Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'kremlin'.



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 13 results

  1. Lose_dudes

    The story of Ark Royal

    This is for all of you who only know the superficial details. The life story of an old aircraft carrier. I was gonna do more about snoopy but changed my mind.
  2. SweetBabyRuth

    Russian Bias

    If wargaming wants to keep its Russian bias, the tech tree Russian ships need buffed ASAP! With the changes to the commander skill tree, and the game meta now being shifted to torp boats, A/J line BB sniping and FDRs, short range specialized ships that are can tank a lot of damage a straight up bad. The only viable ship from the Russian navy is well.... Slava, and maybe Slava, oh and Slava. Even Smolensk doesn't really make sense when everything is already outside of 19 kilometers. So WG, if you care so much about your Russian ships, then you probably should buff them, or else there will be no reason to play them... even on the RU servers.
  3. GRUMPASALTY

    Kremlin Stealth Nerfed?

    I have a bit of a question to ask, and I'm well aware this might make me look like a bit of an idiot. But I have been away from the game for quite a while and couldn't help but notice when I played Kremlin the shells seemed to travel a bit slower than what I was used too. Don't get me wrong it doesn't make the ship unplayable I just found it a bit odd considering at one stage Kremlin had one of if not the highest shell velocities in game. And well this raises the question, was Kremlin stealth nerfed? Because I don't remember hearing anything about this and I do check the news quite often even when I am on a long break. I double checked with a now retired super-tester who had screenshots of the Kremlin's stats from a while back and he said to me that the shell velocity used to be 900m/s well after it was released. If it is true that Kremlin was stealth nerfed, I want to ask what brought about this change? Because I feel like her guns were the best attribute of the ship and it was more the armor that people were complaining about. The high shell velocity, decent range and high turret traverse speed made this ship perfect for getting up close and personal if you needed to or were forced into that situation by an aggressive enemy player. Either way, I just ask this out of curiosity.
  4. So I woke up from my hard labour last night not expecting a good day. Luckily for me, wargaming has provided us, the people, with a video to be proud of. Today, we saw a totally accurate and historical comparison of the best guns in the world, culminating with the mighty Kremlin taking top spot (take that tier 7 Roma and fake Bismark!). Now some from less than average capitalist propaganda countries are crying and complaining that so called ships named Montana and alsace were not placed in this list. First off, I can neither confirm nor deny that I have ever heard of any so called Montana or Alsace. Second, if I theoritcally have heard of these ships, it doesn't mean that they should make it on this list. The problem with them is that this is a historically accurate game and so the list is historically accurate too. These "ships" which I cannot confirm nor deny exist, are not actually historical and did not exist when compared to other ships like Kremlin. Thus, these (and I cannot confirm or deny they exist) ships must be exempted from their list. Besides, when has wargaming lied to us or twisted historical accuracy? Anyways, it's time for my daily work shift in the mines. See you all at 7pm! The best video uploaded to YouTube, doing it's best to accurately and fairly compare historical ships.
  5. Just had a super great game. Our team played an excellent game, well fought against the reds. I am well pleased with the results. Our number one player secured a Kraken (5 kills). First, all the best to the team: Here's my resullt screen: You can't have a game like this without a great team! I really do wish we had maybe one (or two) "Attaboy" awards we could award to a random battle team when they played well. Just karma you understand, but it would be nice. Have a great weekend folks!
  6. TLDR at the end :) After taking a good look at Queen Elizabeth's bow armor in the client and external websites, I noticed a good section of 104 mm bow armor quite near up front. Theoretically, if you could angle and bounce shells with the 104 mm section, you'll be pretty much be able to tank any BB ap for a good amount of time. To test this, I tried taking out my QE out for a spin in the training room against a Kremlin (LOL). The Kremlin has 457 mm shells that can overmatch QE's external plating of 26 mm but definitely not the 104 mm section. In the training room, I discovered that I managed to bounce around half of his AP. Most of the AP that bounced was on the main belt armor near the center of the ship. There were several occasions where the AP bounced when it hit the bow but most of the them resulted in regular penetrations. There was one citadel hit during the test but that was when I overturned and pointed my bow straight on when the AP hit. As the test progressed, I took less penetration damage to my bow due to damage saturation mechanics. I ended up taking a total of 93k damage after using 5 heals. Most of the damage was fire damage from his secondaries and the regular pens from his AP. I took 88 hits from his AP shells, with the damage averaging less than 1k per shell. I did get my main turret disabled a few times as a result of a penetration hitting the turret barbette area. After the test, I took a closer look in the armor viewer and made some notes. There are two sections to the bow armor I circled and examined. Both of them are 104 mm and located at the waterline. So although you may be technically angled, a shell could pass above the 104 mm section and deal damage. Section A (Red) This section of bow armor cannot bounce BB shells if you angle properly because shells will probably pen this area and hit something else. This means that this section of armor will not protect you from AP shells if you are bow on to an enemy BB. I noted in green arrows the possible path an AP shell could go. If an AP shell hit the bow head on, it could very well hit the citadel (the top boxy thing I outlined in red). Even though this section