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

So why exactly does a dedicated AA support ship not have Defensive Fire?

135 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

508
[HEROS]
-Members-
1,455 posts
5,787 battles
4 hours ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Going with your doing what it's designed to do argument the Minotaur should also have DFAA, can you imagine what that would do to aircraft?

If the comments made by WG Devs about the Worcester come true (Radar, Hydro, DF) are true, we may yet get to see how badly Minotaur's AA would be on a platform that boasts VERY strong medium range AA in the form of those 3"/50's! =O  I suspect Worcester will make even Des Moines cry about AA powercreep!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,789
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,704 posts
2,122 battles
1 hour ago, UrPeaceKeeper said:

If the comments made by WG Devs about the Worcester come true (Radar, Hydro, DF) are true, we may yet get to see how badly Minotaur's AA would be on a platform that boasts VERY strong medium range AA in the form of those 3"/50's! =O  I suspect Worcester will make even Des Moines cry about AA powercreep!

Worcester's 3" armament is slightly superior to DM's - something like 346 dps vs 335 dps on DM - but the USN 6" AA really isn't anything special so that should balance out the AA - the total dps from the DP guns is less than DM's 5"/38's, despite the extra km of range. I believe @Carl could give you a better idea of what the effective dps would be between the two Tier X cruisers.

90.6 dps @ 5.0 km vs 76.2 dps @ 5.0 km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,469
[NGAGE]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
4,621 posts
6,965 battles

While I agree that it makes perfect sense for the Akizuki to get defensive fire due to the fact the real life ship was purpose designed for AAA support, this game does play fast and lose with how consumables are distributed.  For example, there are numerous ships in game with radar antennae physically modeled and visible on the ship, and yet they don't have access to the radar consumable.

At a certain point I have just accepted the Akizuki does not get defensive fire for the same reason the Montana does not get radar.

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
447
[STORM]
Alpha Tester
1,123 posts
3,973 battles
20 hours ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

The Yamato was built to be superior to any BB that America could build, not to be superior to relics from the previous war, they already had that covered. 

Yah because the Japanese had crystal balls that could predict the future. They did not even correctly predict or military strategy nor the importance of anti submarine warfare. 

Do you expect anyone here to believe the Japanese predicted the capabilities of North Carolina, South Dakota, or Iowa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
447
[STORM]
Alpha Tester
1,123 posts
3,973 battles
20 hours ago, AraAragami said:

amusing image of how Surigao Strait might have changed if it was Yamato and Musashi instead of Fuso and Yamashiro, but that's a different discussion.

I actually would content it probably would not have changed overmuch since the opening shots were from torpedo boats and destroyers with their launchers. Granted they didn't exactly take down the enemy but with another chance, who could say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[RUST]
Beta Testers
514 posts
4,682 battles

If it's a question of balance why not just give her a DFAA with a lower multiplier?  2 or 3x and the ability to widen incoming attacks is still plenty useful without creeping into tier10 levels of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
39 posts
22 hours ago, AraAragami said:

And this is a problem for a dedicated AA support platform because?

 

You're saying it would be OP for doing what it was designed to do.

Can the Cleveland have the Akizuki's concealment then?  No?  How about it's smoke?  Torps?  Oh, right...different classes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,300
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,182 posts
3,895 battles
23 minutes ago, Phaedryn said:

Can the Cleveland have the Akizuki's concealment then?  No?  How about it's smoke?  Torps?  Oh, right...different classes.

Can Cleveland have North Carolina's armor? Range? Shell diameter? See, I can do this too.

 

This is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. Nice distraction though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,250 posts
8,473 battles

I've long since sold my Akizuki for a few reasons. The ship gives up everything to be one of two things, but not both; the ability to be an effective dpm platform, or reasonably kill planes. The most practical use for speccing it for IFHE is to gun down enemy destroyers in a head to head fight. Sounds good, and it gave up a considerable amount of flexibility for this power, in both destroyer hunting and AA.

Along comes the Kidd, a ship I've purchased and wish the Akizuki had been. I do not sacrifice combat power by speccing fully into AA, and the only ship that can fight it in a head to head fight at tier 8 is the Akizuki...specced for IFHE. See my point?


The short version is, the Kidd is much more effective at what the Akizuki is designed to do (AA) because the Kidd has defensive fire. The Kidd is also a solid all rounder, only giving up 5 torpedoes for the ability to eviscerate planes and be a very big threat for all destroyers. Why would I play Akizuki now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,859
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,278 posts
8,483 battles
6 minutes ago, SeraphicRadiance said:

I've long since sold my Akizuki for a few reasons. The ship gives up everything to be one of two things, but not both; the ability to be an effective dpm platform, or reasonably kill planes. The most practical use for speccing it for IFHE is to gun down enemy destroyers in a head to head fight. Sounds good, and it gave up a considerable amount of flexibility for this power, in both destroyer hunting and AA.

