Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 't9'.



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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Events

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 12 results

  1. Before I begin, I need to make something entirely clear. I am fully aware that even if this post gains traction, Zao will never receive a buff. In the most recent QnA, WG practically confirmed popularity of a ship is how they balance ships and I quote “Zao is one of the leaders in terms of battles played…” I personally think that statement in itself is [edited] but this isn’t the point of this post. I am here to prove how weak Zao is not by comparing her to tier 10s, but to tier 9s. In particular, Brindisi, Ibkui (direct predecessor), and Saint-Louis (the French one not the US one) which all have similar playstyles. The tool used to find the information for this comparison was the WoWs Fitting Tool or NA WoWs Numbers. The build of each ship is stock with the exceptions of the researchable upgrades of a ship (e.g. the b-hulls). Armour is not considered here as they all have similar values. TL;DR at bottom. Lets get the big one out of the way, Zao has very low HP... Zao Ibuki Saint-Louis Brindisi Already I hope you see why I am making this, the fact that Zao doesn't even see much of an improvement over her own predecessor is quite a negative. But the fact there are two tech tree tier 9 cruisers who play very similarly that have more HP than Zao is a problem (BTW, even if you put the best possible survivability expert on Zao, she only beats Brindisi by 1,000 HP). The increase in HP from the Ibuki is also quite minimal at 1,800 HP. For reference Brindisi to Venezia and Saint-Louis to Henri IV see a 6,000 HP and 12,400 HP increase respectively. I don't entirely mind if Zao is one of the squishier tier 10s because of her stealth (we'll get to that), but I do mind when tier 10 "heavy" cruisers have less HP than their tier 9 counterparts from other lines. Moving on from that, maybe Zao has amazing guns compared to other cruisers to account for the HP? It should be noted here that all of these cruisers have 203 mm guns. First lets looks at the accuracy... Zao (16.23 km) Ibuki (16.25 km) Saint-Louis (18.34 km) Brindisi (17.13 km) You may notice I included the max range of each ship this time, that is because at first it looks like that Zao and Ibuki have clear accuracy bonuses over the other two. But when considering that "max dispersion" is calculated at the ships maximum range, it becomes clear that Saint-Louis and Brindisi have almost identical accuracies to their Japanese counterparts. Okay what about DPM? I'm only looking at their primary ammo type rather as AP is quite situational and tends to have the same results anyway. There is a bit much info for me to just take screenshots and pop them here but here are the important things: Zao has actually got a pretty good DPM at 178 ,686 owing to being a T10 Ibuki is, as expected, lower at 144,526 Saint-Louis has the lowest at 137,455 but that can be boosted with MBRB to over 260,000 Brindisi wins due to the SAP at 187,200 but cannot set fires So the biggest take away here is that Zao's guns are actually tier 10 worthy, hurray we found something worthy of tier 10 (although they are pretty average at tier 10). What's next, how about consumables? So most lines have something to set them apart from others. American CAs have radar, Germans all get good hydro, Russian BBs have the fast DCP, and so on. So what notable consumables do these cruisers get to increase their effectiveness? Brindisi gets the excellent Fuel Smoke, commonly referred to by me and others as the get out of jail free card. Saint-Louis gets a buffet of consumables, but the most notable ones are +20% Spood Beest AND MBRB. Ibuki and Zao get... hang on, they get literally nothing apart from the standard set... Even the Germans, which get the same set, have an improved hydro. I'm gonna be honest here, I'm getting quite frustrated just writing this so I'm gonna go into a fast fire round to get the key points across: Zao and Ibuki have the best stealth, yay benefit (until the CV shows up) Zao and Ibuki have non-existent AA to help you when the CV shows up Zao is slower than all these boats (including Ibuki) Zao has a huge turning circle, even when you shift this comparison to tier 10 Sure, Zao and Ibuki get great torps, but the firing angles make them very awkward to use TL;DR/Summary: Look, the key point I'm trying to make is that, I can take Zao, compare it purely by the numbers and feasibly come to the conclusion that there are not just one, but TWO TECH TREE TIER 9 cruisers that are better than the oldest tier 10 cruiser in the game. As far as I can remember, Zao has had no major buffs or nerfs in the entire history of WoWs. It's current state is so bad that I can come to the above conclusion, and that's a shame. I really like Zao, but I just don't see a reason to play it when it can be outclassed by tier 9s let alone tier 10s, especially when ships like Napoli are being introduced (which does everything Zao does, with more HP and fuel smoke). As I said at the beginning WG explicitly stated that Zao must be in a good position because "Zao is one of the leaders in terms of battles played…" I honestly don't know how WG can say that with a straight face and I find it incredibly insulting. I'm gonna leave you with this to think about, if Zao is in the top four in number of battles played? Why is it in the bottom four in terms of Win Rate? Made with genuine concern, by a decent Zao player
  2. ST. 0.10.6, new ships - Development blog BETA (worldofwarships.com) This ship is now in testing, and I like the concept....but the tier is wrong. The Oregon City class was an upgrade to the Baltimore Class. The ship that is described in the Dev Blog is at best a side-grade, with worse (non-historical) reload, worse radar range, and worse rudder shift. Plus, it is quite similar to the USS Wichita which is already available for doubloons at T8. Why not make this ship similar to the pre-US cruiser line split USS Baltimore (which was a T9 CA) and make the USS Rochester the first T9 premium non-super cruiser? There are already more than enough T8 premium cruisers already in the game, and certainly too many for the USN with the USS Congress is on its way as well soon. T9 needs non-super cruiser premium ships. Give us a premium CA with a war record at T9. She is a fitting replacement for the recently removed USS Alaska.
  3. SeaLord_MacKraken

