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

4,148
Members
24,019 posts
6,035 battles
8 hours ago, legozer said:

in Hidden Valley ranch dressing. Now, here's the important part: only introduce the simulated bacon bits....

Are you sure you aren't American? Renee's dressing and Great Value real bacon bits from WalMart are the only way for a true Ontarian to go!

8 hours ago, legozer said:

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! NEVER conflate Ontario with Alberta! AS beautiful as Alberta is, it's full of filthy Albertans*. You, at least, blackflies be damned, are from a reasonable place in the world.

 

For those of you good American folk following along, Alberta is a province that is like the Canadian version of Florida, but with crappy weather and if most Floridians thought they were Texans for some reason. Just the worst. Nice mountains, though. And Drumheller is a pretty cool place. Look it up.

 

*Albertans aren't really filthy. I guess some are bound to be, but on the whole, they're just like everyone else, just dumber**.

** Albertans aren't actually dumb. Well, a lot are, but that's normal everywhere. Saskatchewaners, on the other hand.....I'd say something about how they aren't really dumb either, but I don't believe most can read anyway, so who's it gonna chafe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Members
344 posts
3,713 battles
31 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I have found that if you wait until the destroyer is coming right at you, you can punch them in the nose and delete them and you don't get the constant overpens that you do when they are broadside.

That's a great example of waiting for the proper shot, nice tip that one +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,148
Members
24,019 posts
6,035 battles

Since I can't seem to type anything after the last passage I quoted, I'll do it here.

On behalf of my wife: "I tells ya by, it's some shockin' good ta see the Western folk made out ta be the dunce fer a change!"

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
526
[187]
Members
1,616 posts
9,179 battles
3 hours ago, _RC1138 said:

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.

 

This was funny as hell lol #3..I play Montana alot and specialize for secondaries. I look at them like my little escort buddy always using manual targeting to improve on them and use them to fend off pesky DD's lol...BTW I am the one who posted recently about historical load outs, I was just curious about RL load-outs compared to what we have in game and is interesting where we or WOW strikes the balance. Would be cool to see some dud torpedoes as well as see some veer off course occasionally but I am not holding my breath. Very Good post I love the #3 analogy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
8,002 battles
5 minutes ago, C_D said:

This was funny as hell lol #3..I play Montana alot and specialize for secondaries. I look at them like my little escort buddy always using manual targeting to improve on them and use them to fend off pesky DD's lol...BTW I am the one who posted recently about historical load outs, I was just curious about RL load-outs compared to what we have in game and is interesting where we or WOW strikes the balance. Would be cool to see some dud torpedoes as well as see some veer off course occasionally but I am not holding my breath. Very Good post I love the #3 analogy.  

What is even more funny is watching you both post blatantly false information.

1.) Nothing is more bloated than BB main batteries. Cruiser main batteries to a lesser extent. BB main batteries were extremely inaccurate. After action reports all confirm this.

2.) There were multiple cases where single torps disabled ships, took them completely out of combat, or even outright sank them. In game all 3 would equate to a kill.

3.) Secondaries on BBs and cruisers were more accurate than their Main batteries, but still less accurate in real life than they are in game. Just because the same base weapon system was used as a secondary on a BB, that is also a main battery on a DD does not mean both share equal accuracy in real work performance. There was a difference, and DD main batteries were more accurate. After action reports all confirm this.

4.) and yet after action reports show that even after a BB main battery shell "over penned" a DD, it did not outright sink her, and there are examples of said DD still able to move on her own power.
Example: Leyte

5.) Radar was not better in real life. It was on all the time but easily destroyable, malfunctioned all the time, and was very unreliable for fire control. It was only reliable for basic surface contact acquisition beyond human visuals. After action reports also confirm this. Example: Solomons

6.) Accuracy and Precision are the same, no matter what subjective argument the troll tried to make with targets anyone can make in MS paint. Accuracy and precision are synonymous, an simply two words that mean the same but have different origin. I like to deal in facts, and not writing a book filled with made up images where anyone can put what they want.

Proof: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/accuracy
Proof: https://www.google.com/search?ei=8aL9WpGBCZG6jwOLr6PIDA&q=Accuracy&oq=Accuracy&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1l2j0l8.120926.202525.0.202762.22.15.0.0.0.0.453.921.2-2j0j1.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..19.3.920...0i20i264k1.0.oak3gExDjgo


7.) Naval artillery was very inaccurate (and therefore imprecise) at the timeline where WoWs has any relevance as well as leading up to then.

