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
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • 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
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 231 results

  1. So, in my opinion after the american line update playing destroyers at t7-10 are unplayable i feel. there is now so much radar in one game smoke screens are now useless and same goes for British cruiser. there has to be a way to balance the game to a point where radar would still be effective but not ruin the game for people who play destroyers. this could be by limiting the amount of radar on a team or reducing its effectiveness but whatever it may be it has to happen soon.
  2. I've spent the last 4 months (since game install) working my way up the line of US Destroyers. Before the latest update, I've had to deal with intermittent radar detection by the CAs whos Commanders had acquired this radar skill and by air, (BBs equipped with planes and the CVs) I've learned to deal with each of these scenarios (or a combination thereof), my survival rate was acceptable as my engine boost and AA gave me a slim chance and just before the last update, I was managing about a 70% survival rate escaping with 10-50% of my ship's HP remaining and was ok with that. In fact, I was starting to get pretty good at it and it was fun. I want to throw in a little banter about inexperienced or novice players who find it necessary to hide or snipe the enemy BBs, CAs and DDs from the maximum firing range of their ships and as some of you might have figured out on your own, hitting a DD or possibly a CA from that range (12-15k out) is quite difficult. As a DD Captain, I'm required (or abliged) to spot, cap, harass and sink the enemy if possible.., giving those ships with the high caliber guns a target and opportunity to do something that my guns would take 30-40-50 hits (or more depending on HP of enemy ship) out of the 100 or so shots with my guns I'd have to take in order to survive a one on one battle with a CA or the DD who is slithering through the waters like a snake (that's me too!) My torpedoes are about 5-15% accurate with a max of 1-3 torpedos out of 10 hitting the intended target (15% is on a good day and a good team which is few and far between) as with all good Captains we should not sail in a straight line. I did hit a BB once with about 7 torps, got a "Devastating Strike" badge and just after that I got an "It's only a Flesh Wound" badge cause his/her guns took me out in one salvo at about 2.5k just before my torps hit her. Another time I was thrown in a T-6-7-8 match and managed a Kraken with 6 ships sunk, not bragging but like to shout out to all those CAs and BBs who were hitting those ships hard with shell fire just before my torps finished them off, in fact I'd give them at least 3 kills if I could and take away my Kraken... good job guys/gals... »Ò¿Ó«... GG that was, all working together. The CAs are hunting in packs of 2-5 and when 1 radar runs out, another will start up till the DD is sunk... approaching a flag area is a certain failure on the part of the DD, flanking doesn't work either. Trying to figure a new way to be competitive again and the answer is eluding me except to say WOW has stacked the deck against the DDs. I'm losing anywhere from 5-50k in credits 90% of the time and let's not mention the flags, camo that was wasted as well as my stats are tanking and are worse than the dismal threshold I've been able to muster. Smoke is rendered useless in this case and finding an island a 1/2 a click away is futile as there are about 20 guns on your back at any one time I thank WOW for the Super Container I received containing 7 days free Premium, without it, I wouldn't have come close to getting the Fletcher. I had to purchase another 3 days to get enough to buy the ship and cannibalized some of my other ships to get the upgrades. I could buy more (Premium, Dabloons...) but will not waste money to become super easy targets for the CAs. WOW needs to go back to the drawing board and figure out how they're going to fix this. Limit the number of radars in a match, put all the CAs in their own match and let them eat each other... I don't know but they need to do something... I'm working to obtain the Commander Skill that increases my HP from 17,100 to I think 21,000 but even that would not help and I'd be giving the RED CAs more HP to put into their coffers. Not having fun anymore, I'll have to start back at T-3 to mature a line of BBs or CAs... but they'll (WOW) will change something then too... I'm sure of it, making it more difficult in gameplay without having to buy something... Not afraid to spend a little money but not throwing it away either... One more concern, the Karma system is broken and needs to be evaluated again. I have given both compliments and reported bad behavior and though it takes only one person to give a compliment, it should take two or more Captains to take away a Karma Point, I actually had a Captain on the Red Team give me a bad report because I sank him as well as the taunting and verbal abuse I received in chat during the match, I blocked him altogether it got so bad. I like running DDs and not really wanting to change and if I did... it would be on my terms and of my choice... As you can see, I'm not killing it and don't use any illegal mods, but I was having fun. Now I'm whining and I'm done with WOW if they don't fix this soon...