of armor will be penned most of the time, if you angle you reduce the probability of an AP shell hitting your citadel. I noted that approximately from 0-25 degrees from the centerline of the bow, the path of the AP shell will hit the citadel. Beyond that, it will miss the citadel. This is assuming that the AP shell hits section A of the armor and penetrates. Section B (Blue) This section of bow armor is actually useful. Since it extends a significant amount towards the bow, you find that you get overmatched less often than most battleships with fragile bows. The armor is at such an angle that it will bounce shells up to 15 degrees off the centerline of the bow. Once you go past 15 degrees, shells will start penning that section of armor. However there is a slight overlap in angling between section A and B. If you angle beyond 25 degrees, any shell that strikes section A will miss the citadel. However with the same angling, any shell that strikes section B of the armor will have a good chance of hitting your citadel. Considering that section B of the armor covers a significant amount of the bow, it is better to angle 15 degrees from the centerline of the bow to minimize getting citadeled. TLDR: Queen Elizabeth has a section of 104 mm bow armor that can technically bounce any AP shell in the game. This armor can be abused and you can tank a Yamato in this thing (not that she would ever meet one) There is no specific angle the Queen Elizabeth can take while approaching bow on without a chance of getting overmatched and citadelled. If you angle around 15 degrees from the center of the bow, you make it darn hard for other ships to overmatch your bow. Even though it is possible to be overmatched at this angle, it is very hard for enemy ships to do so and hit your citadel consistently I tried doing this in Training Room and managed to sink a Yamato while bouncing his AP on that 104 mm section. I simply angled 15 degrees and bounced his AP which gave me time to slowly chip away the Yamato's hp and eventually sink him. I'm not an expert at this kind of stuff so if something is up feel free to correct me :)
  7. I think it was NoZoupForYou that mentioned an upcoming RU BB line split. I seem to recall everyone saying he misspoke. You notice misspoke could almost be an action verb? See it? Well I took it upon myself to secure the Kremlin immediately. I was on the Vlad at the time, fine ship. Off to the races and a week, maybe two the Kremlin now sits in my port. Well... not sit, she's constantly being prepped for her next outing. I have to say the Soyuz was a bucket of fun. I slapped all the boost signal flags I could on her and played her like a broken record. I liked her enough to leave her 16 point commander aboard for future 19'ness grinding. I yanked the commander of my Moskva over to the Kremlin, retrained him and voila. She seems, to me, to be lighter on her feet than my Yamato. I think they stole the Yamato gun sound for her though... but silly thing is this... Her ship's horn is well... nothing great. Maybe you devs can buff it so she sounds like a pack of screaming banshees?
  8. I was studying weak spots in the armor scheme viewer for tier X BBs and noticed this with Kremlin Every other BB I've seen is pretty straight forward when it comes to armor in that it descends accordingly: Deck Armor/Plating Citadel Armor + Armor Plating or Turtleback (If applicable) Citadel Torpedo bulkhead + Torpedo Protection - which are underwater Yet, Kremlin's goes: Deck Armor Citadel Armor "Torpedo Protection" - Which it says torpedo protection but it's listed as "Armor belt" Citadel Torpedo bulkhead + Torpedo Protection - which are underwater Can someone explain how this counts as torpedo protection, but at the same time as an armor belt? Is it just really, REALLY thick torpedo protection or something?
  9. In this post, I am going to lay out my honest opinion on what I would do if I were in WG's position right now, as of February 2020, given my understand of the game, how much I have played it, and what I have discussed with other players. I understand that not everyone of you are going to agree with me, and much of what I am going to suggest is going to be controversial....but I am more than happy to hear out your opinions and thoughts in the comments below! A without further ado, here goes..... 1.) Place HMS Belfast at Tier VIII. This is so that she is on par with her sister ship, HMS Edinburgh, as I think that it is unusual that Belfast, which is better than Edinburgh in many ways (access to HE shells, radar AND smoke combo, and is a premium ship with premium economic bonuses) would be a tier lower than her. Plus, having Belfast at Tier VIII would mitigate her over-powered-ness, and would save Tier V ships from being bullied by her (Belfast as a Tier VII can be put into Tier V-VII matches) 2.) Do a USN battleship split. I would keep the original USN battleship as is (USS South Carolina, Tier III ---> USS Montana, Tier X), but starting at Tier V New York I would make a split. The split would be something like this: USS Nevada (Tier V) USS Pennsylvania (Tier VI) OR a pre-WW2 modified USS Tennessee (Tier VI) this would go in tandem with how Tenessee's sister USS California is being made a Tier VII premium, with WW2-era modifications) USS Maryland or USS Washington (Tier VII, Colorado-class ships) USS South Dakota (Tier VIII) or USS Washington (Tier VIII) ??? (Tier IX)? [Maybe USS New Jersey or USS Wisconsin (but how to differentiate them from USS Iowa and USS Missouri without making Iowa and Missouri more obsolete?)] Tillman battleship (Tier X) ----> Just to clarify that I myself am debating on the best setup for the USN battleship split, but I am settled on the idea that the Tier V ship ought to be USS Nevada, as she was of a class similar to the New York-class, and is a brand new ship class not yet introduced into WoWS. 3.) Nerf Kremlin. I find that her armor and her high hit-points pool is ridiculous. I would certainly reduce her hit-points to be BELOW that of Großer Kurfürst so as to preserve the uniqueness of German BBs of higher the highest hit points of all other nation's battleships, and as a nod to efficient German engineering. As a historian, I find it infuriating that the RU BBs in the game somehow are BETTER in their engineering design to that of the American, British, and German battleships. I would also make Kremlin slower in her acceleration, as she is a bit too fast, and I would reduce her armor so that she is more vulnerable to being targeted. Of course, I do not wish to nerf Kremlin to the ground and make her plain useless.....but I would like to see her be a bit less OP so that other battleships are made a bit more viable again, such as Yamato and Montana. Speaking of which..... 