    Skipping T9s?

    It seems like most of tech tree T9s with all upgrades often cost more than T10s of the same line. For example, with maximum clan's discount on ships cost of the T9s with all upgrades exceeds the cost of T10s, that get stock modules that are already as good as they can get (most of the time). Skipping T9 for FXP saves time for grinding and credits for buying. But of cause getting FXP takes more time than leveling up one ship. On the other hand game economy works in such way that it becomes more difficult to earn credits playing higher tier ships. So it may take a really, really long time for a T9 to pay for itself, let alone make money to buy a T10. So using FXP to skip T9s entirely may seem like a viable alternative for the cases when T9 is also not a particularly good ship, and keeping it doesn't sound exciting. Also from gaming experience T8s when uptiered face the same ships as T9s and T10, so in terms of learning something T9s don't offer that much. There are of cause good T9s that stand out, some probably even outshining their T10. E.g. they say that FLETCHER is a better T9 than GEARING is at T10. Some like ALSACE more than REPUBLIC, etc. Or T9s could be just as good, e.g. KITAKAZE or JUTLAND seems great for their tier and worth keeping. Question is: if skipping T9s for FXP is a good idea for some lines, what ships would you skip, and which are best to keep? Thank you!
  4. I am interested in one of these 3 DDs. Just these 3. Which one do you recommend? Z-46, Östergötland or Jutland?
  5. So I’ve done about 9000 battles this year... my first 4500 were about 40% and and my last few thousand I’ve finally figured it out and the charts go in one direction now.... sure is hard getting back to 50% after playing that bad for so long. Anyways, I’m loving the Stalingrad... fits my play style..... looking for something at t9 that would most replicate that ship for clan battles.
  6. Hi all, I wish you all a happy new year! Are you a fan of HE spam? Are you afraid of them? Do you know how to encounter them? If you don't, then join them! Tier 9 Premium US Cruiser USS Fargo CL-106 Ship Length - 610 feet Beam - 66 feet Draft - 25 feet speed - 32.5 knots Hit points - between 39,000 - 49,000 Main Battery Four 150mm triple-barrelled guns Rate of Fire - 10 rounds per minute Reload Time - 6 seconds Firing Range - 18.29km Maximum HE shell Damage - 3,400 Maximum AP shell Damage - 8,200 Secondary Armament Six 130mm double-barrelled guns Firing Range - 5km Rate of Fire - 15 rounds per minute Reload Time - 4 seconds Maximum HE Shell Damage - 2,100 AA Defence Four 150mm triple-barrelled guns Average Damage per second - between 90 - 95 Firing Range - 6km Four quad 40mm Bofors Average damage per second - 270 Firing Range - 3.51km Six double 40mm Bofors Average Damage per Second - 135 Firing Range - 3.51km ten 20mm Oerlikon Average Damage per Second - 83 Firing Range - 2.01km Maneuverability Rudder Shift Time - between 7 to 9 seconds Speed - 32.5 knots Concealment Detectability by Sea - between 9 to 11km Detectability by Air - between 7 - 8km Aircraft Complement 4 Floatplanes Possible Consumables Damage Control Party Enhanced AA Fire Hydroacoustic Search/ Fighter Surveillance Radar/ Spotting Aircraft Repair Party
  7. I've been playing WOWS for about 5 years, have 331 ships in port. To say many are not fun to play is an understatement (little background). Just venting here and expect very little understanding, so 'stop typing' WOWS doesn't need your protection or support. Just finished a 1005 game playing exercise with two of my grown son in assignment with 335 games each. Both were WOWS players but both quit the game sometime ago. I had noted the damage numbers offered by wows in the ship gunnery logs of each ships, as not even close to real play numbers. Say; the ship states (Seattle) its 152MM guns will have Max. He shell damage of 2200 or Max. AP shell damage of 3200. (The Buffalo is 2800 and 5000 but the actual damage per, is pretty much the same percentage wise). We played 167 games and fired only HE rounds. Then played 168 games and fired AP only for 168 games. It took us about 45 days to complete. My sons will never play WOWS again BTW. If the game actually worked and gave us a end-of-game summary page with the included numbers we use it. (Note: between the 3 of us the game failed this little required 8 percent of the time). Anyway: starting with the HE(2200) shell, we averaged just 236 damage per hit. That's about 11% of rated max 2200 damage potential. For the AP shell (3200) the actual damage was 358 damage per. That's just over 11% of the rated 3200 max damage. Miserable is a bit of an understatement. (one good reason my sons quit playing but not the only reason). Customer service said its the 'computer' working its magic. But people control the end results don't we. It is magic that 90% of the players live with such number nonsense yet some have the most fantastic numbers. It is magic. What is your magic..?
  8. lordholland4293

