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

Just cause I'm tired of hearing it.

112 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,151
[DDMAF]
Members
2,110 posts
13,074 battles
5 minutes ago, Captain_Slattery said:

ANOTHER reason to like cucumbers!  Cats hate them!

I'm glad you started posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,107
[LEGIO]
Members
3,321 posts
6,410 battles
2 hours ago, JackBinary said:

Yes, historically, ships only carried as many torpedoes as they had tubes.

However:
Historically, torpedoes were only visible withing the "you're already doomed" range, and all ships could single fire their torpedoes.
Also, many IJN Destroyers carried reloads on ship, allowing them to carry double the torpedoes compared to their launchers.

The torpedoes are nerfed from their historical strong points, and in return destroyers were granted reloads.
Stop complaining, Battleship mains.

Historically torpedoes also had a tendency to wander off in the wrong direction, explode when hit while still on the ship carrying them, travelled some 20 knots on average slower than they do in game, and could also fail to fuse correctly.

So don't dare say torpedoes were nerfed.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
698
[NOBS]
Members
1,119 posts
8,277 battles
10 minutes ago, Lampshade_M1A2 said:

Historically torpedoes also had a tendency to wander off in the wrong direction, explode when hit while still on the ship carrying them, travelled some 20 knots on average slower than they do in game, and could also fail to fuse correctly.

So don't dare say torpedoes were nerfed.

I don't think Nerf torpedoes would benefit the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,705
[SYN]
Members
3,419 posts
11,583 battles

As a BB main, I think it's Fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,083
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,833 posts
7,788 battles
3 hours ago, JackBinary said:

Yes, historically, ships only carried as many torpedoes as they had tubes.

And historically, there were hundreds of Destroyers while the number of Battleships was only a fraction of that (for example, the IJN had 12 Battleships starting from 1912, while the Special Type Destroyers from the Fubuki and following classes alone numbered over 100, and we are already excluding the ship classes that came between 1912 and the Fubuki class, or the Matsu and Tachibana class).

Meanwhile in this game ships are balanced more or less on a 1v1 Basis (except CVs, becauses lol Balance). So if we put that into perspective, one Destroyer in-game is historically a handful of Destroyers.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
333
[SPUDS]
Members
571 posts
3,418 battles

To be clear, I'm not asking for buffs or calling for nerfs, I'm just tired of seeing the point brought up over and over again, I just wanted to say that "it could be so much worse"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
865
[WOLF3]
Members
1,693 posts
6,446 battles
3 hours ago, JackBinary said:

To be clear, I'm not asking for buffs or calling for nerfs, I'm just tired of seeing the point brought up over and over again, I just wanted to say that "it could be so much worse"

 

True enough there.  Imagine a random game with 9 destroyers on each side.  One side had longlance torps and the other had torps that were mostly duds.  Just like the US torps early in the war.

 

CS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
228
[FOG]
Members
641 posts
6,508 battles
3 hours ago, kgh52 said:

Like it or not people compare the game to real ships and actual war. Like it or not no destroyer sunk a battleship. DD's get buffed & BB's nerfed to balance the game and that will continually be a topic for debate.

 

The destroyer USS Melvin arguably sunk the IJN battleship Fuso in the Battle of the Suriago Straits.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,213
[USCC2]
Members
4,942 posts
5 hours ago, JackBinary said:

Yes, historically, ships only carried as many torpedoes as they had tubes.

However:
Historically, torpedoes were only visible withing the "you're already doomed" range, and all ships could single fire their torpedoes.
Also, many IJN Destroyers carried reloads on ship, allowing them to carry double the torpedoes compared to their launchers.

The torpedoes are nerfed from their historical strong points, and in return destroyers were granted reloads.
Stop complaining, Battleship mains.

To start a  thread to have a go at a ship type seems a waste of time and is only going to fuel the silly BB/DD arguments all over again. I get it if you are addressing someone's claim of something being unfair (but even then all that will happen is that the 2 sides will only argue their pov).

This is a game that is supposed to be balanced so that you have an equal reward if you play equally well. So it will never be historically/irl correct. :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
8,070 battles

I find it extremely amusing when people try to make the realism argument and state "but but but torpedoes didn't have reloads in real life"... and its usually a BB player.

I'm like oh yea?

Guess what else?

- Radar didn't go through islands, and was quite unreliable for anything other than surface contact acquisition. It was also easily destroyable, very fragile, and even malfunctioned a lot
- A single torpedo can take a ship completely out of action even if it didn't sink it. In WoWs, that would obviously be emulated as outright sinking.

