Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
_RC1138

HMS Cossack is a proper Tribal Now

56 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,574
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts

https://thedailybounce.net/2018/03/28/world-of-warships-0-7-4-supertest-hms-cossack-changes/

HMS Cossack is now in it's *proper* 4x2 configuration. WGing, take my money please. And if *I'm* saying that, you know I mean business.

Cossack-1.png

Cossack-2.png

Cossack-3.pngCossack-4.png

HMS Cossack Stats

General

Tier VII
Hitpoints 14,800 HP
Maximum speed 36.0 kt
Turning radius 610 m
Rudder shift time 4.7 s
Engine Power 44,000 h.p.
Surface detectability range 6.49 km
Air detectability range 3.9 km
Detectability after firing main guns in smoke 2.31 km

Main Battery

Guns ‎4×2 120 mm
Reloading Time 5 s
Accuracy  
Sigma 2.00 σ
Horizontal Dispersion 111
Vertical Spread 208
Horizontal Traverse Speed 10
Vertical Traverse Speed 10
Type of projectile HE
Alpha damage 1 700
Burn prob 0.08
Projectile speed 808
Type of projectile AP
Alpha damage 2 100
Projectile speed 808

Torpedoes

Torpedoes ‎4×1 533 mm
Reloading time 96
Horizontal Traverse Speed 25
Vertical Traverse Speed 25
Torpedo angles 4.8…6
Alpha damage 47,000
Average Damage 16,033
Alpha piercing HE 1,000
Speed 62 kt
Max Distance 10.0 km
Surface detectability range 1.3 km

Anti-Air Defence

1 x 4 40 mm
Antiair aura 0.13
Maximum firing range 2.5 km
Reloading time 0.5
2 x 4 12.7 mm
Antiair aura 0.04
Maximum firing range 1.2 km
Reloading time 0.1

Consumables

Slot 1
Slot 2
Slot 3
Slot 4

pcy001_crashcrew.png?w=780&ssl=1

‎Damage Control Party I

pcy006_smokegenerator.png?w=780&ssl=1

‎Smoke Generator I

pcy007_speedbooster.png?w=780&ssl=1

‎Engine Boost I

pcy008_sonarsearch.png?w=780&ssl=1

‎Hydroacoustic Search I

pcy009_crashcrewpremium.png?w=780&ssl=1

‎Damage Control Party II

pcy014_smokegeneratorpremium.png?w=780&ssl=1

‎Smoke Generator II

pcy015_speedboosterpremium.png?w=780&ssl=1

‎Engine Boost II

pcy016_sonarsearchpremium.png?w=780&ssl=1

‎Hydroacoustic Search II

 

To you IJN Scum and USN Peasants, prepare for a proper warship.

Joking aside, I can't wait, but it does make me feel bad for my beloved Sims. How again does this ship not totally eclipse/power creep it (and by extension, the Mahan)?

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,574
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts
7 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Your use of the word "proper" confuses me. 

Can't hear you Mouse, this is playing too loud:

Also in keeping with feeling positively British right now, proper means (in this context) thoroughly:

adverb

British informaldialect
adverb: proper
  1. 1.
    satisfactorily or correctly.
    "my eyes were all blurry and I couldn't see proper"
    • thoroughly.
      "I had been fooled good and proper"

So it's 'thoroughly' a Tribal.

https://britishisms.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/a-proper/

 

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,735
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,531 posts
11,530 battles

This is excellent and surprising news, thank you Wargaming!

Although it's only a slight modification the model-develop-test-release process always seemed to flow downhill, so I'm somewhat surprised they did this.

 

It looks like she keeps the 6.5km base concealment, 10km torpedoes and hydro which were added when WG realized her initial implementation was pretty garbage. I'd expect to see some or all of that be taken back in exchange.

 

Now my only problem is that Jack Dunkirk has TAE rather than BFT!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,574
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts
2 minutes ago, mofton said:

It looks like she keeps the 6.5km base concealment, 10km torpedoes and hydro which were added when WG realized her initial implementation was pretty garbage. I'd expect to see some or all of that be taken back in exchange.

I *suspect* she's gona end up losing Hydro. It's a bit much otherwise. Like I said, I don't really see how a Sims for example is expect to play against this. Yes a sims is *slightly* more concealable, and faster turrets and reload, but not enough to make up for the extra *4* barrels. Likewise ships like the Mahan are a bit out of a proper Tribal's league. So I would expect a slight increase to her spotting distance and the hydro to disappear. Still, that's fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,631
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
8,213 posts
7,205 battles

3wUeUj1.jpg

Did someone say 'proper' warship?

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,954
[ARGSY]
Members
10,207 posts
6,652 battles

Ohhh, I am tempted, so tempted...

Trouble is, what are they going to put into the Tech tree now? :Smile_teethhappy:

(If they give us the chance to win this thing, I am going to move heaven and earth to do it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,860
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers, WoWS Wiki Editor
6,775 posts
4,413 battles

She was a real tribal before... This is just her earlier self. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27,864
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,934 posts
8,379 battles
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Ohhh, I am tempted, so tempted...

Trouble is, what are they going to put into the Tech tree now? :Smile_teethhappy:

(If they give us the chance to win this thing, I am going to move heaven and earth to do it.)