  3. Best Torp Botes

    Hey Guys, I'm a relatively new DD player and i like being a torpedo boat, so naturally i tried IJN, im up to the Isokaze, and its great, I love it. I really like the line but i hear from every single person that the IJN dds are shiz after the nerfs to torp stealth and the guns, and tell me that ijn dds in general are crap, They say that shima is worst T10 dd in the game, and now i dont know if i really want to play through the IJN line anymore. I honestly dont care about guns, (i don't know how to use them without being nuked ;) because i dont use them that often, so what would you guys say?. Also how effective is the akizuki line at knife fighting and how is the manuevrability and concealment on them??
  4. The guide for torpedo mechanics is: Missing. (Edit) Torpedo Basics -Thanks Quaffer. Yes I have looked in this forum and there seems to be no specific game guide relating specifically to Torpedos. This might seem to be an unnecessary guide, however I just spent some time looking for an explanation of a game glitch relating to torps and no such advice exists, anywhere (if you have one please link it here). The game glitch was as follows. I launched two full torpedo spreads at a Texas battleship, at close range, and they disappeared. The torps didn't hit, didn't hit the island behind the bb and did not sail off into the sunset. Unfortunately i'm not up to speed with game replaying, I've looked into that as well but there seems to be no guide for that either. There IS a guide that starts at step 8, clearly I need to get hold of steps 1 - 7 first lol. Is there a delay window where the torps need to be in the water for 2 seconds or something, before they can detonate? This information is vital for all players who use torps a lot, plus those who merely wish to defend against them. Another useful item would be: There is an IJN dd with 3 sets of torp launchers. The first two launchers will align with the direction of the camera; is there a way to have all 3 launchers come around, as far as possible, at all times instead of having the delay while you wait for it to happen? I'm sure there will be other torp questions out there.
  5. I've read the wiki pages, but I'm still a bit confused about the mechanics of how I use my USN Premium dd to train up my Commanders from my other USN ships. Here's what I have right now for Captain's skills: Farragut=12, Mahan=12, Sims=12, Benson=17. Say that I want to increase my Mahan skipper's skills. How do I do that without having to pay to retrain them? I THINK that I've figured it out, but I want to ask for your confirmation on my process 1)Go to the Sims and send the Captain to the Reserves 2) Assign the Mahan Captain to the Sims (leaving her without a Captain) 3) Play the Mahan Captain in the Sims until I've achieved the desired increase in skills (say 14) 4) Move the Mahan captain back to his ship and assign the Sims captain back to his Is that how it works? It does mean that you can't play the ship of the Commander that you're training since any reassignment will involve a cost. Did I get that right?
  6. I'm curious, like always, about HE with my Moskva. Is her standard HE strong against DDs for you? I find quite often the need to drop three salvos, maybe four on the DDs she encounters before they sink. This sort of surprises me, as I would "expect" two salvos to do it. Her HE against other ship types works nicely. Fun thing was I actually managed to take 60K away from a Yamato last night, sinking it with three AP salvos in the end of 3 to 6K each salvo. So I do enjoy playing her. It just "seems" (to me alone, no doubt) a salvo of HE on a Tier 8-10 DD should pretty much devastate the destroyer. Two, should be sunk. But quite often it's three and sometimes four. I'm talking about 40-50% hit rate on each salvo. I suppose my math is wrong?
  7. DD Manifesto

    Destroyers, or the DDs, have a set of very specific tasks during each phase of a match. A match is separated into three parts, the beginning, the mid game, and the late game. Depending on the phase, a destroyer player must perform certain tasks. 1. Beginning Destroyers must utilize their camo values to advance as far as safely possible and spot the enemies. This allows other players on the DD's team to make informed decisions on their position. This also helps the DD to contest objectives effectively. A DD without LoS to the enemy is a useless DD in this phase. 2. Mid Game Destroyers in this phase takes on the role of area denial. Staying alive is the priority. By simply staying alive, and optimally undetected, a DD can zone out the entire enemy team from key areas of the map. In this phase, a DD should also position itself for effective torpedo salvos. Since torpedo reload is extremely long, staying alive increases the chance a DD can use its torpedo armament, thus, maximizing its impact on the match. This is also the phase where the DD has to decide if the smoke is used on the team, or itself. 3. Late Game Point elimination is the word in this phase. Enemy team should be scattered and BBs should already been separated from their escort cruisers and destroyers. This is the phase damage can be easily farmed by single out a BB, for example, and torp it to death. Because torpedoes, the great equalizer, have potential to sink any ship in a single salvo, DDs should select their targets carefully for point elimination. Sacrificing themselves in suicide runs, if needed. The general idea behind the flow of matches for any DD is to stay alive, stay in LoS of the enemies and spotting them, and to eliminate vulnerable targets. Decisiveness is required for any DDs, but overly aggressive at the beginning is never the optimal way to win.
