Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'de'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 5 results

  1. o0_BattleFlower_0o

    Nueve de Julio vs. Boise stats

    I've been contemplating on purchasing the Nueve de Julio as of late and like most people I'm sure decided to research as much as I could about her. Videos, articles, forums, stats, etc. And the only difference I can find between these two ships are the current live server stats. It's not a huge margin though it is noticeable in win rate and damage output. I can only assume that this must be due to maybe player familiarity with the American play style or something of the like that could cause this. So I guess what I'm looking for is confirmation from community that they are completely identical ships. It would also be interesting to hear people's thoughts on the cause of the differences in stats as well!
  2. Ah the lowly Destroyer Escort (DE), a true unsung hero of WWII and at least in our little corner of the internet, a rather confusing and controversial subject. It's also been one that I can't stop thinking about lately. Namely; could they possibly, maybe.. just maybe be viable for inclusion into World of Warships? Well, despite my repeated attempts and research the best way to answer that can be summed up as so: So a little context first. What I'm talking about are not technically DDs in the sense that we the playerbase think of them in the game. Those are what can be generally referred to as 'Fleet Destroyers' and, as the name implies are designed to operate with a battle fleet in support of a surface warfare group attacking other ships. Ok, that makes sense that is what we do for the most part in WoWs right now. Well, these ships OTOH would be what we call "Ocean Escorts", or just Escort ships and would actually be considered a type of auxiliary. They have one very specific job to do; protect convoys and hunt submarines (ok that's two jobs). So, in the most basic sense, these ships don't fit WoWs because we don't have submarines to fight... yet. But for the purposes of this article, lets assume that they are here or at least imminent. Now they have a reason to exist. So the next question is, can they work? Again, conventional wisdom says no for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost is speed. These were NOT meant for fleet duty so they didn't need to be fast they needed range. So on average we're talking about speeds between 20-25 knots. Everything can run them down and kill them. So what about firepower? Wellll... generally pretty light and specialized. Using a John C Butler-class as one example, they were equipped with 2x 5"/38 guns, some AA which was actually pretty meaty for ships that size, 3x 21" torpedo tubes and a LOT of depth charges, either rolled off the back of the ship or launched by k-gun throwers (DCT). Wow... that's not much. And it's a broadly similar story with both the British and Japanese as well. Usually you see a trade off in some increased firepower for decreases in other areas, like speed or AA. This leads us into the 3rd problem which isn't so much about the technical aspects of the ships themselves but more about their appeal and utility compared to Fleet DDs. Destroyer line splits have become something of an interesting topic as of late, with many different ideas, theories and proposals put out in the past year or so. I myself have theorycrafted a 2nd French DD line which you're welcome to read if you're interested. Now in fairness, not actually knowing how submarines will fully shake out in the live client makes it seem like the DDs we have now are more or less adequate to fight them. They all have DCRs or DCTs of some kind, so they have a weapon to fight them. But as many have pointed out, it's not an ideal situation for the current DD meta to take on ASW whilst having to do, everything else a DD is expected to do in a given match. So splitting lines might be beneficial as it could allow for more dedicated lines to focus on certain capabilities more than others. Now that's fine if you're simply referring to DDs vs. DEs or FFs etc. but a look around the rest of the nations present in WoWs makes for some grim outlooks there. France, for instance as mentioned previously would still only really have DCTs and DCRs as it's primary ASW capability even for it's standard torpilleurs d'escadre. Germany is in the same position (although they might have had homing torpedoes but that's a story for another time), Italy, not much difference and not much in capabilities. Russians, same thing. Meanwhile, the US gets access to Hedgehog mortars, the British had that and Squid mortars and even the Japanese can call upon a type of ASW shell fired from their main guns! To be fair though, Pan Asia and Pan Europe (so far) have some of these capabilities on their ships and more (Swedish Halland/ Smaland and Freisland have ASW rocket launchers for instance.) So this paints an unpleasant picture of only 4 nations (kind of 5) really having the capability to act as a hard counter to subs and yet only one nation can actually say that it can do it with existing assets! (kind of 2). Soooo... TL:DR; can a DE make a difference in the game as the meta is currently established? Absolutely not. They are too slow, too weak and no amount of gimmicks will alleviate that anytime soon before Submarines make it into the