Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'buffalo'.

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


  • World of Warships Events

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 3 results

  1. pig8

    Buffalo + AR?

    A lot of people have said that Buffalo is a meh ship. I don't think so. I actually enjoy it more than the baltimore, basically for one reason: DPM. Sure, on paper, the DPM seems absolutely terrible, compared to the DM and sometimes even the Baltimore. But AR changes all of that. I've just picked up the Buffalo for a few games, and at the start of the battle, the reload, is kinda meh, at 10.5 (running the reload mod). But as the game continues, your DPM actually gets much better, in fact it could reach the DPM of the DM that doesn't have reload mod and no AR. The reason is that the Buffalo benefits much more with AR then other US Heavy Cruisers, as AR buffs the reload, giving 0.2% decrease in reload for each 1% HP you lose. So practically the more guns you have, the more you benefit from AR. After doing the math I actually found that AR gives the Buffalo a 60% better benefit than the DM, which is just crazy. If I'm wrong about that someone pls correct me? I'm not sure if that's how it's supposed to work, but if it does I think that makes the Buffalo a much better ship than what people have said it to be. Of course, the DPM is still incomparable to a DM that does the same. DM is just absurd.
  2. I've been playing WOWS for about 5 years, have 331 ships in port. To say many are not fun to play is an understatement (little background). Just venting here and expect very little understanding, so 'stop typing' WOWS doesn't need your protection or support. Just finished a 1005 game playing exercise with two of my grown son in assignment with 335 games each. Both were WOWS players but both quit the game sometime ago. I had noted the damage numbers offered by wows in the ship gunnery logs of each ships, as not even close to real play numbers. Say; the ship states (Seattle) its 152MM guns will have Max. He shell damage of 2200 or Max. AP shell damage of 3200. (The Buffalo is 2800 and 5000 but the actual damage per, is pretty much the same percentage wise). We played 167 games and fired only HE rounds. Then played 168 games and fired AP only for 168 games. It took us about 45 days to complete. My sons will never play WOWS again BTW. If the game actually worked and gave us a end-of-game summary page with the included numbers we use it. (Note: between the 3 of us the game failed this little required 8 percent of the time). Anyway: starting with the HE(2200) shell, we averaged just 236 damage per hit. That's about 11% of rated max 2200 damage potential. For the AP shell (3200) the actual damage was 358 damage per. That's just over 11% of the rated 3200 max damage. Miserable is a bit of an understatement. (one good reason my sons quit playing but not the only reason). Customer service said its the 'computer' working its magic. But people control the end results don't we. It is magic that 90% of the players live with such number nonsense yet some have the most fantastic numbers. It is magic. What is your magic..?
  3. Very interesting article WG. Thank you for that. I have a few questions though. Where did you get the information about the ship's projected performance characteristics being too optimistic? I'd be interested to know in the USN's later analysis of this design. I hadn't read about the resulting reduction in belt armor from 7.5" to 6" before. Also you make a pretty big deal about the quad torpedo launchers and the torpedo reloads facilitated for them. So why wasn't this included on the Buffalo in the game? Not that I particularly miss the lousy USN torpedoes, I'd have personally preferred the extra armor instead. That chart of new US cruiser designs 1940-41 shows two designs, Scheme 1 and 2, for what look to be new light cruisers. Yet the main armament of Scheme 2 isn't identified. What was it?