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

New T4 British DD Wakeful

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,935
[PVE]
Members
8,794 posts
7,234 battles

ST blog

 

ST, British destroyer Wakeful, tier IV

Hit points – 10000. Plating - 10 mm.

Main battery - 4x1 120 mm. Firing range – 10.8 km. Maximum HE shell damage – 1700. Chance to cause fire – 9%. Maximum AP shell damage - 2200. Reload time - 8 s. 180 degree turn time - 18 s. Maximum dispersion - 96 m. HE initial velocity - 774 m/s. AP initial velocity - 774 m/s. Sigma value – 2.0.

Torpedo tubes - 2x3 533 mm. Maximum damage - 10000. Range - 6.0 km. Speed - 53 kt. Reload time - 62 s. Launcher 180 degree turn time – 7.2 s. Torpedo detectability - 1.1 km.

Instead of choosing between wide and narrow spreads, captains can choose to fire off individual torpedoes or expend the entire launcher at once.

Maximum speed - 35 kt. Turning circle radius - 500 m. Rudder shift time – 2,5 s. Surface detectability – 6,3 km. Air detectability – 2,9 km. Detectability after firing main guns in smoke – 2,0 km.

Available consumables:

Slot 1 - Damage Control Party

Slot 2 - Smoke Generator

Emission time 15 s;
Duration time 92 s;
Cooldown 240 s and 160 s for Smoke Generator II;
Charges 2 and 3 for Smoke Generator II;
Radius - 600 m.
Slot 3 - Engine Boost

All stats are listed without crew and upgrade modifiers but with best available modules. The stats are subject to change during the testing.

 

 

Edited by Kizarvexis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,298
[CUTE]
Members
5,151 posts
3,430 battles

Maybe I'm wrong but the guns will seem very slow firing when you combine the 8s reloads with the sluggish 770m/s. Seems like they are pushing the fire chance on these as the great equalizer.

Interested in seeing how it all comes together with the torps though.

Edited by Canadatron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,457 posts
16 battles

Looks like a choice between the 102mm stock, and 120mm upgraded. Personally, I think the 102mm and their rate of fire will win most of the time over the 120mm, which are a bit slow and clumsy, as seen on Jianwei. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
134
[WLDD]
Beta Testers
317 posts
4,888 battles
11 minutes ago, Canadatron said:

Maybe I'm wrong but the guns will seem very slow firing when you combine the 8s reloads with the sluggish 770m/s. Seems like they are pushing the fire chance on these as the great equalizer.

Interested in seeing how it all comes together with the torps though.

I'm thinking the RN DDs will probably have better HE fire% than the other lines, while having not quite as good handling guns as USN in exchange for better torps and concealment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
[VVV]
Members
2,396 posts

It was mentioned on Reddit that the Russian community said the rest of the line will be T5 Acasta, T6 Icarus, T7 Jervis, T8 Lightning, T9 Jutland and T10 Daring. Aside from being surprised it's not Amazon or Ambuscade at T5 this seems reasonable to me. (Though Dunkirk and not Jutland was the actual lead ship of the 2nd Battle group.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,457 posts
16 battles
46 minutes ago, Lord_Magus said:

It was mentioned on Reddit that the Russian community said the rest of the line will be T5 Acasta, T6 Icarus, T7 Jervis, T8 Lightning, T9 Jutland and T10 Daring. Aside from being surprised it's not Amazon or Ambuscade at T5 this seems reasonable to me. (Though Dunkirk and not Jutland was the actual lead ship of the 2nd Battle group.)

Also Active being the lead ship for the A class, not Acasta. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[KP]
Members
1,990 posts
18,359 battles

wth is up with that garbage reload? A Drunk 100lb girl could move rounds to a gun faster than 8 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,658
[ARGSY]
Members
5,695 posts
3,886 battles
9 minutes ago, IronMike11B4O said:

wth is up with that garbage reload? A Drunk 100lb girl could move rounds to a gun faster than 8 seconds.

Don't let me see you complaining when these ships are drenching you in flaming Lyddite and using up all your repair parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[KP]
Members
1,990 posts
18,359 battles
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Don't let me see you complaining when these ships are drenching you in flaming Lyddite and using up all your repair parties.