Along comes the Kidd, a ship I've purchased and wish the Akizuki had been. I do not sacrifice combat power by speccing fully into AA, and the only ship that can fight it in a head to head fight at tier 8 is the Akizuki...specced for IFHE. See my point?


The short version is, the Kidd is much more effective at what the Akizuki is designed to do (AA) because the Kidd has defensive fire. The Kidd is also a solid all rounder, only giving up 5 torpedoes for the ability to eviscerate planes and be a very big threat for all destroyers. Why would I play Akizuki now?

 

Because it’s Akizuki and not everything about this game has to revolve around chasing the utmost meta of ships, outside of ranked that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,250 posts
8,473 battles
32 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

 

Because it’s Akizuki and not everything about this game has to revolve around chasing the utmost meta of ships, outside of ranked that is.

Then the ship is not for me. It has way too many frustrating qualities about it, and the existence of the Kidd in a much less frustrating package has hurt my motivation to ever return to it. I have fun in every game in the Kidd, partly because it's ridiculously broken, and partly because it's not slow, sluggish, nor requiring you to spec it in one end of the extreme; to fight planes or ships that angle.

I love the actual Akizuki class, I want to play it, but the way the ship plays has always been on the borderline of fun and frustration to actually play.

I've always been peeved at the give-and-take nature of the Akizuki's gameplay style, and the existence of a ship that actually beats it at the one thing the Akizuki was designed to do well is just nasty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,799
Alpha Tester
7,113 posts
3,731 battles

Simply put the Akizuki has best in ship type AA at Tier 8 without DF being active.

Her not having DF is probably to keep her from being too powerful compared to other Tier 8 DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[TROY]
Members
212 posts
2,936 battles
23 hours ago, Ulthwey said:

It doesnt have defensive fire because of the long range of its AA. Putting defensive fire on it would give it a huge umbrella, that would dwarf the Kidd in terms if both range and DPS. Basically it would make the ship OP as f*ck.

 

23 hours ago, AraAragami said:

And this is a problem for a dedicated AA support platform because?

 

You're saying it would be OP for doing what it was designed to do.

There is no reason that they couldn't give it a unique defensive fire consumable.  They made on specifically for Kidd and for the Hood afterall.

 

23 hours ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

Yamato was designed to be able to take on multiple enemy BBs and win. Are you saying that it would be balanced for the Yamato to be more powerful than several other tier 10 BBs combined because thats what it was designed to do? 

The difference is that the Yamato currently in game is designed and performing like her specs say she should with the armament and armor that she should have.

For comparison it is like if WG put the Yamato in game with only 16" guns instead of her 18.1"s.  She would still be a battleship with massive armor and torpedo defense but she just wouldn't be as good because she would be missing her overmatch and raw damage potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,859
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,278 posts
8,483 battles
27 minutes ago, SeraphicRadiance said:

Then the ship is not for me. It has way too many frustrating qualities about it, and the existence of the Kidd in a much less frustrating package has hurt my motivation to ever return to it. I have fun in every game in the Kidd, partly because it's ridiculously broken, and partly because it's not slow, sluggish, nor requiring you to spec it in one end of the extreme; to fight planes or ships that angle.

I love the actual Akizuki class, I want to play it, but the way the ship plays has always been on the borderline of fun and frustration to actually play.

I've always been peeved at the give-and-take nature of the Akizuki's gameplay style, and the existence of a ship that actually beats it at the one thing the Akizuki was designed to do well is just nasty.

 

 

Stats wise wise she gives every indication of performing well. The problem may be as simple as the fact that the ship doesn’t actually fit your ideal play-style, while Kidd (a premium ship, which are often overpowered in some way or another) does. In terms of designed function in real life, the USN destroyers put just as large of a focus on AA capability as the Akizuki, albeit in different methods. More often than not though, the ship functions well ingame.

 

On another note, most ships require dedicated builds in order to squeeze every bit of performance out of them and make them somewhat competitive. This is true of almost every destroyer and most cruisers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,859
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,278 posts
8,483 battles
2 minutes ago, Stampz said:

Historically dedicated AA boats should have DF. 

 

Gib burger BB defensive fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,300
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,182 posts
3,895 battles
16 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

 

Gib burger BB defensive fire.

I actually have no problem with AADF on North Carolina, Iowa, and Montana. AA screening is nearly all Iowa did anyway.

 

Though given the AA power they already have, the damage bonus should be low. But still have the scattering/panic effect. Probably fewer charges compared to cruisers, too.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,528
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,953 posts
4,333 battles

Inferior radar that was not tied to the FCS. 

 

Thats why she does not have DF. 

The Akizuki class destroyers featured fairly sophisticated electronics suites. In 1943 the ships received Type 21 radar sets, followed by Type 22 installed in 1944. The Akizuki was also equipped with the Type 13 air search radar. Unfortunately, the radar sets were inferior to their U.S. counterparts and could not be integrated with the ship’s fire control system, which greatly limited combat capability of the Imperial Navy vessels, including the Akizuki class destroyers. In addition to the radar sets the new destroyers were also most likely equipped with radar warning receivers. Type 92 hydrophones and Type 93 sonar were used in anti-submarine warfare operations.