- BB main batteries were  a fraction of a fraction as accurate as they are in game. BB main battery accuracy are the most bloated by far in game in comparison to real work recorded performance in action. Have fun with that 6% hit rate you back campers, and for most of you that is probably even pushing it.

- To even have a semblance of the economic and industrial requirements emulated in game, have fun with that 1 BB limit per team and almost unlimited amount of DDs.

 

Edited by zarth12
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
424
[K0]
Members
1,710 posts
6,839 battles
3 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

And historically, there were hundreds of Destroyers while the number of Battleships was only a fraction of that (for example, the IJN had 12 Battleships starting from 1912, while the Special Type Destroyers from the Fubuki and following classes alone numbered over 100, and we are already excluding the ship classes that came between 1912 and the Fubuki class, or the Matsu and Tachibana class).

Meanwhile in this game ships are balanced more or less on a 1v1 Basis (except CVs, becauses lol Balance). So if we put that into perspective, one Destroyer in-game is historically a handful of Destroyers.

175 Fletchers alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,083
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,833 posts
7,788 battles
58 minutes ago, DJC_499 said:

The destroyer USS Melvin arguably sunk the IJN battleship Fuso in the Battle of the Suriago Straits.....

Yamashiro also ate two Torpedoes from US Destroyers before sinking, though one could argue about her sinking only because of the shell fire from earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,596
[5BS]
Members
8,065 posts
6 hours ago, JackBinary said:

Yes, historically, ships only carried as many torpedoes as they had tubes.

However:
Historically, torpedoes were only visible withing the "you're already doomed" range, and all ships could single fire their torpedoes.
Also, many IJN Destroyers carried reloads on ship, allowing them to carry double the torpedoes compared to their launchers.

The torpedoes are nerfed from their historical strong points, and in return destroyers were granted reloads.
Stop complaining, Battleship mains.

I'm a cruiser main and I still think DD's are getting way too many Sci-Fi buffs. We can play the back and forth all day but DD's were not front line ships and were pretty much meat for any ship that came across them.

As a short list of Sci-Fi buffs DD's have received:

1) Stealth Field Cloaking Generator: if you do the horizon math, and you know, spend time at sea, a Shimkaze's *deck* is visible from the PILOT HOUSE of a Baltimore at ~14 km, and, visually from a human eye, is about 1.2 inches long at that distance. So no magical disappearance at 5.8 km.

2) 0 Duds from torps. All torps, including the Long Lance, suffered high failure rates (just some were worse), with torps failing to detonate, blowing up prematurely, engines just randomly stopping (major problem for the Long Lance if the O2 had any impurities in it) and no, a side-swipe along the side of a ship didn't make them blow up as they do in game. They also tended to all blow up in the wakes of ships, meaning if they passed at least ~2 km *behind* a ship they blew up and wouldn't hit someone further away. Also, before it is mentioned, a dud torp is MUCH less important than a dud shell: a dud shell is an overpen, a dud torp is... nothing.

3) Secondary Guns on Cruisers/BB's are nerfed to a staggering degree: every USN cruiser should play like they have *2* Gearings strapped to each side, USN BB's should play like they have an Atlanta strapped to each side, and same is true for each respective nation for the most part.

4) The way overpens function in-game disproportionately help DD's: Imagine I blow a 16" hole through both sides of your ship below the water line; take a guess what happens to a ship where that happens? Especially considering that while many, MANY BB's had reserve buoyancy in the 20-25% (meaning 20-25% of their hull volume could be completely flooded and the ship still float and operate with ease), most DD's had as little as 2-5% reserve buoyancy, meaning nearly ANY flooding would sink them.

5) No torpedo detonations/depth charge detonations: even though most DD's sunk, had one or both blow up at some point in their death, these aspects are entirely absent in game.

6) Radar is totally gimped in game: Radar should be on 100% of the time and work out to up to and including 15-20 km (and more for later sets) and be mounted on, essentially, every USN, RN, and a few KM ships.