Probably the N-class destroyer (Gadjah Mada's class).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,735
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,531 posts
11,530 battles
9 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I *suspect* she's gona end up losing Hydro. It's a bit much otherwise. Like I said, I don't really see how a Sims for example is expect to play against this. Yes a sims is *slightly* more concealable, and faster turrets and reload, but not enough to make up for the extra *4* barrels. Likewise ships like the Mahan are a bit out of a proper Tribal's league. So I would expect a slight increase to her spotting distance and the hydro to disappear. Still, that's fine by me.

Sims has worse concealment I thought? Cossack with 6.5 according to this, Sims is at 7.6. That does make things tricky for the USN gunboat, outspotted by a better close-range gunboat is always awkward.

The theoretical Sims advantages are in double the torpedo broadside (though markedly inferior fish, with faster reload) traverse, probably some firing angles as I think Cossack's Y turret will still have bad angles. For all that Cossack should outgun her comfortably if she can get all turrets on target.

So certainly better than Sims, how much so is uncertain and to what extent that's a problem unknown.

2 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Ohhh, I am tempted, so tempted...

Trouble is, what are they going to put into the Tech tree now? :Smile_teethhappy:

(If they give us the chance to win this thing, I am going to move heaven and earth to do it.)

I never thought it was a good idea to put a Tribal in the main line as it was. The ship is too different from the others being extremely gun rather than torpedo oriented.

 

Edited by mofton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,954
[ARGSY]
Members
10,207 posts
6,652 battles
Just now, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Probably the N-class destroyer (Gadjah Mada's class).

Gadjah Mada with torps that can kill everything and British smoke meta = people on their knees screaming and begging for NERF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,574
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts
3 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

3wUeUj1.jpg

Did someone say 'proper' warship?

I know you mugs in the colonies gave the Queen's a right tousy but you best be presently awares of proper good English.

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27,864
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,934 posts
8,379 battles
7 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I *suspect* she's gona end up losing Hydro. It's a bit much otherwise. Like I said, I don't really see how a Sims for example is expect to play against this. Yes a sims is *slightly* more concealable, and faster turrets and reload, but not enough to make up for the extra *4* barrels. Likewise ships like the Mahan are a bit out of a proper Tribal's league. So I would expect a slight increase to her spotting distance and the hydro to disappear. Still, that's fine by me.

Sims is nowhere near as stealthy as Cossack.  Cossack is, hands down, the stealthiest destroyer at tier VII.  Cossack has a 6.49km surface detection range while stock.  Sims has 7.56km.  Sims can get her surface detection down to 6.6km while Cossack can get hers down to 5.67km -- just over 900m difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,574
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts
Just now, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Sims is nowhere near as stealthy as Cossack.  Cossack is, hands down, the stealthiest destroyer at tier VII.  Cossack has a 6.49km surface detection range while stock.  Sims has 7.56km.  Sims can get her surface detection down to 6.6km while Cossack can get hers down to 5.67km -- just over 900m difference. 

Yes I see that. That's a bigger problem than I thought. A Sims is almost incapable of fighting one of these in a straight knife fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,631
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
8,213 posts
7,205 battles
5 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I know you mugs in the colonies gave the Queen's a right tousy but you best be presently awares of proper good English.

I am not living in a colony (or ex-Colony), though the Queen did govern a quarter of my nation at some point :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
453
[HELLS]
Members
2,034 posts
19,420 battles

AA configuration with the 4-inch twin in X position as a potential AA upgrade. That would put her in line with Sims and Blyskawica . Her AA is weak, but they can still have my money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,954
[ARGSY]
Members
10,207 posts
6,652 battles
4 minutes ago, mofton said:

The ship is too different from the others being extremely gun rather than torpedo oriented.

In many ways, clearly a destroyer... in some others, clearly a baby (4.7 inch-gunned) Leander. PT, LS/AR, BFT, CE, IFHE... did I miss anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,574
[5BS]
Members
6,721 posts
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

In many ways, clearly a destroyer... in some others, clearly a baby (4.7 inch-gunned) Leander. PT, LS/AR, BFT, CE, IFHE... did I miss anything?

I have a 19 point RN DD Captain waiting for the rest of the line, so alas, my Tribal Captain will need to make use of whatever the highest tier RN DD I want to keep uses, but thus far I'm thinking, PM, LS/SSE, DE/BFT, IFHE/CE. AR is a waste on DD's, especially a gunboat like a Tribal (what, maybe *1* second and change will get knocked off the reload?), and IFHE to bully cruisers. I'd want to see the arcs, cause depending on how they feel, a PM/PT, LS. DE. IFHE/CE/AFT build might be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[STW-N]
[STW-N]
Members
36 posts
12,090 battles

possible 5.5 km best concealment built and with hydro at Tier 7???

I cannot recall any regular DD at tier 7 has lower than 6.0 km concealment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27,864
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
9,934 posts
8,379 battles
28 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

In many ways, clearly a destroyer... in some others, clearly a baby (4.7 inch-gunned) Leander. PT, LS/AR, BFT, CE, IFHE... did I miss anything?

The Tribal-class was originally imagined as a concept for a light-cruiser, so you're not too far off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,667
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,545 posts
2,090 battles

I'm going to assume that the hydro's gonna go bye-bye, but happy to see her like this...

And now I think a whole bunch of people are going to be plenty pleased that Haida will still be unique whenever she happens.

 

On that note, now that we have a Tribal in-game... Da Zara, where'd you put the Eugenio?

 

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.

×