This troll will probably like to start quoting some propaganda live fire testing results from the Iowa. Typical logical fallacies. Not only is a live fire test, just a test in a controlled environment, but easily manipulated. Secondly, when Iowa was made it was leaps and bounds more accurate than all other Battleships it could ever face, as well as the ones that came before it, and yet still extremely inaccurate when we are talking about hit rate.
You see here we are talking about factual and provable information. After action reports for the engagements with USS Washington, SD, Bismark, Kongo...etc..etc  all show a single digit hit rate for Battleship main batteries. That is by very definition very inaccurate (and therefore imprecise).

8.) Lastly here we have the falsehoods about DDs being defensive, just something he is good at. Losing any merit he "thinks" he has. DDs were not only the most offensive ship type in WWII second only to Subs, but the ratio of DDs to BBs was massive. DDs carried out solo strikes, duo strikes, they escorted, and even performed land bombardments. For all ships sunk and for what reason in WWII. Aircraft based torpedoes were the number 1 cause, Sub and DDs are still in the top 5.  Main battery, and even secondary batteries from a BB... sorry.... not even top 10.

 
 
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
526
[187]
Members
1,616 posts
9,179 battles
1 hour ago, zarth12 said:

What is even more funny is watching you both post blatantly false information.

I did not post any information at all, ZARTH,  point of fact except what I play on my Montana...just commented on his post.

Edited by C_D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,148
Members
24,019 posts
6,035 battles
28 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

Accuracy and Precision are the same, no matter what subjective argument the troll tried to make with targets anyone can make in MS paint. Accuracy and precision are synonymous, an simply two words that mean the same but have different origin. I like to deal in facts, and not writing a book filled with made up images where anyone can put what they want.

Proof: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/accuracy
Proof: https://www.google.com/search?ei=8aL9WpGBCZG6jwOLr6PIDA&q=Accuracy&oq=Accuracy&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1l2j0l8.120926.202525.0.202762.22.15.0.0.0.0.453.921.2-2j0j1.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..19.3.920...0i20i264k1.0.oak3gExDjgo

The University of North Carolina disagrees with you....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://labwrite.ncsu.edu/Experimental%20Design/accuracyprecision.htm&ved=2ahUKEwiwkdfuk43bAhXNqFkKHRLuCeMQFjAEegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2uHCsJ88HctyMdZVsSnobE

Merriam-Webster also recognises the distinction: 

Precision:  the degree of refinement with which an operation is performed or a measurement stated.

Accuracy: the degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,148
Members
24,019 posts
6,035 battles
8 minutes ago, C_D said:

I did not post any information at all, ZARTH,  point of fact except what I play on my Montana...just commented on his post.

He doesn't care about facts, unless they serve him. Many people are on to his game of picking an argument, dismissing all salient opposing points as subjective/fallacy/suspect source, while providing "proof" that barely (if at all) qualifies as such. All the while, he browbeats you to sound superior. If your arguments are uncomfortable for him to deal with, you're a troll, and he puts you on ignore.

The fact that he's making your comment into an opposing argument speaks to how many people either ignore him, or otherwise refuse his bait.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,146
[DDMAF]
Members
2,107 posts
13,007 battles
4 hours ago, Battlecruiser_NewZealand said:

This. The thread is nothing but an elaborate troll.

That's why I didn't feel bad about trying to turn it into a thread about cucumbers and Western Canadians (excluding BC and Manitoba).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
526
[187]
Members
1,616 posts
9,179 battles
8 minutes ago, legozer said:

That's why I didn't feel bad about trying to turn it into a thread about cucumbers and Western Canadians (excluding BC and Manitoba).

The cat animated gifs did make me smile lol thku who knew cucumbers were a good form of pest control or cat torture...no more tape on feet I guess.

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,609 posts
9,443 battles
37 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

He doesn't care about facts, unless they serve him. Many people are on to his game of picking an argument, dismissing all salient opposing points as subjective/fallacy/suspect source, while providing "proof" that barely (if at all) qualifies as such. All the while, he browbeats you to sound superior. If your arguments are uncomfortable for him to deal with, you're a troll, and he puts you on ignore.

The fact that he's making your comment into an opposing argument speaks to how many people either ignore him, or otherwise refuse his bait.

this^^   don't waste your time on them or the other person who posts almost exactly like they do.....   they like to go to a random post and pick a fight with someone for the hell of it. 