    Ranked spirit suggestions

    I know this will get alot of boring emojis. But I wish wargaming would make arms race a normal mode and ranked spirit one vs one wiht irrevocable stars cause let's admit it, Christmas ranked spirit was fun, and you wanted to keep playing it, that's how it should be a game mode that is competitive with nice rewards and is fun. One vs one with t8-t10, same tier matches t8-t8, t9-t9, 10-10. Cv-cv, cause I played enterprise at Christmas and cv vs cv was fun. Hopefully some contrusting criticism. Don't know how to tagged Hapa_Fodder in this
  9. So, one of the problems that Germany had at the end of the 1930's was that their Navy had 6 light cruisers and other than the last 2 being barley adequate to count as any kind of a serious sea going combat ship, it meant that they basically had 2 ships that they could use as light cruisers to accompany any larger capitol ships. Now mind you this was in the years that Admiral Reader and Hitler was making their Christmas wish list. You know 6 to 10 new Battleships, 6 new M class light cruisers, 12 new P class armored cruisers, 4 aircraft carriers, 24 destroyers, ext. LOL, If Germany could have built even half of that in 6 years with the Idea that they were going to start stuff in 1944 to 46, you know that Briton and France would have craped their pants and be building ships in reply. Then the Italians, Japan, America would have been hitting their yards with new ships. It might have not went on the scale of what the 1890 to 1910 arms race was, but it would have been a mini arms race. It might have made WW2 more interesting though if Germany did actually start the war with at least 4 to 6 Battleships, and somewhat of a larger fleet even though the British empire and France would have enlarged theirs also. Plus I dont know if the aircraft tech would have advanced at the same rate. I think a lot of things wouldn't have been as advanced until war caused it to have to be figured out. Anyway one of the idea's that German Ship Designers considered albeit not very seriously was to take the hull for Seydlitz and finish her into a Hipper class heavy configuration, except instead of mounting 8 - 203mm (8"guns), they proposed to mount 12 - 150mm (5.9" guns) in four triple super firing turrets. This would have solved the design issues of the M class cruisers completely. They would have been way ahead in the thinking of the Americans that made Cleveland's and Baltimore's from the same hulls. With a Hipper hull and the slightly lighter 15cm triple turrets, they could have carried much more fuel, supplies and ammunition for the main battery. they could mount extra AA guns, (although in 1938 no one realized, or had a lot of fear of planes yet). They would have had more range than the M class cruisers and would have been better protected, unless they thinned the armor belt to save weight. Either option would have gave them a far superior, but more expensive ship. They already had built 3 of these ships complete and were close to finishing the 2 last ones as heavy cruisers. They were dragging their feet on Seydlitz though because it was promised to the Russians under the non aggression pact that Daddy Hitler and Uncle Joe had with each other. None the less though lets say the Reader convinces Hitler that they can build more heavy cruisers later and that he would like to convert Lutzow to a medium/large light cruiser if you will and that it would be advantages to replace the K class with them or to augment future battlegroups. Hitler is in a good mood for a change and because at the time he doesn't foresee any serious strife in the near future he says ( If you think this is a good idea Admiral then it is ok to proceed. Admiral Raeder gets Goring drunk and gets him to divert a little of the Luftwaffe's money his way, along with slightly prolonging the M class cruisers construction. He gets a hold on like 4 submarines which totally pisses off Doughnuts, er (Doenitz). Dont worry he will get over it. So the next letter of the alphabet in line for light cruiser design is S, because the M,N,O, and P are scheduled, with Q, and R already selected. The Germans didn't always do this either but they were in a slight habit of naming the first, and or all ships of a letter class. For example the 3 K class were all K town names. L was Leipzig, but the second L class was Nuremberg, so hit and miss on that however the first M class cruiser was most likely to be Munich. So S. There are several towns with S. Admiral Reader had traveled through the small town of Schwanewede and was taken to the local people and countryside view there. so this name was selected for the first of the class. (note that the last sentence here is pure fabrication on my part for the story. I just wanted to establish a plausible story to establish a possible name for a fictitious ship.) So I present to you Der Kriegsmarine Shiffe: Schwanewede. Schwanewede crest The first ship of the class built with the hull and machinery of the 4th Hipper Class. This would make her resistant to 203mm shells. Launched in mid 1939. Germany classified her as a Light Cruiser but the English press wrote editorials that claimed that this ship was truly more of an overpowered light cruiser, and or an under gunned Heavy Cruiser. The French press claimed that Germany invented the Medium Cruiser, and should make their minds up. Here the guns and torpedo tubes are outlined in Orange and the front AA 37 single in Yellow. Here the same outline as seen from the top down view.
  10. A bit long, but the Hood review seemed popular: Feel free to disagree... enjoy or dont enjoy Other mehbote reviews: Myogi Monarch Hood
  11. Siegewolf