7) Accuracy is inverted in game: we've had a topic that went at length to this, but take it as a short explanation: accuracy does not equal precision:

precision_accuracy.png

Naval artillery was typically high precision, low accuracy (as predicting bearing, speed, and distance to target was archaic at best, while locking all the gun turrets on the same elevation setting and bearing is easy and as such, the shells typically fall close together). That said, BB's, and really in general, the heavier the shell, the MORE precise it was. Again, accuracy is a function of the ship's spotters, not the guns, precision is a function of the guns AND the stability of a ship. And as a basic principle of physics, the HEAVIER object will be more stable in motion (this refers to both the shells and the ship firing them). So BB's should enjoy a higher degree of *precision* than DD's meaning that while, often, their whole salvo will miss, when it DOES connect it should be more than 1 shell, while the opposite would be more fair for them.

8) Damage Control favors DD's: so DC efforts on a ship are a function of surviving crew, surviving crew is a function of human density (as in, humans per square meter) and raw number of people: so a ship with a higher density AND a larger number of people, like say, a BB, is better able to move around people for DC efforts while a ship with lower density and a lower number of persons, cannot. Put literally: a DD will only have a 2 maybe 3 cooks for the whole ship that can be shifted to DCP efforts during a fight, a BB or larger CA will have dozens. As such DD DCP's should take LONGER to reload than a BB's/CA's as it should take longer for them to shift their efforts from one damaged area of a ship, to another, given the fewer number of people and that, as damage takes place, their is a FAR greater effect on the ships human density than that of a CA or BB.

9) Range/Distance compression favors DD's exclusively; so we all know range is compressed in game, so that torps move at ~120 kph and ships at ~70 kph. This has a much greater benefit for DD's as their torps become FUNCTIONAL at range (whereas they would not be in reality given the sheer volume of random maneuvers made by ships (and that a real 'high' speed torp took MINUTES to reach max range) and likewise allows ''fast' DD's to be even capable of closing ranges to get to their targets.

10) Lack of Carriers/carrier attacks favoring attacking Capital ships instead of DD's; in reality CV's killed DD's FAR more often than other CV's/BB's or even CA/CL's. The reason has mostly to do with the fact DD's are defensive, not offensive, ships and often were the first line of defense around a carrier and thus, the first things attacked *but* it also had to do with that, for all intents and purposes, it's no harder for a DB or even a TB to hit a DD than it is any other ship. As such the air drop cone for a DB should be 100% able to land all their bombs on a DD, yet they don't (but can on say, a BB). This disproportionately favors DD's in yet ANOTHER way.

So there's just 10 reasons (I can think of more) that DD's have gotten Sci-Fi upgrades. So before you claim that it's 'fair' that DD's get these magical reloads, understand to just what degree they have been 'buffed' to make them playable in game.

 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,057
[TDRB]
Members
3,168 posts
9,621 battles
Quote

The destroyer USS Melvin arguably sunk the IJN battleship Fuso in the Battle of the Suriago Straits....

The arguably part is if the torpedo was fired by the Melvin. The Fuso was damaged by bombs the day before making it a wounded ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,440
[DEV_X]
Members
2,150 posts
19,822 battles

People just don't grasp online game balance. You can't have a class or type of anything that has more HP/Armor and does more damage per shot against another class or type with 1/5th of the HP/armor and really low damage potential. It's like one of these posters going out and fighting a lion in real life. You're not going to win if you don't balance your chance of winning with a weapon. 

I also find it funny that people want to cry for certain aspects to be more historic but think carriers are or were to powerful. Historical, carriers should be the most powerful ships in existence at this time. Just look at Yamato, the most powerful battleship in history, destroyed by planes.

This game has a basis in history but it is only a basis. It's not a historical simulator and people just need to accept that. 

Perhaps at some point Wargaming will release a complete historic mode in which the ships are accurate to history in performance. Then I would hope they force players to play every ship type a few times so they could grasp the idea of online gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
5 hours ago, kgh52 said:

Like it or not people compare the game to real ships and actual war. Like it or not no destroyer sunk a battleship. DD's get buffed & BB's nerfed to balance the game and that will continually be a topic for debate.

 

You would be incorrect sir, during the battle of the Surigao Strait USN destroyers attacked and sunk the IJN Fuso with torpedoes. I am not trying to insult you, I am just pointing out that destroyers were a danger to battleships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,596
[5BS]
Members
8,065 posts
2 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

You would be incorrect sir, during the battle of the Surigao Strait USN destroyers attacked and sunk the IJN Fuso with torpedoes. I am not trying to insult you, I am just pointing out that destroyers were a danger to battleships. 

Just so you are aware, the Melvin is the only time a DD torped and sunk a BB. Out of ~55 BB's since the Launch of HMS Dreadnought to be sunk, only *1* of those was from a Destroyer. The vast majority were from enemy planes, mines, and Submarines. A few more were gunned to pieces, and 3-4 were sunk by *TORPEDO BOATS* actual torpedo boats, but only 1, Fuso, was sunk by a DD.