 

as for the accuracy and precision, RC and skpstr are right.  its an easy and  basic concept i learned way back in HS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
403
[A-D-F]
Members
1,182 posts
5,240 battles
5 hours ago, MokrieDela said:

I distinctly recall only one thread that talks about the subject of destroyers and the amount of torps they carry.

 

But when you have a persecution complex sometimes you see things that arent even there.

 

also it seems from the footage that you could see the torpedo wake coming from much farther away than people (dd mains) would like you to believe....

https://archive.org/details/NPC-1719

 

also the nelson class british battleships carried torps....and those torps were the only known case of a battleship firing torpedos at another battleship.....ie the rodney vs the bismark.

I dont play a nelson...do thy have torps compared to the german line of battleships?

13

The Nelson BB in WoWs does not carry torps.

But aye. From what I've read, she did have torpedo tubes, but they were submerged tubes. Also, depending on your source, the number of torpedo tubes listed is conflicting, anywhere from 2 to 5 to as many as 8. More online sources list the number of submerged torp tubes on the Nelson as 2, though, including a couple of books I have on the ships of WW2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson-class_battleship

http://gb-navy-ww2.narod.ru/HTM-BB-nelson.html

http://dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Lord_Nelson_Class_Battleship_(1906)#Torpedoes

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-01BB-Nelson.htm

https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=HMS-Nelson-28

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_lord_nelson_class_battleships.html

https://www.world-war.co.uk/bb/nelson_class.php3

Edited by daVinci761st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
366
[WOLF5]
Members
1,330 posts
8,002 battles
14 minutes ago, Frederick_The_Great said:

this^^   don't waste your time on them or the other person who posts almost exactly like they do.....   they like to go to a random post and pick a fight with someone for the hell of it. 

 

as for the accuracy and precision, RC and skpstr are right.  its an easy and  basic concept i learned way back in HS. 

and yet I provided evidence and cited sources that clearly show, factually, accuracy and precision are completely synonymous.

So you all can virtual high five each other with passive aggressive attempts at insulting, and even attempts at red herrings, it does not change that there is a big difference between truth and what you three claim.

Edited by zarth12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[SEOP]
Members
1,529 posts
8,233 battles
12 hours ago, legozer said:

I'm tired of hearing people say cucumber is boring. Tonight, I put on a seminar exploring various beer styles and their histories in North America, and one of the beers I offered was a cucumber and lemongrass infused pale ale from Muskoka Brewery. It was awesome.

So, I drank a bunch of beer, and now that I'm home, I got a bit peckish, so I went to the fridge, found a cuke, cut 'er up with some cremini mushrooms and just slathered them in Hidden Valley ranch dressing. Now, here's the important part: only introduce the simulated bacon bits after you fire that ole' ranch in there, cuz then they stick to everything. Anyway, end result: man o man, cucumbers are some good stuff.

cucumber + cheery tomatoes + fresh mozzarella + a bit of balsamic and olive oil dressing ... pretty yum

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,300
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,182 posts
3,895 battles

All I see is a thread hijack attempt by someone scraping together every conceivable reason to marginalize a ship type he doesn't like.

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
777 posts
1,515 battles
13 hours ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

You are the reason I love Radar Cruisers.

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
943
[SIDE]
Members
2,551 posts
14 hours ago, JackBinary said:

I've seen so many people crying about how destroyers have reloads in the game on the forums today, I decided to make an educational post about it.
What's wrong with that?

Already doomed like dwt? 

Have your 1 torp per tube, have your second reload, have single fire and we just double the doomed distance to 1.1 km. 

Fixed . Everyone is happy. How’s that dd mains?

 

Edited by thebigblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,146
[DDMAF]
Members
2,107 posts
13,007 battles
5 hours ago, Skpstr said:

you sure you aren't American? Renee's dressing and Great Value real bacon bits from WalMart are the only way for a true Ontarian to go

Hidden Valley was on sale at Loblaws. Simulated bits contain a powerful chemical that causes men to desperately crave them fortnightly, and I am powerless against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
1,839 posts
9,252 battles

UH I liked the cat videos , love cucumbers with just salt on them the Canadian thing was pretty interesting . The rest was kind of boring .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
943
[SIDE]
Members
2,551 posts
4 hours ago, zarth12 said:

What is even more funny is watching you both post blatantly false information.

