Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Beneej_Spoor

[Flamu] Clan Battles - What A S**tshow

130 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,310
[SYN]
Members
15,010 posts
11,502 battles
3 hours ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

1 Yamato - can overmatch anything

5 Moskva - 5 Radars, can bow tank everything but Yamato. That may radars guarantee DDs a quick death

1 Z-52 - Hydro and smoke, can bully other DDs

the misinformation is rampant.
Go look at Moskva's armor layout
It has 25mm bow and cannot even bow tank Bismarck's AP shells.

Now, what Moskva CAN do is angle tank Yamato's 460mm AP shells on its deck and midsection armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,093 posts
45 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

the misinformation is rampant.
Go look at Moskva's armor layout
It has 25mm bow and cannot even bow tank Bismarck's AP shells.

Now, what Moskva CAN do is angle tank Yamato's 460mm AP shells on its deck and midsection armor.

 

That's correct I meant to refer to the belt armor. The Moskva also has a substantial deck armor advantage over the Hindenburg and of course a big health advantage.. I think mass Radar will trump mass Hydro even though the duration is much shorter. We're going to see which should be interesting. I'm sure people can make Hindenburg work but I think mass Moskva beats mass Hindenburg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,866 posts

A few carrier players are really good, but not many. I don't know why anyone would play only one ship type. This works out to be kind of like cruiser wars. Consider that the next iteration of clan wars may be something different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,370
Members
5,201 posts
9,061 battles
14 hours ago, HMS_Formidable said:

Seriously

 

Rock. Paper. Scissors.

 

Taking carriers away is like removing "Paper" from the above

The chain is broken

 

Not true.

 

Rock paper scissors exists just fine with BB, CA, DD.

BB > CA

CA > DD

DD > BB

 

The carrier exists outside of the rock/paper/scissors analogy as it operates from afar. It can kill all three, but, if spotted, will die to all three.

 

Think of it as the archer in a medieval setting.

Horse > Sword

Sword > Spear

Spear > Horse

 

Archer > Everything (when at range)

Everything > Archer (in melee)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,815
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,070 posts
3,895 battles
On 9/30/2017 at 10:49 AM, IronWolfV said:

If it was well balanced, why the omissions?

 

Because they're caving to the players who whine for carriers to be removed.

 

Before long, CW will also exclude destroyers and bump up to 2 battleships. And then cruisers will be omitted as well because of fire and smoke complaints, and it'll just be all battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,370
Members
5,201 posts
9,061 battles

As for the no-CV apocalypse that's going on right now, I'm convinced that our society is dependent on manufacturing crises because they don't have enough other things to give a **** about.

 

People need to realize that this is temporary as I have no doubt that CVs will be included eventually. Honestly, I'd rather have CW in a semi-functional format that isn't fully realized than have to wait another year to get it at all. The first iteration of CW is going to be a learning experience for both players and WG alike. 

 

As much as I like to complain about WG, I do feel sorry for them sometimes. No matter what they do, SOMEBODY is going to blow a gasket. 

 

EDIT: I feel like I need to include this disclaimer. I don't have a strong opinion on WG's decision to omit CVs initially. These decisions are rarely black-and-white so I can see both sides. I do, however, feel bad for CV mains that are getting shafted by this decision as we have a couple of our own that were affected.

Edited by Kombat_W0MBAT
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,236 posts
7,167 battles
35 minutes ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

As for the no-CV apocalypse that's going on right now, I'm convinced that our society is dependent on manufacturing crises because they don't have enough other things to give a **** about.

 

People need to realize that this is temporary as I have no doubt that CVs will be included eventually. Honestly, I'd rather have CW in a semi-functional format that isn't fully realized than have to wait another year to get it at all. The first iteration of CW is going to be a learning experience for both players and WG alike. 

 

As much as I like to complain about WG, I do feel sorry for them sometimes. No matter what they do, SOMEBODY is going to blow a gasket. 

 

EDIT: I feel like I need to include this disclaimer. I don't have a strong opinion on WG's decision to omit CVs initially. These decisions are rarely black-and-white so I can see both sides. I do, however, feel bad for CV mains that are getting shafted by this decision as we have a couple of our own that were affected.

People should try to have an objective opinion. I also feel bad for the few people who main CVs in competitive environments, but I'd like to believe WG understands the implications of releasing a t10 competitive mode with carriers in their current state. Anyone who plays t10 knows this, most of all people who main carriers. But I also understand people being rustled by it and theorycrafting strats that will result from having no CVs.