  8. Hello All, A while back I read a somewhat interesting book called 'Destroyer Down', it chronicled the fates of all the >150 destroyers the Royal Navy lost in WWII. I've seen other tables floating around the internet and the interesting thing for me was that with >100 losses you can start to draw some kind of conclusion from the pattern of loss - assess the threat if you will. With that in mind I thought it might be interesting to see if I could draw some kind of comparison between the causes of loss for the Destroyer fleets of the major marine powers of WWII, by which I mean the UK, USA, Italy, Germany and Japan. The USSR, Netherlands and France I did not initially bother with due to limited maritime involvement in WWII, though it is on my to-do list. Methodology There are no 'Bismarck's - It was not infrequent for a ship to survive an initial attack but to be scuttled by friendly forces shortly after, in these cases I've counted the initial cause as the sole cause Limited scuttling - I have not included wholesale scuttling, for instance of Italian ships following the German occupation What is a DD? - This caused some issues, I have generally gone with '~1,000t or more, min 4x 4in and 6x TT or more on the original design' this means the German Elbings are in, but Italian Spica's are out: see specific notes per country What is 'other' - This includes from shore batteries, non-combat losses, grounding, collisions, accidental explosions, intentional explosions (looking at you Campbeltown!) and losses in storms What is 'sunk' - This was slightly tricky given occasional salvage, but being rendered completely unusable counts 'Constructive Total Losses' - In the event that a ship be so badly damaged as to be beyond economical repair I've included it here. This is potentially contentious as it may not reflect damage, but time in the war, availability of repair etc 'Surface ships' - this includes all sizes of surface ships, down to the PT/MTB/E-Boat/MAS etc. in addition if a ship was 'driven ashore' by hostile warships I've counted that as a kill rather than a grounding 'Mine' - Mine ignores what laid the mine, making no distinction between ship, submarine and air dropped Nation 1 (sorry, Tea-bias): The Royal Navy including Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Australian Navy Total: 153 losses Largest Proportion: Land Based Air power - 33% Second Largest Proportion: Submarine - 22% Generally the RN's losses are as you might expect. The RN had to operate within close range of hostile land-based aircraft through a lot of the war, losing significant numbers of ships at Dunkirk, off Crete and in the Mediterranean in particular. The RN also had to operate against a large U-boat and Italian submarine arm for prolonged periods, although convoy escorts may not have been the primary objective they were definitely 'targets of opportunity'. One notable engagement would be HMS Khartoum blown up by an uncontrolled fire sparked by a shell from a submarine, which despite being surfaced I counted as a Submarine rather than Surface Action kill. A solid proportion of losses to mines is fairly understandable given operations in the shallow North Sea, English Channel and areas of the Mediterranean again. Given that the Italian and German navies did not operate carriers it's unsurprising that only a handful of ships (on the IJN's Indian Ocean Raid) were lost to hostile carrier aircraft. Surface actions did account for a small proportion of losses, these are concentrated around Norway and the Med, and early war and include losses to E-boats plus several ships in the disastrous early Far-East campaign. 'Other' losses include a couple to shore batteries and 7 collisions is the greatest number of any Navy and reflects the perils of conducting close escort in often foul conditions through years of bitter war. The Royal Navy did fairly well on the seaworthiness front, with only a couple of losses to the weather including a drag-anchor grounding. Losses in this assessment include the Hunt Class destroyers (>1,000t and min 4x guns), despite their comparability to Destroyer Escorts, and also older V&W class which might not be considered full Destroyers by WWII. Nation 2: The Regia Marina, Italian Royal Navy including losses as an Allied Co-Beligerant Total: 53 losses Largest Proportion: Land Based Air Power - 26% Second Largest Proportion: Tie Mine/Surface Ship - 21% The immediate stand-out of Italian destroyer loss pie-chart is just how similar in general it is to RN losses. This is perhaps to be expected given they operated significantly in the same theater - the shallow, air-dominated waters of the Med. Land based air losses include early war and later war losses - when resurgent Allied air power began to be able to seriously strike the RM ships in port. Despite the Royal Navy's use of carriers in the Med, I can find only a single instance of a destroyer sunk by a carrier launched air attack, likely because RN carrier air strikes were small in number and generally looking for more important ships as targets. The losses to surface action (11 ships) are more significant than for the RN, but 8 of the 11 losses resulted from short, sharp night actions several of which were only possible due to Enigma intercepts. This is a general pattern for destroyer surface action losses of all nations. Submarine losses include one friendly-fire incident and reflect on an active British submarine presence, though that war was particularly bitter with submarines of all nations suffering in the conditions of the Med. 