You know I'm one of the best RU DD players on the server at that tier? I want something that will at least be competitive on paper, so far this thing isn't. The Vampire has a better reload at tier III seeing this reload disgusts me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,658
[ARGSY]
Members
5,695 posts
3,886 battles
Just now, IronMike11B4O said:

You know I'm one of the best RU DD players on the server at that tier? I want something that will at least be competitive on paper, so far this thing isn't. The Vampire has a better reload at tier III seeing this reload disgusts me.

I want to see how competitive she is in game; paper stats (which aren't finalised yet anyway) do not always translate to an enjoyable ship. 

Any UK ship with HE is going to burn the world down. That's the balance for their cruisers having AP only. In Tier 2 and 3 matches, these things are going to be better gunboats than the Weymouth; you may even begin to see the start of a UK cruiser drought as fewer people start up that line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,038
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,651 posts
9,960 battles
15 minutes ago, IronMike11B4O said:

wth is up with that garbage reload? A Drunk 100lb girl could move rounds to a gun faster than 8 seconds.

Not unexpected, same weapon as the Jianwei. The problem is that Jianwei's boring and garbage.

27 minutes ago, Trainspite said:

Also Active being the lead ship for the A class, not Acasta. 

It is odd, Acasta has the better history so I won't complain. Navypedia has both of them completed in Feb 1930, so maybe Acasta did pip her to the post?

I wonder if given the French Dunkerque is in game (even if spelt differently) and with Jack Dunkirk as a captain that they wanted to avoid Dunkirk as the Battle. I'm just glad she's a Battle '43 with the 5th gun.

 

Oddest thing about the proposed line to me is going JKN - LM - Battle. LM isn't much of a leg up and going from the 4.7/45 to the 4.7/50 then down to the 4.5/45 - with bad - good - bad shell arcs isn't a good line progression choice IMO and is why I went with a 4.5in armed T8 IIRC.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,457 posts
16 battles
23 minutes ago, mofton said:

 

It is odd, Acasta has the better history so I won't complain. Navypedia has both of them completed in Feb 1930, so maybe Acasta did pip her to the post?

I wonder if given the French Dunkerque is in game (even if spelt differently) and with Jack Dunkirk as a captain that they wanted to avoid Dunkirk as the Battle. I'm just glad she's a Battle '43 with the 5th gun.

 

Oddest thing about the proposed line to me is going JKN - LM - Battle. LM isn't much of a leg up and going from the 4.7/45 to the 4.7/50 then down to the 4.5/45 - with bad - good - bad shell arcs isn't a good line progression choice IMO and is why I went with a 4.5in armed T8 IIRC.

 

Nah, Active was laid down first of the regular A class by a month, and commissioned first 2 days ahead of Acasta. 9th February to the 11th. Either name option rules out a different class, I would use the Active class cruisers at T2 to allow Weymouth to be pushed over, and the Acasta class destroyers as a regular instead of Medea. Starting off with a ship armed with 2 single tubes is an ideal start since the line has single fire. Partly why I would skip over the A class entirely, and use Amazon or Ambuscade with a RoF buffed to the levels of the 4.7" on the regular interwar standards. 

Jutland doesn't make much sense, Aisne was the first laid down, and Dunkirk was the first commissioned, so it should ideally be one of those two. 

I would guess it is because WG started modelling the ships some time ago, and haven't bothered to change the plans, despite Lightning and the L/M being better elsewhere. One can hope that they don't pull a Monarch about it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[KP]
Members
1,990 posts
18,359 battles
10 hours ago, Kizarvexis said:

ST blog

 

ST, British destroyer Wakeful, tier IV

Hit points – 10000. Plating - 10 mm.

Main battery - 4x1 120 mm. Firing range – 10.8 km. Maximum HE shell damage – 1700. Chance to cause fire – 9%. Maximum AP shell damage - 2200. Reload time - 8 s. 180 degree turn time - 18 s. Maximum dispersion - 96 m. HE initial velocity - 774 m/s. AP initial velocity - 774 m/s. Sigma value – 2.0.

