with this information, we can not only more easily and clearly see the actual difference in dispersion between ships, but in a way it can be easily measured and compared on equal terms. being able to multiply the ratio by any given distance to comparatively see how their max dispersions would compare. And with this in mind its clear to see Roma has the worst dispersion at her tier Roma's maximum range makes no sense, given the historical context that her guns (the Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 ) had the longest range of any rifles ever mounted on a battleship, the 884.8 kg AP rounds able to reach 42.8 km at the maximum elevation of +36º.This out-ranged the 46cm/45 Type 94 of the Yamato-class by almost 800 meters, and the 16"/50 Mk.7 of the Iowa-class by over 4000 meters. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannone_da_381/50_Ansaldo_M1934) And as such giving the battleship that actually held the record for having the longest ranged guns on a battleship the shortest range in her tier, is not only insulting, but a slap in the face of her legacy and title, and makes absolutely zero sense. Of course, I'm not asking them to make it her historical 42.8km range, but something more reflective of her title instead of her nonsensical range as it stands currently in-game. This wouldn't be so bad if they didn't give you the drawback of bad dispersion because of "the high velocity", which the Littorio Class' case wouldn't really make sense historically because it actually wasn't the high velocity of the guns that were the cause of the class sometimes suffering from bad accuracy, rather it was figured out during postwar trials of remaining ammunition for Littorio and Vittorio Veneto's Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 guns, they checked for compliance with design specifications on mass, dimensions, and assembly and through these inspections it was found an overwhelming majority failed inspection in some form or another. As such the glaring disparity of the gun's performance during Vittorio Veneto suffered from wildly misplaced groups during her Guado encounter on the 28th March 1941, and at 24,000 yards only scored one near miss against RN cruisers, during 25 minutes of firing, when compared to Littorio's Involvement during the first battle of Sirte Gulf, in which using only one of her primary turrets, starting from a range of 35,000 yards (Source; Robert O. Dulin & William H. Garzke: Battleships Axis and Neutral Battleships of WWII, page 397) Littorio using her fire control director system was able to determine the destroyers range and speed, train the main battery on target, and deliver accurate salvos against the British Destroyers causing splinter damage to them, and it wasn't just a lucky opening shot like with Bismarck vs Hood, As it was repeated on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th salvos fired whilst being over 35,000 yards away, delivering so much accurate fire at the british destroyers, who were, mind you, traveling at over 30knts, with a shell travel time to target of aprx 65 seconds. Forcing the British to withdraw. In her current state, the properties of her gun's are that of an infuriating paradoxical situation, I.E. She has very high velocity that would make her great for reaching out and hitting targets at 20km quickly, and having more than enough penetration to hurt them at that range effectively due to the relatively low arcs of the shells when compared to her counterparts, and the very high penetration values thanks again to her high velocity. Yet don't be fooled as you can't ever make proper use of that high velocity due to her atrocious dispersion ratio, sigma nerfed from 1.9 in testing to 1.8 (WG please buff it back to 1.9, It would make her almost tolerable to play.), and the shortest maximum firing range at her tier, Which don't be fooled, the spotter plane wont fix, as if you barely manage to land 2/9 hits at 15km good luck hitting anything at 20-23km. So ok, you just gotta get in close and use her as a brawler then right? WRONG. Her penetration values are so ludicrously high that at close range/sub-10km you'll constantly either overpen every cruiser you look at (besides RN.. most of the time) due to the shell entering in with such high velocity it just punches straight through the ships hull, sure you'll do much better against more armored enemy battleships but even then, I've had matches where at distances of less than 10km, firing at a fully broadside Grosser Kurfurst, and had every single shell miss, just falling everywhere around the giant battleship except where I aimed. That's without the fact your like a Yamato in that you can't get close to your targets like a brawler since your side armor is so vulnerable to getting citadeled, not just at close range, but any range, which shouldn't be the case as the almost dual-turtleback internal splinter plates are completely removed, and all of the other staggered armor placements, that was designed to lessen the shells penetration as it penetrated a layer to the next (aka Decapping plates) are just mashed together into two values; the belt armor, and citadel armor, which ruins the entire point of her simplistically-elaborate armor layout. Which absolutely needs to be corrected asap. Sure you can stay bow-in and it lessens the pain of her armor, as her bow is quite well-angled, and has increased armor on the bow "cheeks" (referencing the same location as Yamato's weakpoint that allows other Yamato's to citadel them when angled) which I won't deny is nice, but far from enough to make up for everything else. Sure she has very fast turning turrets unlike that of Yamato whom I've been comparing Roma to, and Although it makes her comfortable to change targets quickly at close range, you shouldn't ever be making use of it that way because of her atrocious side armor in-game. Which has left her feeling as though she has a mashup of drastically opposing playstyles, yet