'Other' losses (7 ships) do include a pair of destroyers in a storm, and a pair scuttled in Italian East Africa in an unusual but unwinable position. The RM loss tally was somewhat complicated by the Italian habit of salvaging sunk ships but I've tried to be fair there without double-counting too much. I also excluded the Spica class torpedo boats despite their size and occasional deployment as 'destroyer-lite' ships. Including them would add another 23 losses to various causes. Nation 3: The German Kriegsmarine Total: 47 losses (of which 9 were captured TA, ZG or ZH vessels) Largest Proportion: Surface Ship - 47% Second Largest Proportion: Land Based Air - 23% German Destroyer losses depart radically from those of Italy and the UK. The single largest cause of loss, almost a majority, is to surface action in which 22 ships were lost. Those losses are concentrated in engagements around Narvik (10 losses - including 'forced scuttles' as surface kills), the Bay of Biscay (6 losses) and around the Baltic to torpedo boats and to the Royal Navy while attacking Arctic Convoys. Given that Germany did not operate a significant convoy system losses to submarines are unsurprisingly rare, opportunities being few. The only example I identified was a single possible loss to a Greek submarine of a captured Italian destroyer. Similarly to the Italians it would seem that Royal Navy and US Navy carrier forces either didn't have the opportunity, or didn't have any success in launching lethal air attacks on German Destroyers - usually having bigger game to hunt, however land-based air was relatively devastating coming in ahead of mines as the second largest killer. I have included captured ships in this list so long as they are 'destroyer sized' and although classed as 'Flottentorpedoboots' I have included the larger Elbing class ships as their displacement of >1,300t, and 4 gun, 6 torpedo armament fit the basic profile of destroyers in most navies. Nation 4: The Imperial Japanese Navy Total: 125 losses Largest Proportion: Submarine - 30% Second Largest Proportion: Carrier Air Power - 23% The IJN destroyer fleet of WWII suffered the largest proportion of its losses due to a rampaging Allied submarine fleet. Although including losses to some British and Dutch submarines overall it's fair to say that the USN's Fleet Boats made hay and that the IJN's ASW effort was inadequate in response. The 37 losses inflicted by submarines outnumber those suffered by the Royal Navy (33) in a longer war against a significant U-boat threat. Given the nature of the war in the Pacific it's almost a surprise that carrier-launched strikes 'only' accounted for the second larges proportion of losses at 29 ships, which is a similar number to those lost to surface ships (24). In bitter fighting in particular around Guadalcanal the IJN's destroyer Flotilla's suffered considerable attrition without the longed-for decisive battle. Also noteworthy is that mines played a fairly small role in the Pacific, the more fluid nature of combat and larger areas of deeper water were generally ill-conducive to mine warfare compared to the Sicilian Narrows for instance - which are as the name suggests narrow, and near Sicily. A surprise to me was that land-based air power did play a fairly major role in sinking IJN destroyers, both by USMC aviation, for instance the 'Cactus Airforce' and USAAF action later in the war. Mine losses are concentrated in the 'Inner Sea' later war. As a cutoff for the IJN I have not included some of the smaller inshore/torpedo boat type destroyers but have effectively gone with the Minekaze class and later. In addition this chart may be slightly colored by 'Constructive Total Losses' - ships damaged relatively late war which could not be repaired. Nation 6: The United States Navy Total Losses: 81 (of which 8 were CTL/write-offs) Largest Proportion: Kamikaze - 30% (although 1/3 of what I have counted as losses were CTL) Second Largest Proportion: Surface Ship - 22% For the US Navy in WWII I had to add another loss category. Kamikaze. Initially I had thought to include it in general air attack but it is unique, distinctive and I think worth separate consideration. Of the 24 losses to Kamikazes however 8 were write-offs, in particular late war of either increasingly out dated classes not worth repairing, or modern ships badly damaged but not worth repairing given new production. In the relatively short period they were operational and especially off Okinawa Kamikaze attacks crippled more USN destroyers than their conventional carrier and land-based air strikes did in the entire war. Secondary sources of loss reflect the IJN's - surface ship losses were sharp on both sides around Guadalcanal, though the USN's tally of losses also includes several '4-stackers' lost in the Dutch East Indies early war. Carrier air strikes clearly didn't prioritize destroyers but did inflict losses as did land-based air. The USN also suffered from land based air strikes in the Mediterranean accounting for several ships and the Mediterranean and D-Day landings account for most of the losses to mines, operating later in the war and in greater numbers with better AA fits and with greater air cover these losses are not as significant as the RN's losses. Submarine losses are also few but split between the Pacific, Atlantic and Mediterranean theater, including the noteworthy USS Borie which fought a murderously close range ramming-fight with U-405 before succumbing to ramming damage (counted as a submarine kill!). 