4.) Buff IJN Yamato and USS Montana slightly. Yamato I would make her have a better hit-point pool, so that she is a bit better on survivability. Montana already got a buff to her Repair Party which is nice, but I think that she too, should have a slight hit-point increase. I would also increase the range of Montana's and Yamato's secondary guns so that their secondaries are a bit more useful. 5.) Increase the secondary range of ALL battleships across the board, except German BBs, French BBs, and other BBs that already have great secondaries (i.e. Georgia, Massachusetts) I find it ridiculous that more battleships have base secondary ranges of 5 km or less. I understand that this is made so that DDs and crusiers have a chance to rush in and sink a battleship with guns or torpedoes, but like really? 4km or 5km? You might as well not have ANY secondaries at that point because they will barely fire off a few rounds before that rushing DD/cruiser is on you and torpedo-ing you to Davy Jones's Locker. What I would so would be to increase the base secondary ranges by 2-3 km (making ranges range from 6-8 km instead of 4-5 km). That way, at least you can feel good that your secondaries are firing at the enemy, and with flags, and captain skills you can try out secondary builds on battleships that are not really the best at it. Like, why not try out a secondary built on your IJN Nagato? Or on your HMS Iron Duke? Maybe it can be fun! But with base 4-5 km range, it sucks. It is not worth while to utilize a secondary built unless you have 6-8 km which is more useable. I would love to make Tier VII and below battleships (excepting the Germans and French of course) have longer range secondaries. 6.) Nerf Smolensk. Make her citadel larger, increase her gun reload, lower the time of her smoke dispersion.....these are changes that I would definitely make so as to mitigate her overpowered-ness. 7.) Nerf Russian radar. I would either (1) lower the range of Russian radar to 11 km or (2) I would lower the time duration of the radar. 8.) Add more Tier II battleships into the game. IJN Mikasa is special in that she is the only pre-dreadnought battleship in the game (so far). If I were in WG, I would definitely add more pre-dreadnought ships because (1) many of them existed….so.....no paper ships, but REAL ships would be added into the game! (2) Why not add more diversity to Tier II gameplay? So many players complain that high tiers (Tier VIII-X) are stressful, so why not make the second-to-lowest tier a bit more attractive to play? Furthermore, additional battleships can be added to each of the battleship tech tree lines. So instead of having battleships start at Tier III, have them start at Tier II. In other words, add a Tier II battleship to the German, American, Royal Navy, Russian, and French battleship lines. After all, the cruiser lines start off with Tier I cruisers then move on to Tier IIs before then splitting into destroyers (beginning Tier II) and battleships (beginning Tier III). 9.) Make there be more Clan Battles and Ranked Battles at Tiers II, III, IV, and V. We have seen there be one Tier VI ranked sprint, a couple of Tier VII ranked sprints and ONE Tier VIII Clan Battle. The Tier VIII Clan Battle in particular was well appreciated by thousands of players because it was a break from the usual Tier X Clan Battles that occur in 99% of Clan Battles. But what about the other Tiers Tier VI and below? Why not make THEM also into Clan Battles or Ranked Battles? After all, there are plenty of Tier V premiums that players have in their ports that they would certainly like to use in competitive game modes besides just Random Battles. Tier III and Tier IV premiums also exist...so why not have also be given more purpose by creating a Tier II, III, IV, or Tier VI Clan battle/Rank Battle? In addition, by creating a Clan Battle/Rank Battle that is Tier V or below, it might compel experienced players who have been stuck in Tier X-land to actually go back to playing the lower tiers and...who knows? Maybe rediscover a appreciation of the lower tiers (unless they already have a appreciation for the lower tier ships) since we all were once rookies at playing WoWS...we all had to sail our way up from Tier I all the way to Tier X. Now....the only issue that is to be had with a Tier II, III, IV, or Tier V Clan Battle/Rank Battle is that a lot of rookie/newbie players are usually at those tiers, and they might ruin the gameplay and fun that the experience players are trying to have with participating in those events. My solution to that is to add a in-game system that checks to see how many Random Battles you have played in WoWS. If you have played 1000 less games, then you are not eligible to play in the lower-tier Clan Battle/Rank Battle let's say. Or the condition could be that you have to play in 200 game or more in Tier VIII or higher ships before you can be granted access to lower tier Clan Battles/Rank Battles. That way, there is a separation from the rookie players from the experienced players, and the rookie players will not ruin the games of the experienced players. If the rookie players want to participate in the competitive events, they need to play higher tier ships AND play enough games in them---therefore becoming "experienced" players in the process. 10.) Add Italian battleships in the game. This is the final point I am going to make, and that is Italian battleships. SAP shells with battleship guns might prove interesting and make said Italian BBs VERY unique in their play style compared to other BBs. Honestly, I am not that all familiar with the history of Italian battleships, but it would be something like this: ??? Tier II ??? Tier III ??? Tier IV Conte di Cavour (Tier V, sister ship to Guilio Ceasar) ??? Tier VI ??? Tier VII Littorio (Tier VIII, sister to Roma) ??? Tier IX ??? Tier X Let me know your comments below!
  10. HeavenlyWind_