The Akizuki’s complement was initially 263 officers and sailors, but later grew to 335 due to installation of additional AA guns and electronic equipment.


In summary, the Akizuki class destroyers were well designed and capable warships, custom tailored to their intended employment. Their weaknesses included inferior radar and rather poor ASW capabilities when compared to their U.S. Navy counterparts. In the anti-aircraft role the Akizuki could have performed much better had she been equipped with medium-caliber AA guns (similar to a 40 mm Bofors weapon). The 25 mm guns simply did not pack enough punch and could not be trained fast enough to track fast-flying U.S. Navy aircraft. The guns’ relatively small caliber meant that even a direct hit would not always bring down an enemy aircraft. Having said that, the Akizuki class destroyers still deserve their place among the best World War II warships of that type.

 

Forgot to mention that the type 94 was a horrible AA FCS. 

Type 95 was only tied to the 25mm's. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,300
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,182 posts
3,895 battles
13 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

Inferior radar that was not tied to the FCS. 

 

Thats why she does not have DF. 

Hood has Defensive Fire with rockets that didn't even function properly in reality. Aoba and Myoko didn't have AA radar tied to AA guns either. I don't think Mogami did. And of course, the British cruisers did have advanced anti-air radar and even VT fuzes but don't have defensive fire.

 

The reality argument doesn't work because many other ships break it already.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,528
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,953 posts
4,333 battles
1 minute ago, AraAragami said:

Hood has Defensive Fire with rockets that didn't even function properly in reality. Aoba and Myoko didn't have AA radar tied to AA guns either. I don't think Mogami did. And of course, the British cruisers did have advanced anti-air radar and even VT fuzes but don't have defensive fire.

 

The reality argument doesn't work because many other ships break it already.

You asked for a reason why Akizuki doesn't have DF. 

 

The question isn't why she doesn't have DF. It's why should she? 

She was not a good AA platform, the 100mm where not tied to the air search radar and the Type 95 FCS could only be used with the 25mm for AA duty. 

 

She had all the brawn for an AA platform, but none of the brains. 

 

It's like saying the 5inch mk 37 would of been a great AA gun without its superior FCS and air radar. No it would not of been. 

 

I am not saying that 10 cm/65 Type 98 naval gun wasn't a bad AA gun. It was a great AA gun, that lacked the ability to track and hit its targets. 

If it was a superior AA gun as its touted.. Then it would of performed much better then it did in reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,528
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,953 posts
4,333 battles
1 hour ago, Stampz said:

Historically dedicated AA boats should have DF. 

Historically dedicated AA boat that was not good at shooting down planes should not get DF AA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
287
[-SCL-]
Beta Testers
902 posts
7,688 battles
1 minute ago, Cobraclutch said:

Historically dedicated AA boat that was not good at shooting down planes should not get DF AA. 

Then it should get DFAA cause the damn in-game description of the ship calls it a dedicated AA platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,300
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,182 posts
3,895 battles
20 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

You asked for a reason why Akizuki doesn't have DF. 

 

The question isn't why she doesn't have DF. It's why should she? 

She was not a good AA platform, the 100mm where not tied to the air search radar and the Type 95 FCS could only be used with the 25mm for AA duty. 

 

She had all the brawn for an AA platform, but none of the brains. 

 

It's like saying the 5inch mk 37 would of been a great AA gun without its superior FCS and air radar. No it would not of been. 

 

I am not saying that 10 cm/65 Type 98 naval gun wasn't a bad AA gun. It was a great AA gun, that lacked the ability to track and hit its targets. 

If it was a superior AA gun as its touted.. Then it would of performed much better then it did in reality. 

And Hood's AA rockets were a bigger threat to Hood than the planes they were fired at.

 

And Aoba had no AA tracking at all.

 

And Minotaur has advanced AA radar and tracking but does not have DFAA.

 

As I said, the "reality" argument doesn't hold water because there are too many examples that run counter to it.

 

Think about this: If Akizuki is actually capable of skilling for AA, than her anti-destroyer role is nerfed-- She can't have IFHE, CE, DE, BFT, and AFT all at the same time. The captain is forced to choose and that means encountering an Akizuki is no longer a guaranteed "90-100% of my health is gone" situation for tier 10 non-Khabarovsks.

 

I ate a Z-52 alive last night. A Z52. One of the strongest cap fighters in the game.

Edited by AraAragami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,528
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,953 posts
4,333 battles
5 minutes ago, Stampz said:

Then it should get DFAA cause the damn in-game description of the ship calls it a dedicated AA platform.

 

Just because something is designed to do something, doesn't mean it will be good at doing it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
810
[MIA-I]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,799 posts
8,635 battles

I find it quite hilarious that the akizuki's biggest weakness is torpedo bombers due to its speed and turning circle. Even if you invest all of your skill points into AA, good luck surviving a strike from a good carrier player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×