 

I still stand by what I said, that actual carrier mains know the state of their class. It's not even an issue of skill, it's how t10 CVs will affect a match in a 7v7, and the fact that Midway is an automatic loss against a similarly skilled Hakuryu, among other issues.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,091
[NGAGE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,930 posts
10,485 battles
On 9/30/2017 at 5:34 PM, Pata1985 said:

 

 

        I am no "defender of the folk" but maybe starting by T8 the first CW with a notice that it will be made fully to T10 eventually will atleast prepare people for it, not speaking for myself because I prefer T10 gameplay above other tiers, but the rent system is just plain stupid, being able to use a T10 ship for the first time wont make any player a good T10 capt. and this will ruin the experience for many.

 

 The idea of not having a chance to play against a  CV will just cause to build the cruisers to counter DD's 100%, so that will cause that almost no one to play a DD, so We will see CW's being cruisers vs cruisers mostly, meh.  

 

People have had since January to get t10s. It was obvious CW's were going to be t10 bc the game sorely lacks end game content. If you choose to stick to t8 or lower, it's your own fault for not grinding higher. I'm happy about the rental system bc it means we will see very interesting team comps, not cookie cutter teams 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,091
[NGAGE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,930 posts
10,485 battles
1 hour ago, AraAragami said:

 

Because they're caving to the players who whine for carriers to be removed.

 

Before long, CW will also exclude destroyers and bump up to 2 battleships. And then cruisers will be omitted as well because of fire and smoke complaints, and it'll just be all battleships.

 

If you struggle with cruisers that much in your dds you should really consider playing a different class 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,815
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,070 posts
3,895 battles
Just now, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

If you struggle with cruisers that much in your dds you should really consider playing a different class 

 

The point. You missed it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[RUST]
Beta Testers
992 posts
11,089 battles
1 hour ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

As for the no-CV apocalypse that's going on right now, I'm convinced that our society is dependent on manufacturing crises because they don't have enough other things to give a **** about.

 

People need to realize that this is temporary as I have no doubt that CVs will be included eventually. Honestly, I'd rather have CW in a semi-functional format that isn't fully realized than have to wait another year to get it at all. The first iteration of CW is going to be a learning experience for both players and WG alike. 

 

As much as I like to complain about WG, I do feel sorry for them sometimes. No matter what they do, SOMEBODY is going to blow a gasket. 

 

EDIT: I feel like I need to include this disclaimer. I don't have a strong opinion on WG's decision to omit CVs initially. These decisions are rarely black-and-white so I can see both sides. I do, however, feel bad for CV mains that are getting shafted by this decision as we have a couple of our own that were affected.

 

Bravo, I tip my hat to you sir. People need to stop being so hyperbole on everything WG dev tries to do. The more people take hyperbole positions and complain, the less the dev wants to share. Everyone complains about lack of info about CV re-work but I can see why they do it seeing how the forum explodes every time they hint at new experimenting new features like RDF, and testing smoke & IFHE changes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[TOG]
Members
3,179 posts
16,665 battles

Looking thru this thread the ships being discussed for use are:

 

BB - Yamato and Conqueror

CA - Moskva and Des Moines

DD - Khab and Z52

 

If Radar/Hydro is the thing, why not the Kurfurst and the Hindenburg? If gunboat DD's are going to be the thing, why not the Gearing also?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[RUST]
Beta Testers
992 posts
11,089 battles
1 hour ago, Bill_Halsey said:

Looking thru this thread the ships being discussed for use are:

 

BB - Yamato and Conqueror

CA - Moskva and Des Moines

DD - Khab and Z52

 

If Radar/Hydro is the thing, why not the Kurfurst and the Hindenburg? If gunboat DD's are going to be the thing, why not the Gearing also?

 

 

You can get Conqueror's concealment to sub 12km, 2km shorter than what's possible on the GK. Yamato only have slightly better concealment than GK, but its guns can over-match bows of other BB. Finally hydro on GK is not that useful in competitive because the expectation is that you'll have teammates that will screen and hydro for you. 

edit: Most GK captain are also probably 2ndary builds, so they generally have concealment out to full 18km. Yamato captains are more likely to have concealment skill so in general their concealment is probably down to 14km as well. 

 

Hindenburg is a viable sub for a Moskva or a DM, but the hydro+radar is what people are looking for out of the Moskva & DM. 

 

In random anyways, Z52 beats Gearing for contesting caps with a good captain that knows how to use smoke + hydro. It might play out differently in CW when everyone brings a Moskva or DM so we'll see. Khab the fastest DD at tier 10 and can be use to fast cap. It's pretty tanky for a DD and it's a better gunboat than the gearing if the captain knows how to stay at optimal range, which it can because did I mention that the Khab is fast? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
550
[MIA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,314 posts
8,034 battles

If you want to fast cap why not just use a Henri which plays like a better Khab anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[TOG]
Members
3,179 posts
16,665 battles
27 minutes ago, NeoRussia said:

If you want to fast cap why not just use a Henri which plays like a better Khab anyway. 

