Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Chaos_EN2

Deep Water torpedoes an idea

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,347
Members
4,203 posts

I notice on different post about the Graf Zeppelin that WG is "After analyzing your answers to the survey, we added standard torpedoes for t-bombers. In port you can choose standard or deep-waters torpedoes."

I wondering if WG has every thought about doing this for all CVs, and other Torpedo using ships?

What do you think? 

 

Edited by Chaos_EN2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
570
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,816 posts
6,263 battles

What possible advantage would you get from deep water torpedoes on torpedo bombers?  The biggest advantage they give is the short warning time - but when you can see the planes drop that advantage disappears.

That leaves only the disadvantage that you'll never be able to use them against destroyers - which, I know are not the best use of torpedo bombers, but you can still manually drop on smoke, and they are more reliable than bombs when you have a destroyer threatening your CV.

What am I missing here?

Failure of reading comprehension.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,347
Members
4,203 posts
13 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

What possible advantage would you get from deep water torpedoes on torpedo bombers?  The biggest advantage they give is the short warning time - but when you can see the planes drop that advantage disappears.

That leaves only the disadvantage that you'll never be able to use them against destroyers - which, I know are not the best use of torpedo bombers, but you can still manually drop on smoke, and they are more reliable than bombs when you have a destroyer threatening your CV.

What am I missing here?

Failure of reading comprehension.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Well what I meant is I was wondering if the whole idea of DWT,  "In port you can choose standard or deep-waters torpedoes." Let all ships that use Torpedoes choose in port DWT or standard torpedoes? Even the Pan Asian DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
570
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,816 posts
6,263 battles

Yeah, the part I missed was that they were adding the standard torpedoes.  Not the DWT.

Ooops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,387
[R-F]
Members
1,787 posts
10,867 battles

Giving Pan-Asian DDs the option to choose torpedo types would be a significant buff.  Even if the DD doesn't take the option, enemy DDs will have to take into account that the Pan-Asian MAY have them.  No more confidently charging smoke knowing there's no concern about incoming torpedoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,347
Members
4,203 posts
10 minutes ago, Brhinosaurus said:

Giving Pan-Asian DDs the option to choose torpedo types would be a significant buff.  Even if the DD doesn't take the option, enemy DDs will have to take into account that the Pan-Asian MAY have them.  No more confidently charging smoke knowing there's no concern about incoming torpedoes.

Well I just wondering how it would be across the board - choose type for Cruisers, BBs, etc. not just the PADDs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,790
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,753 posts
16,065 battles
1 hour ago, Brhinosaurus said:

Giving Pan-Asian DDs the option to choose torpedo types would be a significant buff.  Even if the DD doesn't take the option, enemy DDs will have to take into account that the Pan-Asian MAY have them.  No more confidently charging smoke knowing there's no concern about incoming torpedoes.

Nobody will use the DWT on PADD if given the choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,589 posts
8,799 battles
1 hour ago, HazardDrake said:

Nobody will use the DWT on PADD if given the choice.

This, because they're a dumb gimmick. 

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.

×