StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I am in as well (though relative noob. I got in a couple days prior to the wipe). I play under the name Comrade_Tortoise. I tend toward USN Cruisers and BBs (and carriers when I get mine back), IJN DDs.

As for the carrier issue... Meh. Historically US torp bombers sucked monkey balls, and I tend to prefer bomber suppression anyway.

I got in with that E3 deal they did. Which turned out to be a great thing, because I love trolling around in the Murmansk. Easily my favorite ship so far.

Though I'm still grinding my way through the US BBs and Japanese Cruisers.

Historically did it suck to have no gunshields on a US cruiser (e.g. St. Loius)? Or was it really irrelevant because if a shell the gun you're dead either way? It amuses me that a broadside from a St. Louis wouldn't feel out of place coming from a SOTL...

AniThyng wrote:Historically did it suck to have no gunshields on a US cruiser (e.g. St. Loius)? Or was it really irrelevant because if a shell the gun you're dead either way?

The latter. The gunshields on casemate and open deck mounted guns on WW1 era cruisers and capital ships were 2-3 inches thick at most, many were only splinter proof armor of perhaps 30mm. The former could perhaps stop a 6in caliber HE round in a favorable situation, but an AP round would penetrate at anything but the longest range, and even then spall off the back of the shield would probably kill the crew. The main point of the shields was to stop machine gun fire and rapid fire 3-6pdr guns and perhaps some destroyer fire up to 4 inch caliber. Until close to WW1 the general assumption was firing ranges would be AT MOST 6000-7000 yards, and probably not over 3,000 in the decisive phase of an engagement, so very low caliber fire was still considered a hazard for a ships secondary guns, or the main armament of a cruiser. Most people also had no rangefinders, let alone computers which existed nowhere until I think it was 1913. Realistic training and stabilized sights were pie in the sky. So shorter ranges seems very reasonable until very close to WW1. Fire was opened at 9000 yards and I think by one ship at 15,000 yards in the Russo Japanese War, but hitting rates were absurdly low. That was with rangefinders, but no other fire control tools.

By not fitting a gun shieldthe probability of an enemy shell hitting, and thus detonating, against the gun and crew was reduced. For a deck gun that made a lot of sense. The shell would be at a low angle and ship sail overboard. That was why the St. Louis didn't have shields. An effective shield would be very heavy.

Less so is this an advantage for a casemate guns as the shell still hit the structure behind the gun, but many ships had open gun decks so actually it might just puncture the far hull in turn. Two cruiser hulls have far less resistance then even 2in armor.

The US was not alone in doing this or only using weather shields for such guns. Same for destroyer weapons. Also all hull mounted casemate guns SUCKED DONKEY BALLS. They simply could not be used in weather conditions in which the ship was otherwise fit to fight. Earlier types of ships, 1870s ironclads, wooden shops of the line ect... simply could not fight in any kind of bad weather at all, they were smaller and weaker and generally had less freeboard for the tonnage. This is why casemate guns on the last ships in WW1 to have them are generally in the superstructure not the hull, and then went extinct completely in favor of turrets, which are also much easier to armor. They also more easily supported high angles of elevation for longer range firing. Lack of real combat experience for any major navy between 1865 and 1904 was a factor behind this, and its really more like 1830 and 1904 for a major battle between first class line units.

The odds of a direct hit on a casemate gun were low anyway, and since they didn't weigh much you counted on numbers of guns to make up for any being disabled. Once again this was reasonable as battle ranges extended, at short ranges in say 1890 the concern was enemy very light guns could put your secondary armament out of action. One might also note in that era battleships and cruisers often had five to seven calibers of shell firing gun, without counting machine guns which could be three more calibers.

The Warspite is...angry.

In other news, I've been working back up the US cruiser and battlebote line as my goals for open are the Cleveland and probably an Iowa.

I have to say though, the best match I've had tonight was with Caoimhin in our Warspites. We were massively out-tiered and ended up faced off against an Iowa and other horrible higher tier stuff. We made the Iowa run

Ah, the New York. Finally, a battleship that understands that its job is to outrange cruisers.

I've downloaded the game now that its in open beta. First few matches were easy but the UI layout takes some time to get used to.

White Haven wrote:Ah, the New York. Finally, a battleship that understands that its job is to outrange cruisers.

Well, the New York just barely out ranges cruisers - it's range is still short compared to the Kongo (a Much better BB in my opinion).

From what I'm reading weapon ranges don't seem to be scaled very well.

Anacronian wrote:

White Haven wrote:Ah, the New York. Finally, a battleship that understands that its job is to outrange cruisers.

Well, the New York just barely out ranges cruisers - it's range is still short compared to the Kongo (a Much better BB in my opinion).

Do you not have access to modules for ships or something?

The New York, with a range increase mod and full fire control system hits out to 18km which vastly out-ranges cruisers and is on an equal footing with equvilant japanese ships.

It is by far one of the best (non-premium) ships of the tier.

So, you've made two claims here. One, that the Kongo is a better battleship, is definitely arguable. I won't get into it here because frankly it's not worth the effort. The second, however, than an 18+ kilometer gun-range 'barely out-ranges cruisers,' is hilarious, or it would be if you were joking. Sadly, it appears that you are not.

Ehh my New York has a max firing range of 15.6 km with all modules?

Also i said i think the Kongo is a better BB In my opinion.

Ship statistics are not modified in port, or in tooltips when you add modules to them, but that gun firing control system 1 futher increases the range from 15.6 out to roughly 18km.

This can be seen when aiming down the range finder and moving to your max available range to fire.

Coaan wrote:Ship statistics are not modified in port, or in tooltips when you add modules to them, but that gun firing control system 1 futher increases the range from 15.6 out to roughly 18km.