You still need 60 seconds to stay in the cap and being hit will reset it. It's easier if you're small speedy target than a big speedy target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[TOG]
Members
3,179 posts
16,665 battles
1 hour ago, NCC81701 said:

It's pretty tanky for a DD and it's a better gunboat than the gearing if the captain knows how to stay at optimal range, which it can because did I mention that the Khab is fast? 

 

One thing I forgot to add, You can set the Gearings torps to 71 knots 13.5 km range. Not to mention it's lower visibility and better maneuverability will give it to edge, provided it's not spotted initially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[RUST]
Beta Testers
992 posts
11,089 battles
4 minutes ago, Bill_Halsey said:

 

One thing I forgot to add, You can set the Gearings torps to 71 knots 13.5 km range. Not to mention it's lower visibility and better maneuverability will give it to edge, provided it's not spotted initially. 


Z-52 smoke + hydro will force the gearing out of cap  so lower visibility and better maneuverability wouldn't mean jack cuz either Z-52 will cap or Gearing will die trying to contest... unless radar cruisers are involved which is why I said we'll have to see how it pans out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[TOG]
Members
3,179 posts
16,665 battles
1 minute ago, NCC81701 said:


Z-52 smoke + hydro will force the gearing out of cap  so lower visibility and better maneuverability wouldn't mean jack cuz either Z-52 will cap or Gearing will die trying to contest... unless radar cruisers are involved which is why I said we'll have to see how it pans out. 

Guess I'll have grind out the Z-52  just to be safe. 100k more to go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[RUST]
Beta Testers
992 posts
11,089 battles
2 hours ago, NeoRussia said:

If you want to fast cap why not just use a Henri which plays like a better Khab anyway. 

 

Cuz Khabs doesn't have a citadel and can be equipped with smoke; at least that's how I see it. I'd rather have a cruiser with radar for a cruiser slot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50
[TIAR]
[TIAR]
Beta Testers
515 posts
On 30/9/2017 at 1:35 PM, Herr_Reitz said:

I thought the best they could do for clan wars was make it two or three tiered. The clan competes at the entry tier - say tier 6. Win so many battles and the clan can, if they choose, move up to the next tier, say tier 8. Rinse repeat and finally reach tier 10. Three groups/levels for play. 

 

It would seem the tier ten matches could have involved larger teams as to include one carrier per side. Maybe 9v9. The rest of the team makeup would be left to the clans. You want a carrier and eight shimas, you got it. Tier ten clan wars would be very intense with such parameters.

 

I would make rewards/gifts available across all three levels, making them somewhat on-par across all three. And yes - I'd allow for an ally situation, where  your clan doesn't have enough players available to  battle, you can recruit/add another clan's member(s) up to half of your clan size to assist in battles. 

 

Could have been awesome. 

Something like this already happens in WoT.

Small clans can focus on tier 6 / 8 and as they mature they can reach tier 10.

You can also hire people from outside the clan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
320
[TBOW]
Members
1,602 posts
11,638 battles

The way they have it setup just call it Clan Cruiser Wars.  You are not going to see much of anything else.  Most clans will insist on the BB they bring be a Conqueror, rest will be DMs and Moslova;s the Occasional Zao and Mino here and there.  I would not want to take a DD into that mess,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles
1 hour ago, NCC81701 said:

 

Cuz Khabs doesn't have a citadel and can be equipped with smoke; at least that's how I see it. I'd rather have a cruiser with radar for a cruiser slot. 

 

There are no cruiser or destroyer slots.  Only slots you fill with any ship for a role.

 

Khab is worse than all the other DDs at doing DD things.  It's worse than any cruiser at doing cruiser things.  It doesn't have a role outside of random battles.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles
12 minutes ago, gcangel82 said:

The way they have it setup just call it Clan Cruiser Wars.  You are not going to see much of anything else.  Most clans will insist on the BB they bring be a Conqueror, rest will be DMs and Moslova;s the Occasional Zao and Mino here and there.  I would not want to take a DD into that mess,

 

Much of this is false.  I'll leave it up to you to figure out the errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
917
[NMKJT]
Members
3,490 posts
4 minutes ago, Grizley said:

 

Much of this is false.  I'll leave it up to you to figure out the errors.

Really is how I read the meta. Conqueror, then radar cruisers. Z52 with hydro may have use. 

 

Cruisers will dominate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles
Just now, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

Really is how I read the meta. Conqueror, then radar cruisers. Z52 with hydro may have use. 

 

Cruisers will dominate

 

This is closer to accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×