game.. and possibly afterwards too. BUT WAIT! That's not fun! That's not what this diatribe is about! It's about the ships man! So for the sake of pure fantasy and ASSUMING that there's enough of a meta shift once submarines are established that such a class of ship is needed what could such a line look like? Well, let's have some fun with that! I will only be looking at the US for now since this is purely theoretical and I can include a ship that I've actually wanted to see in the game for a long time, and can finally justify it's existence! So without further ado: A US, DE Line Split. Tier V (Yes, really) - Buckley-class I'm starting at mid-tier for two reasons. One; I believe that one of the main gimmicks of these ships will be Hydro across the board and two; these are interwar ships so they don't belong down with the WWI stuff, no matter how slow they are. With that said, the Buckley's were really the template for the rest of the ships that came after. Top speed of 24 knots, triple torpedoes and all the usual ASW gear including ahead-throwing Hedgehog (which may or may not be added depending on balance). Main gun armament is.. well, 3" DP guns. If anything I'd consider this a type of secondary, which means this thing would play with only torpedoes and it's ASW weapons but the guns do have a 30 rpm rate of fire so even though your only throwing 3" shells all over the place that is A LOT of them! Tier VI - Edsall-class We're skipping the otherwise very similar Cannon-class for this ship, which represents somewhat of a transitional design. Armed initially with the same 3" DP guns, it can be upgraded to the good ol' 5"/38s we all know and love. This was an actual conversion planned for these ships late in the war but never carried out due to the ships pretty much being "excess to requirement". They also get pretty much the same suite of other weapons as previous but some slightly upgraded AA to boot. Tier VII - Rudderow-class These ships were based on the general hull design of the earlier Buckley-class which is why they're included here. Main armament hasn't changed all that much except for heavier still AA (read: modern). Although very similar to the next class of ships, it should be noted that for balance sake, the tiers 8 and above are going to be fitted with another gimmick- Radar. Tier VIII - John C. Butler-class Yup, the class of the USS Samuel B. Roberts fame. Again, same basic armament as above but with EVEN MORE AA (in typical American fashion). The main gimmick of this ship now is that it can use Radar in addition to Hydro, allowing for grater situational awareness especially when given the fact that even with a speed boost fitted, these ships can at best make, 29 knots? Interestingly enough though, a lot of JCBs were upgraded post war with new 3"/50 DP guns replacing the 40mm Bofors and even the newer Mk.15 trainable Hedgehog launcher. The older ones are fixed position so they can only fire ahead of the ship. So, conventional wisdom would dictate I follow this with the Dealey-class but there's no way to make that work at tier 9, so instead I had to get creative and as it turns out there is a way for the top tier line to get more, competitive shall we say? Enter: Tier XI - Fletcher-class DDK/ DDE conversion Oh great, yet another Fletcher in the game. How original! I hear you moan. But in reality, this would make the most sense. These ships were chosen for conversion to dedicated Escort/ Hunter Killer DDs to provide a little more capability to fleet operations given how slow the DEs were. Modification included removing 3 of the 5 5" guns, the 40mm guns and one of the TT launchers. In it's place would be some 3"/50 DP guns in twin mounts, and either a Mk. 15 Hedgehog or the RUR-4 Weapon A (Alfa) ASW Rocket launcher. Which essentially would work like any other mounted gun in the game. Only it throws big anti-submarine mortars towards subs at 12 rounds per minute! Also, these ships after conversion were slower than the original fleet ships, maintaining a speed of around 35 knots. So which much faster than anything that came before it in the line, it's still slower than the existing Fletcher. Tier X - Mitscher-class This ship at first glance doesn't seem to make any sense in the context of the rest of the line. It's longer and 1000 tons heavier than even the Fletcher and is designated as Destroyer Leader! (DL) How the heck does that fit?!?! Well, because the Mitschers were kind of considered to be the first modern Frigates in the US Navy after WWII and in 1975 would in fact be reclassified as such. The reason? These ships, despite their CHONKINESS were in fact dedicated ASW platforms with all the sensors and weapons the Navy could stuff in them, hence the size. And what an armament! Main guns are the 5"/54 mk.42 which would be new to the game. The ship again only has 2 guns but they are capable of up to 40 rounds per minute! So, imagine a Halland's guns but half the barrels and 5" instead of 4.7" and you get a pretty good idea of what this thing can do. Add to that 4x 21" TTs, some 3"/50 AA guns and 20mm guns to boot and 2 RUR-4's, one on each end. And to top it all off, it still has DCs to throw around. Consider this ship the payoff for suffering through all those mid-tier DEs. So there you have it. I hope that this was informative and interesting and as always comments are always welcome!
  3. WanderingGhost