'Other' losses are the highest of any Navy assessed here at 11 ships and 13.5% of losses. Losses include 3 ships to 'Halsey's Typhoon' and 1 to an Atlantic Hurricane making the USN one of the more weather impacted fleets, though one Typhoon accounted for the worst of that. For USN losses I've included those '4-stacker' classes which still resembled destroyers at the time of their loss, so not the extensively rebuilt Transport/Minelayer/Seaplane Tender losses. I have not include the 11 USN Destroyer Escort Losses at this time, despite their heroic performance off Samar and elsewhere though the distinction between including the Hunt class but not the Butler etc. is slight. Nation 7: The Royal Netherlands Navy Total: 9 losses Largest Proportion: Equal Land Based Air Attack and Surface Ship Attack - 33% each The Dutch Navy Destroyer losses of WWII were primarily (7 of 9) concentrated in the Far East and are associated with the fall of the Dutch East Indies and battles in and around that area. There were a series of naval engagements accounting for 3 ships - including one driven ashore in flames. Air attack accounted for two losses in the DEI and a further one at home in the Netherlands, those include cripplings 'forcing' a scuttle shortly thereafter. During the retreat one destroyer was sunk by carrier based aircraft. The sole submarine loss was Isaac Sweers, lost to a U-boat, perhaps unsurprisingly in the Mediterranean while serving alongside the RN. The single 'other' category loss is a grounding. There are no losses to mines that I can find, fighting a defensive action around the DEI probably gave few opportunities for Japanese mining and limited service elsewhere reduced the chances of that attack coming off. Nation 8: The Marine Nationale - French Navy Total Losses: 24 Largest Proportion: Surface Ship - 54% Second Largest Proportion: Land based air attack - 24% Somewhat to my surprise the French Navy of WWII suffered the lions' share of it's destroyers casualties as a result of surface ship action. It is the only nation examined which has a single cause of loss as a majority of the total. Surface ship action losses are from two main causes - E-boat attack off Dunkirk very early war (3 ships) and the doomed defense of Vichy French possessions in the face of overwhelming Allied seapower off Casablanca, Oran and elsewhere (10 ships). The second most frequent cause of loss was land based air power, and the impact of the Dunkirk evacuation is very clear there, with 4 of the 6 air-losses inflicted in the English Channel, plus another off Norway and the final one to RN Swordfish in the Med. Unsurprisingly other causes are limited. There was little mine-vulnerable activity - which usually generates attrition losses - no exposure to carrier air power with France being knocked out before the entry of the only Axis carrier operator, Japan, and without time or significant convoys there are no losses to submarines. Losses characterized as other include 2 internal explosions, one scuttle and a grounding - the scuttling of the majority of the French destroyer arm has been excluded as non-combat loss. Nation 9: The Voenno-Morskoy Flot - Soviet Navy Total Losses: 33 Largest Proportion: Mines - 48% Second Largest Proportion: Land Based Air Attack - 36% The Soviet Navy fought a war almost exclusively in the narrow and congested waters of the Black and Baltic Seas with further activity in the Arctic. The position of the fleet, stuck in narrow choke-points, operating in shallow water makes mines the leading cause of loss (though several losses were fratricidal) with nearly half of all losses to that cause. The second largest cause is also as might be expected - operating for prolonged periods in inshore waters within reach of the Luftwaffe has consequences and 12 ships were lost that way. As with France it's unsurprising that losses to carriers were nil - the USSR entered the war with Japan only weeks before its' conclusion. I have counted a single submarine loss, that of a Lend-Lease ex-Clemson class refitted as an escort in the Barents Sea to a German U-boat. Similarly there is a single loss to surface ships - to a Soviet MTB. 'Other' losses include one each of scuttling, grounding and storm losses. Conclusions - Destroyer losses of WWII generally make sense considering the ships and more critically the environments they were called upon to work in: the RN and RM had similar loss patterns, the Kriegsmarine had representative losses for a small offensive force running into a far larger navy. The IJN destroyer fleet bore the brunt of a surprisingly effective and aggressive submarine campaign, but also saw accumulating losses in the eponymous night battles. The USN losses shifted through the war but reflected the wide open Pacific theater of operations with the unique cause of loss of Kamikaze late war Across all 8 nations looked at here, land-based airpower was the single biggest Destroyer killer at 121 ships lost, followed closely by surface-ship action at 116 ships and submarines at 90 ships Losses varied strongly temporally and spatially and in some instances could be strongly attributed to single events (e.g. German destroyer losses at Narvik) while other causes were more attritional in nature Only the French Navy with a majority of losses to surface action had a single majority cause The leading cause of French and German losses was surface action, the Dutch suffered surface and air attack equally, the British and Italians suffered proportionally the most from land-based air attack, the Japanese from submarines and the USN from kamikaze attacks Sources - General use of Navypedia with occasional cross-check to wikipedia and U-boat.net. http://www.naval-history.net/WW2aBritishLosses04DD.htm http://www.navsource.org/Naval/losses.htm#dd
  9. It is such a pain to play Co-Op in a destroyer. No matter how unpredictable you can be, the bots miraculously know when torps are coming to them and dodge them. Also, yesterday, I have a battleship chasing me although I was not visible. It was funny to see the bot constantly pointing the bow at my destroyer no matter how I position my ship compared to him.