inheriting all the negative sides of both, and those same negatives prevent her from properly performing any of those playstyles without feeling so heavily crippled, and as if your constantly being punished: You have high-velocity shells, but not the range to go with it, (not to mention insultingly short range for you know, mounting the guns that held the record for the longest ranged guns ever mounted on a battleship.) You have short maximum range, which forces you to get close to your enemies and usually being forced to resort to brawling, but you don't have your historical double-turtleback/Staggered armor scheme to be able to withstand some hits like other brawling battleships like Bismarck and Tirpitz. Instead, if anything gets your side that isn't a destroyer you can practically kiss half your health goodbye, if not all of it since your citadel is so easy to hit. Since you have 381mm guns you can't overmatch some/most heavy cruisers bows like that of Des Moines, or any other 27mm+ armored bow ship, unlike most of your counterparts, yet you don't get the Improved reload time like that of Bismarck or Tirpitz to compensate for having smaller caliber guns (Richelieu makes sense as she has all 8 of her guns situated in two turrets in her bow). While you may jump to conclude this is due to her having triple turrets, that doesn't make sense, as Roma had a very elaborate and efficient loading system, that even American naval staff after the war regarded as more advanced than the loading system used aboard the Iowa class. I'm not asking for her to have Bismarck/Tirpitz's 26 second reload but more like Dunkerque and Monarch's 28 second reload. Roma's Loading system (I apologize as the audio is in Italian but the visual 3D breakdown of her entire system is more than enough to comprehend whats going on.) Also, I find the fact she carries High Explosive rounds for her main battery in-game quite puzzling, as she never once carried nor used any historically, nor did any ship that used the Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 ever carry or use any HE. While and although an HE shell was developed and tested it was thought that the Nose Fuse was too sensitive, and as such was never used. Rather they carried two separate types of Armor Piercing: AP rounds called "Palla" or "Proiettile Perforante", and Semi-AP rounds called "Granata Perforante". What I'd like, and doubt I'd see, is the removal of HE from Roma and it being replaced with a second AP shot similar to that of the British Light Cruisers. Details on the shells themselves (via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannone_da_381/50_Ansaldo_M1934): "AP: The primary armor-piercing round, in Italian these rounds were known as "Palla" (literally; "ball") or "Proiettile Perforante" (Piercing Shot"). They were heavy for their caliber at 884.8 kg (1,951 lb), with a small bursting charge of only 10.16 kg TNT (1.15%). The shells were made of nickel-chrome steel, with a steel cap and a Silumin ballistic cap. The total length was 170 cm (67 in), or 4.46 calibers. SAP: A semi armor-piercing round named "Granata Perforante" ("Piercing Shell") designed for use against lightly armored targets such as cruisers and destroyers. They were lighter than the AP shells with a greater bursting charge (3.57%) and had a significantly lesser penetrative ability. During the war, they showed an unfortunate tendency to fuse later than they had been set to, which lead to over-penetrations of their targets. HE: High explosive shells, these weighed only 774 kilograms (1,710 lb). Although designed and tested for these guns, they were never actually used aboard any of the ships that mounted these guns. The nose fuse was thought to be too sensitive." "The 381 mm guns had a maximum elevation of 35 degrees, which allowed them to engage targets out to 42,260 m (138,650 ft). The guns fired a 885 kg (1,951 lb) armor-piercing (AP) shell at a muzzle velocity of 870 meters per second (2,900 ft/s). However, this was reduced to 850 m/s (2,800 ft/s) in order to reduce dispersion and increase barrel service life. The 824.3 kg (1,817 lb) semi-armor piercing shells formed the secondary ammunition of the 381mm/50, which had a 29.51 kg (65.1 lb) bursting charge. Although high explosive shells weighing 774 kg (1,706 lb) were developed for the 381 mm guns, they never saw service on the Littorio-class. Their ammunition load was 495 AP shells and 171 SAP shells, with 4,320 propellant charges (666 rounds total, or 74 rounds per gun split 55 AP & 19 SAP)" Seriously after playing 192 battles as of writing this, (check for yourself here: https://na.wows-numbers.com/player/1006533382,TheDgamesD/) I can no longer ignore these glaring issues, Wargaming needs to address them, and severely fix this ship. I don't want to trade her in, I don't want a refund. I want a ship worthy of the title Roma, for her to actually be good, and unreliant on such temperamental and infuriating luck constantly.
  12. Note: I would like to exclude the unicum patches and emblems for a focused discussion. There are of course several super-prestigious ones that exist (like the big blue "C" for contracted WOWS YouTubers), but they are unobtainable for most, and people won't get it however they grind. Therefore it's kind of a waste of time to discuss them.
  13. Hey Captains! I have a Discord Server dedicated to gaming. Our main game is World Of Warships, but we do play multiple other games, along with trying new games. We are looking for others to join our Discord, and if there is enough interest, we will be creating a clan. Our main goal is to enjoy the game, and not take life too seriously. We are a very small group of gamers who enjoy playing together. I will provide a link to the Discord server. ( https://discord.gg/GseFfQ You may also contact me through the Discord, or reply this thread with any questions. Thank you all!
  14. This was a refreshing change. Tough battle, a pleasure to be in.
  15. thatGcat