    CVE's and DE's - a concept

    So, the game has had CVE's in it before (Bogue) used as smaller CV's, and people have asked in the past about DE's being added. Obviously these types have a bit more reason now with subs on the way but of course the question is implementing them without being an overly focused type - it does no good to have an ASW ship on your team if it has 0 use against other types. It's a juggling act, not useless vs a BB but bit more ASW bend, but I think it's doable. I don't see many nations having these kinds of lines but not every nation had every type and all. For this I'm going to focus on USN ships simply because I have more info and ideas to use as examples. So I'll start with the CVE's. The idea for these is to make them low impact enough that mirror MM is unnecessary. While near impossible with fleet carriers, I do think that it can be achieved with relative ease on these. They have smaller air groups, fewer planes, and aren't carrying as many weapons meant to take out heavy ships. Unlike fleet CV's currently, they won't spot ships for the team in regards to ability to shoot, simply on the minimap like radar does for the first few seconds now. That should limit the information to not be as much an issue (as long range guns can't snipe a ship based on that info). The rest comes down to group size and damage really. As it stands much as I play CV's I think the alpha is too high on some ordnance (damage from volume vs per piece when a lot of this has volume AND per piece). So between lower alpha on weapons and smaller numbers the damage impact shouldn't be much more than a DD. At worst, maybe a cruiser. Here's a possible USN line: (planes in flight x number of flights) Tier 4 - USS Long Island 16 planes on deck, group of 4 F2A Buffalo's (2x2) and 4-6 SBC Helldivers (2x2 or 3x2). There are two ways to arm the F2A - my way (more historically accurate) with 2x 100 lb bombs dealing 1800-2100 damage or Wargaming's way with 4x 3.5" or 5" FFAR dealing roughly 600 or 8-900 damage respectively. The SBC's would have a single 500 lb bombs dealing 4200-4800 damage per plane. Tier 6 - Bogue 24-28 planes on deck. 1 group of 4 F4F-3/4 Wildcats (2x2) with 6x HVARS (1000 damage), 6 TBF Avengers (3x2 or 2x3) with 4x depth charges or 1x Mk 24 'mine' (probably 1500 damage +/-), 4 F4F-3/4 or TBF Avenger (2x2) with 2x 250 lb bombs (2400-3000 damage) or 4x 500 lb bombs (4200-4800 damage) Speed buffed to 21 knots Tier 8 - Casablanca 31-35 aircraft on deck. 1 group FM-2 Wildcats or TBM-1c Avengers with 6x (FM) or 8x (TBM) HVAR's with 6 planes (3x2 or 2x3), 6x TBM-1c with either 4x depth charges or 1x Mk 24 'mine' (3x2), 6x FM-2 or TBM-1c with 2x 250 lb bombs or 4x 500 lb bombs (3x2) Speed buffed to 25+ knots. Tier 10 - Commencement Bay 35+ aircraft on deck. 9x F4U-4B or TBM-3 with 8x HVAR (3x3), 6 or 9 TBM-3 with 4x depth charges or Mk 34 'mine' (2000+ damage) either 3x2 or 3x3, 4x F4U-4B (2x2) or 6x TBM-3 (3x2)with either 6-8x 250 lb bomb or 4x 500 lb bombs. Speed buffed to 25+ knots Before I start seeing 'that damage is way too low' there are a few things to remember. First of all is that these are meant to be sub hunters, while I have no idea the actual HP of subs as I wasn't chosen for testing, I'm guessing as much or less than same tier DD's. So a standard pen hit with a 3.5 inch FFAR that deals 600 max damage, is 200 per hit, and you fire 12 at tier 4. Odds are you won't hit all 12, but even half that is 1200 damage off a ship with ~10000 hp or less in one pass. These also shouldn't have the ridiculous nerf rockets were given a few patches ago instead of the alpha nerf they needed. More likely it'd be 5" FFAR's - closer to 300 damage per hit so 50% would be 1800 damage per pass. Bombs is a similar story - you have them in volume, a bit less so than rockets for the most part, not as accurate, but higher alpha. Depth charges again - I lack knowledge how they work as is - though they seem to need nerfs based on gameplay I watched, so no damage for them listed. And to explain for those unaware and do not instantly freak out when I say this - the Mk 24 and it's Mk 34 successor are the homing torpedoes that USN actually had operational during WWII and it's post war update respectively, and were meant mostly for ASW and surface ships really as a last resort/secondary target. Now as to why I say don't freak out because 'OMG CV WITH HOMING TORPS' - the fact they have some homing and historically had a hilariously small explosive charge for a torpedo is why the damage is that low as well as again, anti-sub weapon. However there are other drawbacks as well - generally the range should probably be fairly short for them, at best the torpedoes should be maybe a bit faster than a sub, meaning most surface ships should be able to out run them and for subs the option of out diving them at minimum (if not possibly in cases out running them, though most that'd likely be on the surface), and in general avoiding them (they aren't going to be super agile). That and DD's can easily out run them, and any cruiser or BB that can't likely has torpedo protection on top of HP to reduce damage and all. The worst would be any flooding it may cause. Also given the nature of aerial dropped depth charges usually meant for shallower attacks, depending on what they land near I see some use for them in attacking ships though likely not as great as against a submarine. I imagine against a DD they may do some actual damage where as a BB may just have steering/propulsion knocked out and maybe some flooding - unfortunately while there is talk of Taffy 3 attacking the center force with depth charges out of desperation, and ships having damaged themselves mistakenly with depth charges, can't seem to find much saying what kind of damage may have actually been done. The TBF/M's with depth charges and Mk 24/34's would have MAD systems - basically what they gave DD's in test 2 when they are surfaced or at shallower depths, but would only go off within about 4 km of the sub max. When using rockets/bombs need to spot it manually for the most part. I say the most part because I've given consideration to the tier 10 TBM's with rockets possibly having a unique consumable to make them a choice over the F4U - aside from being a sturdier plane - Sonobuoy's. I imagine them kinda like a place-able hydro that lasts for 30-60 seconds and shows subs and ships at x range, and subs that are not dove deep (second level below periscope depth). The question would be limited number or unlimited but longer CD. I also felt it better to give options so they aren't as