So point of fact, DD's were not a danger to BB's and historically, it ended very, very badly for those DD's that tried front on attacks on BB's; the flip side to the story of the Battle Off Samar is that all 3 of the DD's present (and they did not damage the enemy BB's, just pushed them out of position) were sunk and/or HEAVILY damaged with huge losses of life. It was a *bad* idea to attack a capital ship in a DD and almost always ended in a tactical loss.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49
[_CIA_]
Members
364 posts
3,976 battles

I haven't bothered to look it up for myself at this time, too much going on, sorry, but in one naval battle in the pacific against Japan, U.S. destroyers sank BB. I will research when I can. Was on a documentary I watched.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
Just now, Spieges said:

People just don't grasp online game balance. You can't have a class or type of anything that has more HP/Armor and does more damage per shot against another class or type with 1/5th of the HP/armor and really low damage potential. It's like one of these posters going out and fighting a lion in real life. You're not going to win if you don't balance your chance of winning with a weapon. 

I also find it funny that people want to cry for certain aspects to be more historic but think carriers are or were to powerful. Historical, carriers should be the most powerful ships in existence at this time. Just look at Yamato, the most powerful battleship in history, destroyed by planes.

This game has a basis in history but it is only a basis. It's not a historical simulator and people just need to accept that. 

Perhaps at some point Wargaming will release a complete historic mode in which the ships are accurate to history in performance. Then I would hope they force players to play every ship type a few times so they could grasp the idea of online gaming.

Well, when you look at the Yamato and Musashi they were either alone or had a very light escort. It took the carriers with TOTAL air superiority over three hours to sink the Yamato. The Yamato took something INSANE like 17 torpedo hits and 19 bomb hits before she succumbed to the damage. Yes, carriers were very powerful but by the end of the war with VT fuses, radar-directed anti-aircraft guns and the massive amount of AA weapons on ships the effectiveness of carrier aircraft attacking large formations of heavily defended ships is debatable. Even when resorting to mass Kamakazi attacks, hits were pretty rare.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,440
[DEV_X]
Members
2,150 posts
19,822 battles
1 minute ago, Belthorian said:

Well, when you look at the Yamato and Musashi they were either alone or had a very light escort. It took the carriers with TOTAL air superiority over three hours to sink the Yamato. The Yamato took something INSANE like 17 torpedo hits and 19 bomb hits before she succumbed to the damage. Yes, carriers were very powerful but by the end of the war with VT fuses, radar-directed anti-aircraft guns and the massive amount of AA weapons on ships the effectiveness of carrier aircraft attacking large formations of heavily defended ships is debatable. Even when resorting to mass Kamakazi attacks, hits were pretty rare.

Valid points, I was just trying to think of an example. I'm sure there are other, better examples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,596
[5BS]
Members
8,065 posts
7 minutes ago, DannyS76 said:

I haven't bothered to look it up for myself at this time, too much going on, sorry, but in one naval battle in the pacific against Japan, U.S. destroyers sank BB. I will research when I can. Was on a documentary I watched.

 

Just one, ever: the USS Melvin torped the IJN Fuso at the Battle of Surigao Strait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_battleships

Frankly cruisers have more confirmed kills on BB's with torps.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,271 battles
4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Just so you are aware, the Melvin is the only time a DD torped and sunk a BB. Out of ~55 BB's since the Launch of HMS Dreadnought to be sunk, only *1* of those was from a Destroyer. The vast majority were from enemy planes, mines, and Submarines. A few more were gunned to pieces, and 3-4 were sunk by *TORPEDO BOATS* actual torpedo boats, but only 1, Fuso, was sunk by a DD.

So point of fact, DD's were not a danger to BB's and historically, it ended very, very badly for those DD's that tried front on attacks on BB's; the flip side to the story of the Battle Off Samar is that all 3 of the DD's present (and they did not damage the enemy BB's, just pushed them out of position) were sunk and/or HEAVILY damaged with huge losses of life. It was a *bad* idea to attack a capital ship in a DD and almost always ended in a tactical loss.

Respectfully I disagree, could destroyers just waltz up to a battleship and sink them, of course not. Was attacking a battleship very dangerous, of course. However in the right situation yes destroyers were a big threat to battleships. There is a reason battleships had such heavy secondary batteries, to deal with destroyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×