    T9 Ranked Ships

    Since the next Ranked will be T9 focused. Trying to get a handle on where players think the boats to gravitate towards are. I have many of the lines ground out. I don't have the Alsace yet (on T8 at the moment) but she seems like a good BB candidate. DD: Really hard to choose here due to some many viable options. Lots of good DDs at T9 in the right hands. CA: Roon, Kronshtadt, Donskoi or maybe Alaska (not sure about Buffalo) Really didnt like the Donskoi or the Ibuki (but that's me). BB: Missouri and Alsace
  12. Hanger_18

    Alaska "gimmick" idea

    Just curious as to what the rest of the community thought of this idea. How about giving Alaska the USN BB upgrades, artillery plotting room 1/2, as it's "gimmick" (removing the mods they replace is debatable). using the assumed range of 18.05km (this is the expected number based off RF height) . I would also assume a sigma of, or between 2.05 or 1.9, and a dispersion between 142M and 293M ( based off 3 mount USN battleship and cruisers) for those who don't know what they do off hand I believe this is something that a lot of people can be happy about for a few reasons. It's very flavorful, the USN named her after a territory to signify her middle ground between battleships and cruisers. This reinforces that further. Would compliment the guns well, as they only get better as range increases. This just helps the guns achieve the plunging fire they were designed for. increasing the range would play well with the armor scheme (the deck in particular). This would help differentiate it from the kronstadt. The ships are close in a lot a ways with some subtle differences. Highlighting the guns would help get away from that, especially with kronstadts poor dispersion as a contrast. It's not a very outlandish gimmick, it makes sense, it's not going to be some new wild concept. It's neither to hot or to cold. everyone likes consistent guns. offsets the awful concealment value of 16.9/13.9 giving the ship a little more breathing space. 1km of stealth fire room is really tight and uncomfortable. It allows for player choice. it opens up room for a lot more builds (especially if you dont remove the mods that that the plotting rooms replace) all of the following are mods i would expect players to use as alternatives, or in tandem with. Thoughts everyone? thanks for making it this far. Credit where its due because i stole some numbers from here-
×