boring to play as fleet CV's currently are and take advantage of the roles the planes can fill. Attack planes an option for more rockets and a sturdier plane at cost of speed and agility, or fewer rockets on a faster more agile plane with fewer hitpoints, or the same other than rockets but one has an edge hunting subs, the other an edge running down surface ships. The Depth charges were low hanging fruit for USN and while I don't think USN subs should have homing torps, save maybe at tier 10 or 9 depending on what a full tech tree would look like, I feel it'd be wrong to pass these up on ASW carriers. And it adds some utility for anti-ship options even if not super amazing. As far as bombers there are 2 distinct styles at play with these The TBF/M's would be glide bombers - between what UK currently is and standard USN, generally more covering an area with a heavier payload. The fighter-bomber option meanwhile is basically high speed DB's - with the F4U taking advantage of it's pretty insane carry capacity (though preferably only the 6x 250 lb bombs used as that still puts it lower payload than the the TMB) having a bit more area coverage than predecessors but still less powerful bombs than the TBM is carrying. Also of note - these would be far stealthier than the fleet CV's, what level of stealth I don't know exactly, but these would rely a bit more on that than straight up speed to run. Also, even though it's even's only - not having the same nonsense we have currently with CV's on how much xp these take to get to the next level. So going from 6-8 would take either the same as going from 6 to 7 OR 7 to 8, not the current one where it's the xp where it's the xp to get from 6 to 7 AND 7 to 8. This would hopefully help them fit the role of sub-hunting, making them unique from fleet carriers a bit, and give them tools effective against subs without being too insane, and still have some ability to attack ships on the surface and still do some damage other than DD's and if added DE's. And reigned in enough to not need mirrored MM. Destroyer Escorts. - Tier Class Armament Speed Notes 3 Evart 3x 76 mm/50 guns, 2 K guns, 2 DC rails, assorted AA 19 knots 4 Edsall* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 21 knots 5 Cannon* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 21 knots 6 Buckley* 3x 76 mm guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 24+ knots 7 Rudderow 2x1 127 mm/38 guns, 8 k guns, 2 DC rails, Hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 24+ knots Main battery and AA pretty much deciding factor 8 John C. Butler 2x1 127 mm/38, 8 k guns, 2 DC racks, hedgehog, assorted AA, 1x3 TT 29 knots More AA than previous ships, rounded up the speed Samuel B Roberts achieved at Samar 9 Bristol (or Dealey) 4x1 127 mm/38 guns, 6 K guns, 2 DC racks, assorted AA, 1x5 TT 37.5 knots Sub hunting version of Gleaves class 10 Dealey (or Bristol) 2x2 76 mm Mk 33, 1x4 TT, 2 ASW torpedo launchers (seems like 1 per side, 3 torps per), 2x hedgehog or squid, 2 k guns 25 knots * The order is a bit messed up from reality, should go Buckley, Cannon, Edsall, but the HP they'd likely have, speed, AA and all kinda made it this makes more sense. With 9 and 10 I have what I'm calling the "Dealey Dilemma". I decided late in the game to pass on Claude Jones (ships after Dealey) when I stumbled across Bristol which some things refer to as a DE rather than DD, and either way the subclass was meant to be more ASW/AA. Obviously, being a Gleaves class, it's heavier, faster, has 4x 127 mm guns, a quintuple launcher, and well, small caliber AA on top of more K guns. So other than it wold mean inconsistent calibers jumping from 127 to 76 back to 127, something Wargaming seems to have an issue with these days, it seems like an obvious choice to be tier 10. But then there is the argument to be had over Dealey's tech. Dealey's 76 mm guns with a historical RoF is between 45-50 RPM - or a 1.2-1.3 second reload without BFT or AR - I'm not sure dakka can get any more maximumer. Which I think the insane rate of fire would likely make up for the lower alpha of a 76 mm instead of 127. Lacking a bit in k guns and DC but packing either 2 Hedgehog or squid systems likely makes up for that. Not to mention ASW torps that like the above CVE's may be slower and low damage, but still home in on a target. Though I'm thinking those are single launch with a bit of a delay (2, maybe 3 seconds). Some of these may need speed tweaks based on how fast subs can go, or general balance, but overall, speed doesn't seem like an issue. Staying historical 9 and 10 have 0 problems I think fighting other ships outside their class with their guns, and all but the lowest one has a torpedo tube that can be used to attack larger targets. The question mark is 3-8 vs other ships. The 3x 76 mm guns on the low tiers historically top out at 20 RPM or a 3 second reload, and the 2 with 2x 127 mm I believe are the type with hoists and so could achieve up to 22 RPM, or a 2.7 second reload. Both numbers are faster rates of fire than contemporaries (4 seconds and 3.3 respectively) in the USN line which has some of the highest fire rates, the question is is it enough? Though a slight fudging of RoF would not be the worst thing. The other thing would be HE pen. Even at 1/4 76 mm breaks out to 19 even, though the 127 mm guns would have 31 mm of pen. Generally maybe the line's pen should be set at 21 mm so it doesn't shatter on pretty much everything. Typical DD rtpe consumables and maybe slightly better stealth (most after all are a little smaller than DD's) - I do think it's possible to have a line with them that can actually function in the game, with a bit more purpose with subs added (which will likely happen before these). I imagine other possible tweaks for them to be slightly better sub-hunters, maybe faster depth charge reload, slightly longer range detection to track subs, whatever. Anyway, my hair brained idea using what I currently have on USN stuff for a CVE and DE line that would hopefully work well enough in game. While at the same time opening up some historical ships I think people would like to see (Samuel B Roberts, any of the 6 'jeep carriers' at the battle) as well as some maybe unique ones (USS Eldridge as a Halloween one based on the supposed 'Philadelphia Experiment' - perhaps in place of smoke it temporarily turns invisible, but can't fire any guns or torpedoes). It's all still in a more rough draft form, probably needs more work, but figure I'd toss it out there. This has been another wall by WanderingGhost to be ignored.
  4. Rusty_Bucket__

