Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
mous1

USN secondary idea

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

23
Members
258 posts
3,363 battles

why cant USN secondaries be inaccurate at long range and quickly gain accuracy as the target gets closer.

Say like the Iowa class can have bad dispersion at 6 km but at 3 km nearly all her shells hit 

Whether this mechanic can be effected by commander skills is up for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,509
[O7]
Members
4,921 posts
8,751 battles

Probably because it doesn't need it. Ships have advantages and disadvantages. Use advantages, avoid disadvantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
897
[LEGIO]
Members
2,955 posts
5,370 battles

The 5"/38s need a rate of fire buff at least. Virtually every other secondary in game gets close to their maximum RoF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,653
[TBW]
Members
6,293 posts
11,849 battles
53 minutes ago, mous1 said:

Whether this mechanic can be effected by commander skills is up for debate.

No debate manual fire decreases dispersion by like 60% or some thing like that. As far as accuracy goes, it's more accurate at closer ranges like a shot gun with bird shot is more accurate at closer ranges and accurate isn't really the deal any way, it's dispersion that matters. If you are dead on target (accurate) at 50 ft with a 12 gauge with bird shot (with let's say, 100 bb's per shell) and you get say twenty hits on the center bull (dispersion). You then shoot with accuracy at a target 100 yards away and only get two in the bull. It's the same accuracy but with dispersion you get less hits further out.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
293
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,979 posts

USN Secondaries are bad because of the Cleveland at Tier 6 using the same secondaries as what the USN has at Tier 9+. They finally got around to not making the DM and Balts not trash just a patch ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,864 posts
1,365 battles

Id be down for them making the USN secondaries fire their proper RoF and a slight accuracy buff would be cool. 

Id love to shoot AP out of them to. 

Edited by KnightFandragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
Members
497 posts
2,803 battles

If you run the math they are pretty particular about secondary damage and fire chance being competitive so if you want your ROF buff you're going to lose both of the former to keep the cumulative numbers in check. I think the range just needs to be boosted to make a secondary build viable.

 

Just to prove my point

total damage/HE contribution

Kurfurst 558800 2012%

Yamato 554400 2112%

Montana 540000 2700%

Conqueror is actually the first one to break this rule with only 272239 1146%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
168 posts
7,651 battles
On 8/29/2017 at 11:09 PM, mous1 said:

why cant USN secondaries be inaccurate at long range and quickly gain accuracy as the target gets closer.

 

It's a fabulous idea, given the fact the current base dispersion is capable of missing a carrier sitting only 3 or 4 ship-lengths away. As to why not? Griping over the DPM of USN BBs being too high. The RU server's "Leeroy Jenkins" style of BB play would allow the USN secondary batteries to be too much on top of the excellent close range main battery AP penetration.

That being said, I would be completely fine with a complete loss of ignition ability in exchange for dispersion capable of putting 30% of shells on a destroyer sized target at a range of 3km. The 5-10% accuracy currently observed even at close range against small targets degrades gameplay. 

Edited by rapier_ape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,575
[TASH]
Members
4,989 posts
7,875 battles

USN secondary batteries before T8 are basically as good as they could get.  Past T8, they just need moderate RoF buffs or a survivability buff so they don't get knocked out too fast: other BBs with mixed anti-surface and dual-purpose secondary batteries have an advantage of being harder to suppress, while the real-life tradeoffs of lower ammunition capacity and more complicated logistics/repair aren't emulated here.  Even if they can't be, there shouldn't be zero tradeoff for the USN going for only dual-purpose secondary guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[MARE]
Members
38 posts
5,094 battles

 cruisers Please forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but aren't the 5" guns on USN BBs the same guns used on USN cruisers and destroyers? If so, why don't the BB's 5" guns have the same accuracy, range and hitting power ??

Edited by Captain_Cubby
left out cruisers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,864 posts
1,365 battles
On 8/31/2017 at 1:59 AM, ValkyrWarframe said:

USN secondary batteries before T8 are basically as good as they could get.  Past T8, they just need moderate RoF buffs or a survivability buff so they don't get knocked out too fast: other BBs with mixed anti-surface and dual-purpose secondary batteries have an advantage of being harder to suppress, while the real-life tradeoffs of lower ammunition capacity and more complicated logistics/repair aren't emulated here.  Even if they can't be, there shouldn't be zero tradeoff for the USN going for only dual-purpose secondary guns.

What made the 5/38 bad at surface fighting anyway?  Did it not have any AP, low velocity or what?

Either way, a nice RoF buff in this game would be great.....atleast then it could get out 10,000 rounds and score 300 hits for like 3500 dmg in a game...over the 1000 shots for 50 hits and 200 dmg it does now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts

If anything, the proper thing is do nerf most other secondaries, and leave the US 5" guns alone.

Secondaries are just a bad idea to begin with, and encourage bad play. If we're gonna have to live with them because people whine without them, well, making them LESS effective is a better idea than MORE effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,864 posts
1,365 battles
17 hours ago, EAnybody said:

If anything, the proper thing is do nerf most other secondaries, and leave the US 5" guns alone.

Secondaries are just a bad idea to begin with, and encourage bad play. If we're gonna have to live with them because people whine without them, well, making them LESS effective is a better idea than MORE effective.

Ya'll [edited] you want ur BBs to brawl more.  Given em better secondaries could certainly help with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×