Torpedo tubes - 2x3 533 mm. Maximum damage - 10000. Range - 6.0 km. Speed - 53 kt. Reload time - 62 s. Launcher 180 degree turn time – 7.2 s. Torpedo detectability - 1.1 km.

Instead of choosing between wide and narrow spreads, captains can choose to fire off individual torpedoes or expend the entire launcher at once.

Maximum speed - 35 kt. Turning circle radius - 500 m. Rudder shift time – 2,5 s. Surface detectability – 6,3 km. Air detectability – 2,9 km. Detectability after firing main guns in smoke – 2,0 km.

Available consumables:

Slot 1 - Damage Control Party

Slot 2 - Smoke Generator

Emission time 15 s;
Duration time 92 s;
Cooldown 240 s and 160 s for Smoke Generator II;
Charges 2 and 3 for Smoke Generator II;
Radius - 600 m.
Slot 3 - Engine Boost

All stats are listed without crew and upgrade modifiers but with best available modules. The stats are subject to change during the testing.

 

 

Comparing stats to Izyaslav they should rename this one the HMS Aweful. I really hope they put some time into making this thing more competitive than what these inital stats show. I know its a WiP but this thing seriously has nothing going for it compared to the other non torpboats at this tier based on these inital stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,935
[PVE]
Members
8,794 posts
7,234 battles
4 minutes ago, IronMike11B4O said:

Comparing stats to Izyaslav they should rename this one the HMS Aweful. I really hope they put some time into making this thing more competitive than what these inital stats show. I know its a WiP but this thing seriously has nothing going for it compared to the other non torpboats at this tier based on these inital stats.

I think that tweaks will depend on the internal testing. I don't play DDs very well, so I have no idea if they will tweak it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
525
[KP]
Members
1,990 posts
18,359 battles
4 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

I think that tweaks will depend on the internal testing. I don't play DDs very well, so I have no idea if they will tweak it or not.

I play them a ton over 4K battles in them. 1,200 battles just in the Izyaslav, I consider myself to be a good judge of the tier 4 DD's and these inital stats are uncompetitive except with the Iso maybe which is food for all other tier 4 DD's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,935
[PVE]
Members
8,794 posts
7,234 battles
12 minutes ago, IronMike11B4O said:

I play them a ton over 4K battles in them. 1,200 battles just in the Izyaslav, I consider myself to be a good judge of the tier 4 DD's and these inital stats are uncompetitive except with the Iso maybe which is food for all other tier 4 DD's.

Well, here is to hoping for some tweaks. This is also why I like to hang around the forum, for the experts at different ships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,038
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,651 posts
9,960 battles
8 hours ago, Trainspite said:

 

Nah, Active was laid down first of the regular A class by a month, and commissioned first 2 days ahead of Acasta. 9th February to the 11th. Either name option rules out a different class, I would use the Active class cruisers at T2 to allow Weymouth to be pushed over, and the Acasta class destroyers as a regular instead of Medea. Starting off with a ship armed with 2 single tubes is an ideal start since the line has single fire. Partly why I would skip over the A class entirely, and use Amazon or Ambuscade with a RoF buffed to the levels of the 4.7" on the regular interwar standards. 

Jutland doesn't make much sense, Aisne was the first laid down, and Dunkirk was the first commissioned, so it should ideally be one of those two. 

I would guess it is because WG started modelling the ships some time ago, and haven't bothered to change the plans, despite Lightning and the L/M being better elsewhere. One can hope that they don't pull a Monarch about it.

Well, there goes that theory on Acasta vs. Active.

Only big plus is that Acasta has a connection to an in game ship - Scharnhorst. I think her Captain not being awarded a VC when Glowworm, Hardy and Onslow's skippers won them is an unfair oversight.

For Medea (not that I think T2 matters) I'm just relieved she's not a copy-paste R class per Phra Ruang though the classes aren't that dissimilar. I think we'll have to take the long view on cruiser or destroyer splits, low priority.