  10. 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)
  11. Destroyers (the "DD") being the most influential class of ships, second to only the current OP and badly designed CVs, are vital to any team in any match, be it pro or random pubs. But the fragile nature of the ship makes them hard to perform in the hands of less experienced players. Just like any profession, DDs have their own bag of tricks, many of you would have learned through endless trial and error. Being humans with a written language, it provides us with the ability to pass down our hard earned experiences. Now what do you think contribute to player DDs better? Start with a simple one: Know your opponents camo ratings, especially of the destroyers on the enemy team.
  12. Upper-Tier Skill Wall

    I spent the last week grinding from T6 to T7. My signature lists the ships I currently own. I need to earn some credits to buy the Minsk, but that's all. Here's my issue: I've been playing at T6 quite comfortably. I win some games, lose others, get kills and otherwise enjoy playing. I used to panic seeing T8 ships on the enemy team, but now I'm used to it and do sink them when the opportunity presents itself (guns or torpedoes, always depending on the situation at hand). I scout well with my IJN boats, bully cap circles in my German boats, run-and-gun with my Russian boats, and otherwise raise hell in my American boats. But as soon as I stepped into a T7 DD, everything falls apart when I face T9 enemies. My Akatsuki got murdered in a few seconds by a two-ship Yugumo division. I checked my minimap and was suddenly dead. My theory is that I need to adapt my tactics away from mid-tier and into high-tier play. Admittedly, I'm not all that good to begin with. My stats bear that out quite well. I just want to go from "baby seal" to "not incompetent", which is where I am right now in a T7 DD. I know that each DD line plays differently. I won't play my Fubuki in anything near the way I play a Farragut or Gaede, it's suicide to attempt otherwise. I just need some tips, because getting my face handed to me every game is just depressing.
  13. Domination battle on Two brothers, we started in the south. Lo Yang, me in a Kutuzov, and another CA, backed by a Normandie. We preceded to the west with Lo Yang in the lead. Cap was starting to be taken before we got there, Lo Yang moved behind the island on the south end of the cap and proceeded west skirting the cap zone, dropping smoke behind the island. Upon popping out the otherside, several BBs and CAs became spotted. I turned and moved into the smoke, as did the other CA. Began to fire on enemy Bismarck in range. When I was spotted becuase of the DD smoke, I popped my own smoke, continued to fire on Bismarck and the other ships in range. Then they all vanished. LoYang was now sitting behind the island. Irritated becuase I and the CA had been holding off the BBs with HE fire, told the LoYang to spot ffs. bit salty but enemy was still about 8km away. DD said he didn't have any smoke and his torps were reloading. I repeated just spot them. Lo Yang immediately left the island and charged into the cap zone right at the enemy ships and was promptly deleted. His response was 'There I pushed. Are you happy?' My response was push? who said anything about pushing. I wanted you to spot! The LoYang replied that pushing and spotting were the same thing. This led to an argument of no its not yes it is. I finally dropped it and promptly turned off the LoYang's chat from my screen. Another player then basically said I was getting toxic simple because he agreed with the DD that pushing and spotting are the same thing. My only 'toxic' comment I feel was the first spot ffs. Afterward, I said spotting and pushing are two different things. So now let me ask you, the forum, which is it? To me, pushing is obviously moving in towards the cap you wish to take. Spotting, when I am in a DD, means I am not behind cover or smoke, keeping the red team ships in view, while staying out of detection range.
  14. What is the best torp DD in the game at TIER 5?

    I would be interested in your opinions... thanks!