1.) Nothing is more bloated than BB main batteries. Cruiser main batteries to a lesser extent. BB main batteries were extremely inaccurate. After action reports all confirm this.

2.) There were multiple cases where single torps disabled ships, took them completely out of combat, or even outright sank them. In game all 3 would equate to a kill.

3.) Secondaries on BBs and cruisers were more accurate than their Main batteries, but still less accurate in real life than they are in game. Just because the same base weapon system was used as a secondary on a BB, that is also a main battery on a DD does not mean both share equal accuracy in real work performance. There was a difference, and DD main batteries were more accurate. After action reports all confirm this.

4.) and yet after action reports show that even after a BB main battery shell "over penned" a DD, it did not outright sink her, and there are examples of said DD still able to move on her own power.
Example: Leyte

5.) Radar was not better in real life. It was on all the time but easily destroyable, malfunctioned all the time, and was very unreliable for fire control. It was only reliable for basic surface contact acquisition beyond human visuals. After action reports also confirm this. Example: Solomons

6.) Accuracy and Precision are the same, no matter what subjective argument the troll tried to make with targets anyone can make in MS paint. Accuracy and precision are synonymous, an simply two words that mean the same but have different origin. I like to deal in facts, and not writing a book filled with made up images where anyone can put what they want.

Proof: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/accuracy
Proof: https://www.google.com/search?ei=8aL9WpGBCZG6jwOLr6PIDA&q=Accuracy&oq=Accuracy&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1l2j0l8.120926.202525.0.202762.22.15.0.0.0.0.453.921.2-2j0j1.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..19.3.920...0i20i264k1.0.oak3gExDjgo


7.) Naval artillery was very inaccurate (and therefore imprecise) at the timeline where WoWs has any relevance as well as leading up to then.

This troll will probably like to start quoting some propaganda live fire testing results from the Iowa. Typical logical fallacies. Not only is a live fire test, just a test in a controlled environment, but easily manipulated. Secondly, when Iowa was made it was leaps and bounds more accurate than all other Battleships it could ever face, as well as the ones that came before it, and yet still extremely inaccurate when we are talking about hit rate.
You see here we are talking about factual and provable information. After action reports for the engagements with USS Washington, SD, Bismark, Kongo...etc..etc  all show a single digit hit rate for Battleship main batteries. That is by very definition very inaccurate (and therefore imprecise).

8.) Lastly here we have the falsehoods about DDs being defensive, just something he is good at. Losing any merit he "thinks" he has. DDs were not only the most offensive ship type in WWII second only to Subs, but the ratio of DDs to BBs was massive. DDs carried out solo strikes, duo strikes, they escorted, and even performed land bombardments. For all ships sunk and for what reason in WWII. Aircraft based torpedoes were the number 1 cause, Sub and DDs are still in the top 5.  Main battery, and even secondary batteries from a BB... sorry.... not even top 10.

 
 
 
 

 

Barf12, nobody cares. Why you bother climbing out of that dark hole to keep complaining about the sun is beyond any of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,148
Members
24,019 posts
6,035 battles
55 minutes ago, legozer said:

Hidden Valley was on sale at Loblaws. Simulated bits contain a powerful chemical that causes men to desperately crave them fortnightly, and I am powerless against it.

Can't argue with that lol.

I'm a little ticked at Renee's anyway. They apparently stopped making their Sour Cream Ranch (as opposed to the usual buttermilk)

That was my favorite pizza crust dip bar none!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
109 posts
9,219 battles
16 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 battleship main and honestly, aside form when stealth fire was an issue, I'd never advocate for historical accuracy for the same reason people could easily go "Well BBs only hit 5% of their fired salvos historically" and so on.

If you're encountering a lot of folks bringing that up, that's terrible. I'll support your call. Though as a favor, don't call out any class main; our vaunted CCs do enough of that on their own, we don't need to cannibalize each other over in game mechanics or complaints about them.

Edited by Beneej_Spoor

Share this post


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

Already doomed like dwt? 

Have your 1 torp per tube, have your second reload, have single fire and we just double the doomed distance to 1.1 km. 

Fixed . Everyone is happy. How’s that dd mains?

I think you need to play something before you make "helpful" suggestions that make it completely useless.

 

Then again, "make it completely useless" is what you want. You can't stand the idea of such a thing being a threat to you. Maybe online PvP games aren't for you, that kind of power fantasy/avatar strength is more often found in single player titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×