Jutland's a good name, even if she breaks the convention, Aisne is a bit too obscure, Dunkirk too close to home perhaps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400
[VVV]
Members
2,396 posts
6 hours ago, Trainspite said:

Nah, Active was laid down first of the regular A class by a month, and commissioned first 2 days ahead of Acasta. 9th February to the 11th. Either name option rules out a different class, I would use the Active class cruisers at T2 to allow Weymouth to be pushed over, and the Acasta class destroyers as a regular instead of Medea. Starting off with a ship armed with 2 single tubes is an ideal start since the line has single fire.

Only 2x1 torps would be seriously underpowered though. Even Smith has 3 tubes and that's not a competitive ship. Especially since she shares Smith's lack of speed, being able to make only 29 knots. The 1912 Acasta would be more suited to be a T1 DD if such a thing existed in this game. All existing T2 DDs would club her. The only thing she'd going for her is a decent HP pool for T2.

I'm of the opinion that T1 DDs should be a thing (along with T1-2 BBs and proper T1 cruisers) and the current T1 gunboats should become "T0" or something along those lines. That'd allow for more late 19th/early 20th century ships to have a place in WOWS that as things stand now are just too small & weak to fit into an existing tier. I'm sure it'll never happen (not much return on investment for WG since most people would play such ships twice to grind out the next one, sell them to free up the port slot and never look at them again) but I'd still like to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,457 posts
16 battles
10 hours ago, mofton said:

Well, there goes that theory on Acasta vs. Active.

Only big plus is that Acasta has a connection to an in game ship - Scharnhorst. I think her Captain not being awarded a VC when Glowworm, Hardy and Onslow's skippers won them is an unfair oversight.

For Medea (not that I think T2 matters) I'm just relieved she's not a copy-paste R class per Phra Ruang though the classes aren't that dissimilar. I think we'll have to take the long view on cruiser or destroyer splits, low priority.

Jutland's a good name, even if she breaks the convention, Aisne is a bit too obscure, Dunkirk too close to home perhaps.

 

Fair point, Acasta does have a bit more history and action to her, though Active is no slouch during the war given she survived. 

I'm disappointed the T3 isn't a copy-paste M/R/S class, where you can introduce 7km torps or so. Valkyrie as a T3 in a main line seems odd when she can be a T4 in a Leader line. It seems too big of a jump up, too early. 

I can't really say much on Jutland, I don't really like skipping over Aisne because it is not well known enough. Also not really a fan of avoiding ships names if they sound too similar. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord_Magus said:

Only 2x1 torps would be seriously underpowered though. Even Smith has 3 tubes and that's not a competitive ship. Especially since she shares Smith's lack of speed, being able to make only 29 knots. The 1912 Acasta would be more suited to be a T1 DD if such a thing existed in this game. All existing T2 DDs would club her. The only thing she'd going for her is a decent HP pool for T2.

I'm of the opinion that T1 DDs should be a thing (along with T1-2 BBs and proper T1 cruisers) and the current T1 gunboats should become "T0" or something along those lines. That'd allow for more late 19th/early 20th century ships to have a place in WOWS that as things stand now are just too small & weak to fit into an existing tier. I'm sure it'll never happen (not much return on investment for WG since most people would play such ships twice to grind out the next one, sell them to free up the port slot and never look at them again) but I'd still like to see it.

It wouldn't be. Smith can only fire 2 per side, but it is not the torpedoes that make Smith a worse pick than other T2 DDs, it is the guns and their pitiful damage output. The Acasta has the same firepower as the other L/M/R/S classes with the 3x 102mm, and arguably, her torpedoes are better, at least if you want to apply the reload on Medea to the other twin tube ships. Firing 2 per side every 10-12s seems better than 4 every 51s. 

Personally, I would give the twin tube ships a better 40s reload, but short ranged 3.6km or 5km torpedoes, while the single fire Acasta gets longer ranged 6km torpedoes for ease in stealth firing. Given the firepower of the Acasta, none of the other DDs can club her, because in an equal situation, picking a gunfight won't end that well. Remember, the same firepower as the L/M/R/S. Even the krupp stahl V25 and Longjiang can't easily pick off Acasta in a gunfight, despite those two effectively being the equivalent of a T4 DD. 

 

Acorn or Acheron would be nice picks for a tier 1 destroyer, if such a thing ever happened. Losing 1 gun takes far more away from the ship than cutting the torpedo broadside in half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×