  15. Radar and Destroyer concept

    So I'm on a Hornfischer binge right now, and im trying to figure out a way to suggest reworking radar to make it kinder to destroyers and more realistic. 1940's era search radar was pretty crude, it didn't just magically illuminate a target (gun director radar is a different manner) Instead of a 1 key stealth destroying feature, maybe the key gives range and bearing to a target? (Displayed similar to the torpedo auto target) This would better reflect the tech at the time, allow the player to blind fire into the right neighborhood and give destroyers better odds. What do you suggest?
  16. I just unlocked this pretty little DD and would love to hear your thoughts on what upgrades/captain skill I should get for her!
  17. Surprisingly enough, I'm not talking about WWII. See, after the 18th Amendment banned alcohol creation, sales, and consumption in the United States, the Prohibition Era kicked off. Now, just because booze was illegal, doesn't mean people didn't want it anymore. So they went to great lengths to smuggle it in, especially from overseas. The US Coast Guard wasn't in a position to counter the "rumrunners" on its own, so the Navy provided some "help". Help in the form of ex-WW1 destroyers All in all, the US Coast Guard operated 25 destroyers from 1920-1933 as part of the "Rum Patrol" (lasting until the 21st Amendment cancelled the 18th and allows me to drink a beer by my computer today) A full list of ships and classes can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum_Patrol Yet of special note is the fact that 3 destroyers were of the Sampson-class (the in-game Tier II USN destroyer), and 6 were the Clemson-class (the Tier IV USN gunboat). These ships were supposed to be cheaper alternatives to building new fast cutters for the USCG. Instead, they proved to be bigger hassles, commonly taking up to a year just to make seaworthy. Yet despite their age, disrepair, and not to mention the inexperience of the crews in handling such large ships, the Rum Patrol DDs had a fairly lively career. Once the USCG no longer needed them, they were returned to the Navy and either scrapped, or continued their service past WWII. For some more stories about the Rum Patrol, you can also look here: http://www.dieselpunks.org/profiles/blogs/rum-patrol-vs-rum-runners
  18. Overall I am really happy with the direction of the game and have seen many improvements. Can anyone explain to me why we still have high tier games where one side has more destroyers or radar ships then the other side. Twice today I was in 3 destroyer vs 2 destroyer games, both times one of destroyers was slow to load in, and both times the other team totally dominated the map within 3 mins. Also why aren't the ships with radar split evenly between the two teams. Would be a great way to balance the Missouri (since your team has 1 less radar crusier) without changing anything about the ship itself. These are two simple changes that an overwhelming majority of player base has been asking for. Make it happen WG !
  19. Destroyers need love too

    I am a DD player. I've played nearly 7,000 games of which nearly 4,500 are in dd(s) (yes, i need a life). My overall stats are below average but always trending upwards. The other day, I had a great battle. It was capture/defend the green and red base. An island reasonably cut the map down the middle into East and West. There were 3 dds. I went East and the other 2 west. After I got the reasonably far north and east, I turned back to the center. At that moment, I had little to no cover fire ability from ships in the rear and dds could easily go right up the middle against us. I was in a Gearing with RDF. As I went towards the middle a player chastised me for no balls. I asked what he would like me to do and he said, "grow a pair", screen and spot. I stated I was screening the entire east side and others told him to go back to playing world of Tanks. At that moment an enemy dd appears sailing right down the middle and I killed it with guns. Then I turned back having spotted a ship for just a second far to the East. Now a Montana was moving up the East and I was able to get in front of it. The enemy was moving and hiding and I was observing with RDF. Suddenly, he has me in his radar sights. We have an island between us. I sit there for a moment knowing he can see my every flinch while he is invisible to me. Suddenly I hear crashing sounds and see red explosions to my right. A minotaur is coming out and hitting the island as he opens up on me. I calmly loose 10 torpedoes and then back away firing guns. He is destroyed. I am elated. Next thing you hear, he is calling me a cheat. Says he hit me for 23,000 damage and I am still alive. I must have a "hack". The Montana says no dude you missed him entirely. In all truth I was down 15,000 and that was a split between him and the first dd. Long story short, it was my best battle of the day and I lost a point of Kharma. I suspect it was him. If I play cruisers and battleships my kharma goes up. When I play dds it falls to zero in due course. Today, I've been playing a mix including a Conqueror. In the last battle, an FDG totally let me down, hid behind islands and can you guess what.......blamed the dds all game long. How many times are players blaming dds. I watch them start before the first round is even fired. Just predictable. I wonder if the community that posts here agrees. Good Hunting!