    Nerf the Kremlin

    Just had a game in my Yoshino where I unloaded roughly 50x HE shells on a Kremlin and not once did I set it on fire. For at least 35x of those shots, the Kremlin was borderline broadside. I've also had past issues when trying to damage it. You fire at it broadside and for some screwed up reason, you still ricochet with 0 dmg. In that same game, I also fired HE on a bow-tanking Kurfürst and set it ablaze maybe 5 shells in. Yeah.
  11. PaulaDeen

    Russian vs. US Battleships

    Hello, post is as titled, I'm looking for some first hand comparison between Russian and US battleships. I've heard that the Russian battleships dominate in close quarters combat, but fairs quite poorly in long range. Is their long range really that poor? I have a North Carolina and I should be able to finish getting my Vladivostok today. I love both BB lines but I'm not sure which I want to bring to t10 first. I guess I'm just looking for some insight from people with both Monty and Kremlin. Pros and cons of both? Is Kremlin really that bad for long range engagements? Is Monty in a good spot now a days? Welcoming all insights and opinions! Thanks:) Paula Deen Butter Captain Butter Queen
  12. Server Battles WinRate Average Kills Average Damage Average Experience Average Plane Destruction K/D EU 101,498 54.01% 1.09 100,062 2002 7.00 2.05 NA 53,532 54.35% 1.13 100,736 1986 6.78 2.61 RU 39,662 56.41% 1.25 110,473 2043 7.99 2.41 ASIA 52,247 55.02% 1.02 97,841 1995 8.25 2.6 Here are server stats as of this now. In my opinion, her guns are too accurate and her armour(citadel included) being impervious to all (non-super/battle/premium) cruiser AP and (Unless you take IFHE Hipper/Roon/Hinden) HE is a incredibly broken. I think I should at least be able to damage kremlin consistently with heavy cruiser AP on a flat broadside. And what is that AA? Why does this ship, supposed to be vulnerable to DoTs, have an AA system that eclipses the USN? But I do not have Kremlin. So what is your opinion on this mega BB? Am I wrong?
  13. nastydamnanimal

    Kremlin Missing Mods n Stuff?

    Are we gonna give it hydro at least? Any legendary planned for it? Can we tweek the deck armor so it doesn't get full pen by long range ifhe spam all time? I mean hell, its easier to ifhe kill than the monty. its like a half monty...well maybe 3/4 monty hindsight ps. cause of time, challenge and schedules I play random pvp mostly. Im pretty decent with the krem I hated it at first then liked it then hated it then liked it. I have pushed it too its limits . I know what ships need in that regard. First thing that pops into my mind is the ship needs hydro, in the least and being the mother ship of Russia it can have a legendary. Ok so from now on. ALL SUPERTESTERS and the like. before you submit a thumbs up or down to a test ship to WG. Play some battles against me PLEASE sync drop 1v1 whatever I dont care just do it. PLEASE.and im not saying im better than you or dont respect your decisions Im just saying you havent REALLY played/exposed the ship until you play me and my kind some battles.
×