    balance updates

    Just curious about the latest update. when I logged into my first battle on my Bayern today I realized that she got a spotter plane. now I have even more reason to love this ship! When I looked at the update page tho, it said that she (and some t5 BBs) got catapults on their main turrets. What does that actually mean? I haven't noticed a change in how Bayern's guns perform, still as deadly as ever! so what does it mean when a ship gets a catapult on their main turret??
  16. So, I'm sure a lot of you may have noticed that by the time they sank, all the Kongo Fast Battleships looked pretty different from each other. After I had bought the Kongo a few months ago, though, I was sort of confused. You see, the Kongo looks like this... But the ingame Kongo looks like this! Should/could Wargaming fix this? I also saw some arpeggio ships still sailing around, and all of the Kongo sisters there are reskinned. Does it even matter to anyone? Personally, I would love to see our real Kongo.
  17. Which mid-tier battleship do you dread seeing on the enemy fleet? Even though it is my namesake, seeing a Gneisenau, or a few of them, on the other team puts me on my toes. Solid, fast, agile, good guns, powerful secondary armament, and torpedoes make her a ship that respects your attention. With dangerous waters ahead, which mid-tier battleship poses the biggest threat to you and your fleet? "Never fear your enemy but always respect them." John Basilone, US Marine Corps #threatassessmentthursday #anchorsaweigh
  18. Drunkenuff

    BB's are broken...hear me out first

    First of all lets get this out of the way...I have played Warships for little over two weeks in this is my opinion which has been discussed and debated over with my streams on twitch. Battleships have no distinct advantage in Warships. Destroyers have torpedoes which has no counter (yes there is Hydro..but even then u only use that so many times yet torpedoes are unlimited). Cruisers has much faster shooting and some have torpedoes as well. What do Battleships have? thicker armour..oh please....the armour isnt that much.....better ammo? sure if you hit....try hitting a destroyer or a cruiser from distance where a battleship belongs (like a needle in a haystack at times). Hydro? sure it helps and is effective but very limited due to limited uses. Planes? are they better than a Carriers planes...lol no.......so again what distinctive advantage does a battleship have? ok they can take more torpedoes hits...(swirls fingers at that). yes some have torps as well but you really want to compare that to a destroyers. How to fix this: Give them way more increased armour like they have in the real world....battleships rarely sunk compared to other ships..... or unlimited hydro (now I know the destroyer peeps would freak out on this), a torpedo counter such as a mine placed in the water to attract torpedoes away or or maybe more health (shrug) Battleships are supposed to be the tanks of the water and support other ships to attack or defend....but it just seems the Battleship is just lacking a certain something.....especially when playing with Carriers who target you with salvo after salvo of torpedoes. This isnt sour grapes....I enjoy playing Battleships..I have played DD's, CV's and Cruisers but I enjoy playing the tank role more hence why I mainly use BB's. I am sure there will be cute replies on this one....but if u have some good candid reply I will listen.
  19. Avenge_December_7