  20. RU DDs vs PA DDs

    What line is better/more fun? I'm decent at torpedo boat play style of Japanese DDs, and kinda suck at american DDs and want to try something new. How do the guns in each lien compare to american and Japanese ones? And what about Pan-Asia torps, how do they compare to Japanese ones?
  21. To Many DD's!

    Is there something wrong with the match maker? Most games in higher tiers we see 4 to 7 dd's per team and maybe 2 or 3 cruisers. Normally it wouldnt be a problem if I was playing a cruiser but im playing BB mainly and spending most of my time fighting dd's and dodging torpedos instead of fighting other bb's and cruisers. I have spent several battles in the last week alone running and fired only 3 or 4 salvos because of dd's. I've had cruisers tell me its the bb's job to kill the dd's not the cruisers job! A limit of 3 dd's per team like the cv limit of 2 per team would make games far more playable. 98% of the teams i get wont be aggressive in a dd heavy battle and just hide and get picked off. Please fix this! This is more toward wargames than other players so please keep your comments on topic if you reply. Trolls, wallet warriors, whatever ya are. Keep your rude snide remarks to yourself. If your not going to help improve the game with your comment then just dont comment especially if your going to tell me play better or get good or in some other way show your lack of education or social skills.
  22. [Edited] Hydro or Radar!! @#$$#@

    Is it me or is it a lot harder to hide as a destroyer? It feels like as of the last patch or two I am CONSTANTLY detected - much of it on radar. That feels new - you used to be able to get close in the Shima for instance. No longer. 8K torps are not remotely feasible now. Even 12s seem dicey at times. They must have buffed up radar/hyro. I know to stay away from Missouri and company, but Kurfurst and others seem much stronger.
  23. Hello everyone, I present to you today, a poll inspired by LittleWhiteMouse's recent "Angry Youtuber Reviews" about entire lines. The idea of this is to let the community vote on what they think each ship should be classified as! A special thank you to LittleWhiteMouse for giving me permission to do this! In case you missed it, here is the link to her review of the British Battleships: Thank you and happy polling! supernovabn P.S. If you don't know the scale made by LittleWhiteMouse, here it is... How would these ships rate on an Angry YouTuber scale of Garbage - Meh - Gud - Overpowered? GARBAGE- Grossly uncompetitive and badly in need of buffs. Mehbote - Average ship. Has strengths and weaknesses. Doesn't need buffs to be viable, but certainly not advantageous. Gudbote - A strong ship that has obvious competitive strengths and unique features that make it very appealing. OVERPOWERED - A ship with very clear advantages over all of its competitors and unbalancing the game with its inclusion.
  24. Hello everyone! I decided to create this poll as I couldn't find any new polls with all of the new lines. (As Pan Asian's just came out!) Have fun voting!!! Feel free to post comments below :) Additionally, if you have not played up to any of the tiers listed here, still feel free to vote in the tier that you have played/played against. [I'll include some of the dd's that are already in supertesting (IE the T-61)!] Also, in case I screw up and accidentally post this too early (like my cruiser poll), just abstain from voting until I fix it up :) On that note..... here's the link to the Cruiser poll I made a while back if you are interested! Thanks, supernovabn
  25. Played the Pan-Asian cruiser, or gunboat, or whatever tier 1 ships are called, and then played Longjiang for 2 matches, got the tier 3, and quit. I'm looking at my screen, and there are 24 DD's in my match. My torps don't work against DD's. Now I'm not the fastest guy in the race, but hey! So, as Scooby-Do would say; "ROT ROW!!" Instead, I played some ships I like against the Pan-Asians, and have some initial impressions about them. And, before I type another word, let me also say this is just from a few games, and only against Pan-Asian DD's up to tier 6, and everything from here on is only opinion (and certainly one which has been widely disputed in this very Forum!) They have good guns. I was playing T-22 and Nicholas against them and they had no real issues at medium ranges. The guns hit hard, and had really good gun arcs for the ones I played against. They can maneuver well enough to stay competitive at a medium distance. Had one match where the red team had a Sims and some of our guys had trouble knife-fighting with it. (but a lot of DD's have knife-fighting issues with Sims) Speed was good, and their smoke very effective; some matches were so DD heavy both teams had to evacuate areas because the smoke was too heavy for anyone to see anyone and players were just blindly detecting each other at minimum distances. Overall, these are very competitive ships in the brawling/gunboat meta; I was honestly never in a match with enough cruisers or BB's to tell you how deep water torps work, because I never saw one. (Sorry, not completely true; I did see a Pan-Asian DD launch torps against another DD, probably trying to scare him off. Didn't work.) Players will be seeing these ships for quite a while.