    Atlanta IFHE or DE

    Should I use IFHE or DE on my Atlanta. I noticed that IFHE has a 3% reduction in the chance of fire. Recently I obtained the Kidd. I moved my Atlanta captain over to it. I moved a 17 commander skill captain over to the Atlanta. I can put the DE on, but need an additional commander skill to add IFHE. I'd appreciate advice. Is the IFHE the best choice for an Atlanta? Thanks in advance.
  5. anonym_MbpaxbbAUblh

    DE + IFHE = DE nullified?

    I have asked this before in one of my own threads but not as main subject. Here - I am not into the core mechanics of the game so need a bit clarification here. DE = +2% chance of fire IFHE = -3% chance of fire DE + IFHE = -1% chance of fire So if both the skills are combined for a cruiser, doesn't it nullify DE completely? Someone pointed out that when both are combined you have to rely on RNG for fire chance. So what is the point of assigning DE skill to the ship if you are going for IFHE in the first place or vice versa? You get less fire chance that you could without DE if IFHE is assigned to the ship. What I understand if one has to get DE, he better spend the rest 4 points on AFT, CE or anything other than IFHE and if one has to get IFHE, he better spend the rest 3 points on BFT, Vigilance or anything other than DE. I can't wrap my head around combining DE + IFHE together (at least theoretically). How does this work? What is the in game experience you have when both combined?
×