    A Couple Of Questions About Battleship Play

    After having one of my replays reviewed by Lord Zath, I am wondering if anyone could answer the following questions, mainly pertaining to target selection and the concept of flanking: I once read a battleship guide that stated that battleships should always shoot the target that's broadside, meaning ignoring the enemy Montana 7 km away that's bow-on and instead shooting the broadside North Carolina 13 km away. However, Lord Zath stated that I am doing the above (opportunistic broadsides) instead of, to paraphrase him, damaging and killing the ships that help the team win. What exactly does he mean by this, and how can I use this advice to improve my target selection? What exactly distinguishes "flanking" from "sailing uselessly away from the battle"? How can I ascertain when going off by myself to one side of the battle will help the team rather than hinder it? All advice is welcome.
  20. The summer is on, and the summer is on strong. This is a demonstration of how your team will react if you try to push out into a CAP alone, no vision, just going for it.
  21. (Place tongue firmly in cheek before proceeding. And remember: Irony is Truth) Invisible ships that whine about radar and battleship AP Big fat clumsy ships that whine about invisible ships, fires and walls of torps Floating citadels that win by hiding behind cover and lobbing lameness onto hapless targets that can’t fire back at them Smoke, smoke, smoke and some more smoke Fire-spitting smoke clouds featured prominently in the naval battles of the early to mid-20th Century Overpenetrations: 16” shells go right through a canoe, you know, for only 10% damage The Dispersion Slot Machine---feeling lucky? Well, are you, punk? Hair-pulling and rage incumbent upon the attempt to get a few digital stars next to one’s name through “competitive play” (mark you: there is no monetary compensation for this) Wailing, frustration and rage about the matchmaker Wailing, frustration and rage about “having a bad team” Wailing, frustration and rage about “losing 10 games in a row and it’s not my fault” Cyclones: “Well, Yuri Ivanovich, you have to encourage people to close the distance somehow.” “Great idea, Igor Semyonovich, let’s implement it!” (leaked conversation from WG St. Petersburg office, circa 2016). Angling: Because 2700 lb shells aren’t that dangerous if they hit you at 65 degrees. To borrow a phrase from WoT: "Bounced off!" Overmatch: The number 14.3 is extremely important in naval combat (who knew? I’ll tell you: The designers of 460mm Japanese naval guns. Smart!) One of the greatest innovations in naval strategy in this period involved pointing the bow of the ship toward the enemy and slowly reversing. Don’t you dare cross the T, noob. What do you think this is, a historical game? British battleships: Because to heck with your angling Great Naval Battles in bodies of water full of large masses of strangely-shaped land An aircraft carrier? Never seen one of those. Deep Water torps: Because battleship players are stupid and there are too many of them Radar: Because if your own DDs die, how will you ever see the little buggers? Egos and Tempers the size of the USS Midway Who knew the Soviet Navy boasted such a formidable surface fleet with artillery more accurate than anything any capitalist pig-navy could ever devise? “Destroyers in World War II primarily performed fleet and convoy escort, as well as antisubmarine warfare duties” Oh wait…. Detonations: “We at Wargaming.net believe in fun and engaging gameplay!” Detonations: “Buy this piece of striped cloth and hoist it up the mainmast. It will prevent the unlimited supply of torpedoes in your hull from going off when hit.” Fires: Because how else can a 127mm gun sink a 60,000 ton ship? 33% Skill, 67% Luck. Want to change that? Carry harder and git gud, scrub. “I play World of Warships because it helps me relax.” “I play World of Warships because of the friendly, welcoming and helpful community.” Losing credits? “May I interest you in a premium account, dear sir?” Armor penetration mechanics more Byzantine than organic chemistry Soviet Battleships: The End of the World is Coming
  22. With the Massachusetts reportedly set to be released SoonTM and seeing and reading the associated videos and reviews I am wondering about the apparent requirement for IFHE and the proposed "full secondary" Captain build consisting of, say, PM, AR, BFT, AFT, MFCSB, and IFHE. First this demands a 19-point Captains and limits the ability for this ship as a "trainer". Further I also get worried about the absence of any "protective skills" like BOS, FP, etc. Given the skill, intellect, and experience of the Commanders reading this posting I look forward to your thoughts as the optimal build for this ship and the specific need for IFHE to make this effective. Thanks.....
  23. GreyFox78659

    Wargaming to rework Battleships

    Do to Battleship population numbers continuing to climb. World of Warships will be reworking Battleships to bring them in-line with the other classes in order to bring back into a competitive arena. All sales of premium Battleships will be halted until this rework is completed.
  24. The golden rule of ships with a repair party is to never ever repair a single fire (unless you're about to die from that one fire). Personally, I never repair a single fire in battleships unless I know that I'm going to die otherwise (although at that point, it's probably only a matter of time until I die). However, I do notice that sometimes, I just get constantly lit on fire only once (so I don't repair), and it occasionally causes me to die in situations where I might have otherwise managed to come out on top. For instance, a single fire might cause me to ultimately lose a bow-on fight with another battleship due to the health difference the fire caused. Is there ever a time when I should, apart from immediate threat of sinking, repair a single fire?
×