This can be seen when aiming down the range finder and moving to your max available range to fire.

Pretty much every battle I have to use the rangefinder and hold 'alt' to check my max range.

Haven't been playing nearly as much since it moved to OBT, I'm finding really bad sound quality and appalling lag. Anyone else?

Venator wrote:Haven't been playing nearly as much since it moved to OBT, I'm finding really bad sound quality and appalling lag. Anyone else?

No and no, actually, particularly not the former. They re-did a lot of the gun firing effects, leading to them sounding much better for many ships. Lag's pretty much a non-issue for me as well. If something's giving you issues on those fronts, you may want to post about it on the forums, see if anyone else has run across them. Who knows, for once some actual beta testing might go on in one of the modern-day mis-named 'betas.'

Just installed the beta as well and it's pretty fun. Quick questions, how do the US and IJN ships compare in playstyles? I assume HE are overall better than AP rounds? (or at least at low tiers)

wautd wrote:Just installed the beta as well and it's pretty fun. Quick questions, how do the US and IJN ships compare in playstyles? I assume HE are overall better than AP rounds? (or at least at low tiers)

I'm going to break down your questions about the different nations ships by class.

When it comes to BBs the Japanese tend to have the faster ships with much longer ranges on their main batteries but they generally don't manoeuvre as well, can be spotted from a greater distance, and have worse AA guns. There isn't a ton to say here beyond that.

For cruisers the biggest difference is that (outside of the Pheonix and Omaha class ships) American ships don't get torpedos what they do get is better gunswith turrets that rotate faster and better AA. The Japanese are much more focused on offense and getting a torpedo run off while the American ships want to try to stick with a buddy and use their AA fire to keep him safe.

For the destroyers, it's similar to cruisers but the Americans do get torpedos. American torpedos tend to be slow and short range, but their guns are actually worth using and can turn fast enough to let you make hard turns while holding a target in your sights. The Japanese have guns that you can go entire games without firing but have much longer range torpedos (think 10 km versus 4.5-5.5 km) that also move faster.

In carriers, the US get fewer air wings but more planes per wing. It seems most people think the Japanese carriers are somewhat overly powerful right now, but I find carriers to be dull to play so really can't say much here.

As for HE versus AP the consensus is that HE is very good right now. However if you can reliably penetrate something going for citadel hits with AP will do loads more damage than AP so don't get locked into the HE spam mentality that so many people have.

I just started playing. A few observations.

- The South Carolina is a horrific nightmare. Outranged by cruisers, poor damage output without striking the citadels with AP, hideous spread, lumbering speed. I've never been threatened by one, and now I see why.
- St. Louis is hilarious, and more of a real battleship.
- Phoenix is an amazing little 'Heavy Destroyer', but with real range on those guns. Seems to have more firepower ahead and offset by 15 degrees than any other angle.
- It's pretty bleak (and kinda obvious who won WW2) when every single Japanese ship entry reads 'All X members of this class were destroyed by bombing from American Planes'.
- Destroyers are the most fun, but take patience. Nothing's more fun than chasing down a carrier and popping at it with your little gun though!

Yeah, the South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, the Wyoming are pretty terrible. They're the reasons I used free experience to get straight to the New York.

I'm in the game now too, stgarrettjr. I'm up to the Omaha, Bogue, Wyoming, and Clemson. Oh, and the Tenryu.

Jub wrote:Yeah, the South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, the Wyoming are pretty terrible. They're the reasons I used free experience to get straight to the New York.

Hmmm good to know because I was working to get one of those.

I'm digging the IJN noobship. I don't think I'll sell it anytime soon. It's a beast at its tier

Have they been adjusting the torpedo spotting distance, or is that dependent on your ship type, because it feels like its different every time I play?

Nephtys wrote: - It's pretty bleak (and kinda obvious who won WW2) when every single Japanese ship entry reads 'All X members of this class were destroyed by bombing from American Planes'.

I believe Japan had one serviceable carrier, one serviceable light cruiser and nine operational destroyers upon the surrender. A few other big ships were still technically afloat like battleship Nagato but were either heavily damaged (she had 2,000 tons unrepaired flooding) or had been intentionally been reduced to stationary guard ships with the secondary and auto weapons armaments removed and installed ashore, or both. Doubtful any of them would have lasted much longer either.

In contrast after Jan 1943 the US lost one CVL, Princeton, whom might have been saved if not for a major miscommuncation that saw firefighting efforts abandon (fires were almost out, then spread again due to false air raid warning), and two cruisers , Indianapolis and Helena. All other ships were either escort carriers, and not many of those, or destroyers/transports/minor amphibious vessels. In the Formosa Air Battle, the last grasp of conventional Japanese air power just before Leyte, Japan lost nearly 400 planes to damage two US cruisers. They couldn't finish them off even as they were both disabled, heavily flooded and being slowly towed together in broad daylight. The Kamakazi was invoked shortly after, but was far more effective at damaging then sinking ships due to the low speed of impacts, typically small bomb weights and lack of concentrated effects due to the use of small raid tactics to swamp US CIC plotting. This meant a fair number hit, but a single 250kg bomb + flaming aircraft just isn't enough firepower to be effective against most targets.

The Wyoming gets away with being the South Carolina++ by having fully half again the main battery firepower. That excuses a great many sins.

Not to mention that while its range isn't as good as the New York, it isn't nearly as shitty as the South Carolina. Which also means you can seal club any South Carolinas you meet at long range.

To be fair at tier 4 you can sealclub everyone by simple dint of not firing HE and getting big fat citadel penetrations whilst they're whaffing a thousand damage a time if they're lucky.